Lords Sitting of 10 December 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: he LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Waiting Lists: London Hospitals
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comment on the recently published reports of longer hospital waiting lists in the London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the latest waiting list figures for London are disappointing. That underlines the importance of the Government's campaign to reduce excessive waiting lists and times, not just in London but throughout the country, backed by the £50 million waiting list fund. All regional health authorities including those in London have made wide-ranging proposals for future progress.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, why are the Government closing so many hospitals and ruining local services, thus adding to the waiting lists?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, hospital closures do not necessarily mean a loss of services. Services may be transferred to other sites. New buildings come on stream to provide modern facilities and better health care. A good example is the new Homerton hospital. When this was opened recently three small Victorian hospitals—the German, the Mothers' and St. Matthew's—were closed with the full agreement of all local interest groups.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the reason for the long waiting lists in London may be partly due to the RAWP allocations introduced by the department some years ago? Although we are grateful for the £50 million input of extra money to reduce waiting lists, can the Minister tell the House what alterations the Government foresee to the basis of the allocations under RAWP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, details will be announced shortly. The money will go mainly to those regions receiving the lowest increases under RAWP to help with the process of change. The fund is, of course, additional money over and above the general increase in health authority resources.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the most disturbing factor about the substantial increase in waiting lists that the highest figure is for emergency cases, particularly in the London region? Is not that deeply disturbing? Can the noble Baroness comment on that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the emergency cases are treated with all available speed, I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the ambulance services who, using the most modern techniques, are responsible for saving many a life.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the rise in London of urgent cases that have been waiting for over a month? What is the noble Baroness going to do about that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the rise in the number of urgent cases waiting for over a month for treatment in London is, of course, a matter for great concern. However, no urgent case should be on a waiting list for more than one month.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Baroness who asked about RAWP is right? Surely that principle has meant that London hospitals have been run down over a period in order to provide better services elsewhere. With great respect to elsewhere, London has suffered as a result. What is going to be done to change that system?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to improving equity of access to services. We shall continue to use the RAWP formula in taking decisions on allocations, although work will continue on improving the formula. The RAWP bridging fund, of which noble Lords will be aware, is a transitional measure. Indeed, in easing the way for schemes that will release resources, it will enable those regions receiving lower increases under RAWP to cope better within their own resources in future.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, reverting to a reply to my noble friend Lord Bottomely, that closure of hospitals does mean the diversion of patients to other hospitals, most of them overloaded with work cases and underfunded? That is the problem we are facing at the moment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must point out that temporary or permanent closure of hospitals is a matter for the local district and regional health authorities. We do not collect centrally information on temporary closures whether of wards or of hospitals. Wards, are closed for a variety of reasons. However, the department is in touch with regional health authorities to ensure as far as possible that unplanned closures are not necessary.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Baroness may well say that it is the responsibility of regional health authorities. Is she not aware that the actions of regional health authorities are determined by the cash finances available from central government?
Baroness Trumpington: And, my Lords, it entirely depends on where their priorities lie.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a proposal to close the Victoria Hospital between Buckhurst Hill and Loughton on the

1145
Essex-London border? As a large number of old people live in that district, will the noble Baroness look at that proposal and advise me—in writing if she wishes—of the situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I will gladly write to the noble Lord although he will realise that the hospital he mentioned is, I believe, outside the London area. The noble Lord will also be aware that until we receive letters from the community health councils Ministers do not interfere with local projects.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister in her answer to one of the supplementary questions is implying that the £50 million injection will enable the regions that are receiving the smallest allocations under RAWP to solve their problems in the future? Does that mean that the £50 million will be repeated year after year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness may perhaps be aware that following the Autumn Statement the Secretary of State announced the establishment of two special funds: the £50 million waiting list fund and the £30 million RAWP bridging fund. These are in addition to the main increases in hospital community health service expenditure.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the longer waiting lists do not result from the shortage of nurses?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are many reasons for the rise in London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she is aware that the question put by my noble friend Baroness Robson was whether this money will be available on a continuing year on year basis? She did not in fact answer that question.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry, but I thought that that noble Baroness was confusing the two funds. The £50 million waiting list fund will be available over the next two years.

Pedestrian Precincts in Town Centres
2.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage greater provision of pedestrian precincts in the centres of towns and cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, given the growth in numbers and scale of pedestrian zones throughout the country, the Government believe such encouragement is unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is currently consulting interested
1146
organisations on revised advice to local authorities on the administrative and legal aspects of introducing pedestrian zones. A copy of this draft advice, Pedestrian Zones—Getting the Right Balance, is available in the Library.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is this country not a little behind some other civilised countries which have pedestrian precincts at the centres of all towns and cities, and is not the provision of these precincts both in the interests of the native citizen and the visiting tourist? Do they not do something to bring back the significance of the centres of our towns and cities? Further, is it not time that London gave a lead in this matter? After all, at the Royal Academy, as the Minister will be aware, Mr. Rogers has an exhibition showing that Trafalgar Square is the centre of London and should be the object of a precinct. Should not the centre of London be Parliament Square, although at present visitors have to jump for their lives if they wish to see Big Ben, the Palace of Westminster and the Abbey?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into an argument about where the centre of London should be. What the new note issued by the department tries to point out is that one needs to strike a balance so as to achieve good access to town centres. It emphasises the need for full and early consultation with interested organisations, particularly with groups representing mobility-handicapped people, and it advises on the consideration of vehicle exemptions, including orange badge holders, loading and unloading and security carriers.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, may I refer to something that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said? Has the Minister seen the example set by Mr. Richard Rogers in his exhibition in London, showing how Trafalgar Square, perhaps for the first time, could be linked by pedestrian routes to the south side of the river, so that the emerging cultural heart of London is linked back to the old centre? There will be no chance of this great initiative getting off the ground unless the Government begin to take an interest in it. Will the noble Lord have a look at that scheme and encourage his friends in the Government also to look at it with a view to some government action being taken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not seen the scheme to which the noble Lord refers. I shall of course have a look at it and then decide what to do.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while pedestrian precincts are an excellent idea in themselves, in country towns, where shoppers may come in from villages 10 or 20 miles away, the need for on-street parking is very great and if parking space is to be taken away to make pedestrian precincts, the provision of other parking facilities is essential?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right and that is one of the points which the draft note from the department emphasises. A balance should be struck between good access to town centres and the need to have pedestrian precincts.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks about the disabled, the elderly and all the other people who cannot walk very far and therefore cannot take advantage of these pedestrian precincts. Is he aware that they are having great trouble in some of our inner cities at this time? I am glad to hear that he is bearing them in mind, and perhaps he will let me know how much further the matter can be taken.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. The draft note is in the consultation period at present and we hope to publish the results in the spring.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Baroness, is the Minister aware—indeed, I am sure he is—that pedestrianisation schemes can become "no go" areas for disabled people unless adequate car parking spaces, which are sufficiently near, are reserved for them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite correct and that is why a balance needs to be struck.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for their consideration of the needs of the disabled and the elderly to have access to these spaces, but will the noble Lord give some thought to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that no progress will ever be made in the promotion of precincts for pedestrians in London unless the Government take a lead?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that I shall take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said and I look forward to having a look at this scheme.

News International Wapping: Cost of Policing
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many policemen are deployed at weekends at News International, Wapping; what has been the approximate cost to date and who is responsible for meeting it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the number of officers deployed on any particular occasion is an operational matter for the police and varies according to the perceived need. During last weekend a total of 712 officers were deployed at Wapping. I understand from the commissioner that the additional cost of policing the dispute up to the end of October has been estimated at £4.730 million. The cost will be met from the Metropolitan Police Fund.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extraordinary reply, but I should like to ask him
1148
whether he is aware that a large number of police stations in inner London are now bereft of men to do the proper job of looking after local crime because of the demand upon manpower at Wapping at the weekend. I know of one police station which had only six policemen on duty last Saturday because the remainder were at Wapping. The cost that the Minster has just announced is absolutely staggering. I should like to ask why it should be borne by the Metropolitan Police rate or by anyone else. Why should not the people responsible for the dispute pay for it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the need for police officers to be deployed at Wapping is regrettable and must have an effect upon the service which the police are able to provide elsewhere. With regard to the cost of the operation and the reason why it should not be levied on those who cause the dispute, your Lordships will be aware that police costs in areas open to the public are met by public funds.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is already a precedent. Football clubs which have police protection today have to pay the bill themselves. Why should not Mr. Murdoch and his company, who have created the dispute, pay the £4½million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difference is that within a football ground the football club is responsible for the police costs. Outside a football ground, which is the situation at Wapping, the public are responsible for police costs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, aware that Mr. Murdoch did not start the dispute? The union started it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from the Government's point of view it is a matter between the employers and the employees.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whoever may have started this dispute the level of violence both in Wapping and in the surrounding streets has now reached an unacceptable level? Is he also aware that many hundreds of police officers have been injured in the course of this dispute, and at the moment lorries carrying News International newspapers are being attacked on the highways? I am sure the Minister realises the seriousness of this situation and I should like to ask what is being done to deal with it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are very conscious of the terrible situation which has been occasioned by the violence. I regret to note that following the last Question on this matter which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, initiated on the 17th October, the level of violence has not reduced.

Securities Market: Regulator Information
2.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current arrangements for the exchange of information between regulating authorities on malpractices in the securities markets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, we have brought into force provisions in the Financial Services Act 1986 allowing United Kingdom regulators to exchange certain information with regulators overseas. We have already signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States authorities, and the Government have made clear to the regulators in other countries that they are ready to discuss arrangements to exchange regulatory information. In pursuit of this we have now invited the regulators of a number of the world's most important securities markets to a meeting to explore the scope for further co-operation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I should like to ask him whether he is aware that we welcome this initiative, as these are criminal activities which can shelter behind different legislative and regulatory arrangements in different countries, although the effect will be felt in the United Kingdom. Would the Minister agree with the Financial Times leader this morning which argues that there should be a body such as OECD to supervise the interchange of information? Would the Minister also agree with the Financial Times that the main objective at the moment is to sign a biltateral agreement with Japan? Will he also tell the House what hope he has of breaking down Swiss banking secrecy?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, for his very warm welcome for the initiatives that have already been taken, However, I cannot agree entirely with the article in today's newspaper which the noble Lord quoted. I can tell the noble Lord that discussions are currently in progress—and I mean currently in progress—with the Japanese authorities.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on the economic and social implications of the housing situation and before the short debate on AIDS, my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Supplementary Benefit Mortgage Interest. With the leave of the House, I should like as usual to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord
1150
Winstanley and Lord Kilmarnock. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and, in that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to eight minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

West Glamorgan Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Housing Situation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley rose to call attention to the economic and social implications of the housing situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords have listened to my speeches on health matters with kindness and forbearance. However, today, I turn to a subject which I know from my own professional experience is closely related to health. It is housing. A well housed nation is likely to be a healthy nation, but a badly housed nation is certain—not likely, but certain—to be unhealthy.
The evidence for that statement abounds. I shall not catalogue it. I remind noble Lords that the Black report on Inequalities in Health demonstrated beyond dispute that bad housing was at the root of the high mortality and morbidity rates among the underprivileged in our urban areas. Nor should we forget that it was improvements in housing and the consequent reduction of overcrowding which began the defeat of pulmonary tuberculosis, a disease known as the captain of the army of death at the turn of the century, but now hardly a threat at all.
In my maiden speech to your Lordships almost 11 years ago, I acknowledged that builders and plumbers have done more for the public health than all the doctors put together. What are the builders and plumbers doing today? There are approximately 400,000 construction workers unemployed, costing the nation about £2½ billion per year in social security and lost tax revenue. The biggest single contribution to a reduction in unemployment is staring noble Lords in the face—a resolute attack on the housing problem.
Building houses is labour intensive. Repairing or modernising them is more so. Virtually all the materials needed, except timber, are home produced so that there would be no burden on our balance of payments and little danger of excess demand producing inflationary pressure.
I remember the early 1930s, when the construction industry was in the doldrums and unemployment was rising alarmingly. A housing programme with the building of large estates to rent in urban areas put the construction industry back on its feet and dramatically improved the employment situation. Many noble Lords here today were concerned with that work. It left us with some excellent houses and an example which we should now follow. However, the Government appear to have only one aim—how to increase the proportion of owner-occupied housing. They have always been honest about that. Indeed, away back in January 1985, the expenditure White Paper stated flatly:
"The main aim of the Government's housing policy is to increase the level of home ownership."
There was a time when I shared that aim. I believed, as did many, that the division of our society between those who owned houses and those who never would own houses was damaging; but that was at a time of full employment. It was also before the rocketing of house prices which took place under the chancellorship of Mr. Anthony Barber, as he then was.
But things are different today. True we have a larger percentage of owner occupiers (over 60 per cent.) than any comparable European country, but with that we have acquired a record level of personal debt of which the burden of mortgage interest and mortgage repayments form a substantial part. Evictions are family tragedies, and some of them have been brought about by people being persuaded to buy houses when they cannot afford to do so. My citizens advice television programme in the North receives about 1,000 letters every week. For years and years housing has been the main subject, but in recent months it has been rivalled by debt, and the two are closely related.
The real need today, and it will remain the real need so long as unemployment remains high, is for rented accommodation. That was clearly demonstrated by the inquiry into British housing carried out by the National Federation of Housing Associations under the chairmanship of the Duke of Edinburgh. The report of the commission of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Faith in the City, carried the same message.
With regard to cities, let us not forget that the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, into the riots in Brixton showed clearly that much of the trouble arose directly from bad housing. My investigation into the Toxteth riots told the same tale.
Now let me give some figures. The Minister will accept them as accurate because he gave them to me in answers to parliamentary Questions. I thank him and his staff for giving me the Answers to the Written Questions so quickly. Had the Government wished to hide the facts, they could well have sat on the Answers until after the debate, but the noble Lord did not do so and I am deeply grateful to him.
In April this year there were 1,351,000 families on local authority housing lists in England alone—a staggering figure. It is one which is not likely to be reduced when council house building programmes have nearly ground to a halt. In the year 1985–86, 110,000 families were accepted as being homeless and
1152
14,400 households were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation at a cost to the nation of £26,200,000. That does not include Scotland. That is £26,200,000 and not a brick laid. The economic folly of such an arrangement baffles all understanding. And all that at a time when nearly 700,000 houses in England alone were unoccupied There were 110,000 families homeless and 700,000 houses unoccupied. If that were not tragic, it would be laughable; but it is no joke to the people who have nowhere to live.
What have we done to bridge that gap? We have the mobility schemes—two national and one regional—to help people to move from one housing authority area to another. I commend those schemes, but as the Minister knows from Answers he has given to me they have not been an oustanding success, partly because the places out of which people want to move are not often the places into which other people wish to move.
As to mobility, I must turn to the ever-widening gap between North and South. Much has been said about the economic aspects of that gap, but the housing situation is widening it. The cost of housing in London and the South-East is now such that our whole pay system has come under threat from the need for a London weighting allowance. Only recently, the London Standard carried a banner headline on its front page: "London office pay rockets." It went on to say that white-collar staff had increased by as much as 23 per cent. in London weighting payments alone. London weighting payments are all very well for those who have any pay, but there are no weighting payments for the unemployed and the pensioners.
What about those in the North and elsewhere who seek posts in London? Talented young people from the North who want to get their feet on to the bottom rungs of the ladder of success find that the ladder is in London. If they are lucky enough to be appointed to a job, they cannot take up the appointment because they cannot find anywhere to live. So much for Mr. Tebbit's bicycle! That works in reverse. Schools and hospitals cannot recruit well-qualified staff because of the difficulty of finding anywhere to live.
Students all over Britain have a desperate housing problem and their parents know that many live in squalor, exploited by Rachman-like landlords. How students manage to live in London, defeats me, and it defeats many of them as well. That brings us to the deplorable situation of houses in multiple occupation, a subject upon which CHAR has done such admirable work. I shall say no more about that because I have no doubt that other noble Lords will touch on it.
The real need is for houses and flats to rent. To provide them, we need a rent structure which aims at covering costs with the help of a much fairer distribution than we now have of the total financial support-tax relief, subsidies and benefits. My, noble friend Lord Banks will deal more fully with that matter. I suspect that he is the only Member of our House who fully understands our muddled and chaotic housing benefit system.
Housing for rent is provided by local authorities which in many cases are far too big and bureaucratic to do the job. Evidence of that bureaucracy abounds. Housing for rent is provided by housing associations and by private landlords who seem now only to

1153
provide houses or flats which no normal people can afford, and by housing co-operatives, of which I hope we shall have many more. With the new freedom that we have given to the building societies, I entertain a hope that we may see some of them reverting to doing what they were originally set up for—building houses. Some may even consider building houses and flats for rent. To do that they would need to discusss the targeting of subsidies and benefits with the Government.
To sum up, our present housing situation is endangering the nation's health; it is contributing to the breakdown of law and order and the escalation of vandalism and crime; it is deepening the gulf between North and South; it is obstructing the re-establishment of manufacturing industry in parts of the country which need it and it is condemning millions of citizens to live in conditions which should not be tolerated in a developed, industrial nation.
It is a crisis. If the Government are tempted to reply in the memorable words of Mr. Callaghan, "Crisis! What crisis?", I suggest that they will deserve the treatment which was meted out to Mr. Callaghan. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, there is no doubt that the housing situation in this country is far from satisfactory. I should like to give some figures from my area of Cleveland, which is probably typical of some of the more depressed areas. There is extensive disrepair in much of the mainly private housing stock. That is a growing and major problem. In Middlesbrough, for example, over 1,000 properties are unfit or lack basic amenities. In a recent survey of 10,000 properties in the inner city, 10 per cent. were found to be in a state of substantial disrepair and 64 per cent. had defects in their main fabric.
In Langbaurgh, where about 29 per cent. of the housing stock is pre-1914, 950 dwellings lack basic amenities, and without improvement and repair they will deteriorate to the state where they will become unfit. There is a similar story in the other districts. The public housing picture is not much better. In Middlesbrough, 1,000 inter-war houses need improvement and some 1,500 dwellings of the 1950–70 vintage need upgrading. In Langbaurgh, some 4.700 are affected by shale and have slag filling beneath the floors, which makes them unstable. There is a similar story in all the other areas.
Of the numbers of houses that are in serious disrepair it was stated in the Duke of Edinburgh's report that this number increased by 20 per cent. between 1976 and 1981 and the situation is getting worse. The number may well have reduced in the last six years since this Government have been in office. I hope that the Minister is able to tell us that that is so. Added to the condition of the houses there is the great mismatch between household needs and dwelling types. There is an increasing demand by single people wanting accommodation. In the whole country the demand by single people vastly exceeds supply.
There have been many initiatives recently, such as the low cost home-ownership schemes, equity sharing and land discounts. The housing associations are
1154
playing a great part. Council house sales, I believe, have had their good effect. Indeed many council estates are being sold en bloc to private developers to improve and repair. Many of these schemes may help a lot but there is no doubt that when houses are sold to the private sector the initial enthusiasm of the new owner involves their being repaired and improved. However, I wonder what will happen in years to come when many of those occupiers cease to work and become old. Shall we then reach the stage where some of the less well built houses will be too expensive for them to maintain? Will they increasingly go into disrepair? There are always problems of the increasing expense of repairs and of the unscrupulous repair gangs. It will be necessary for governments to continue to give grants to ensure that these privately owned houses are not only repaired but that their condition is maintained.
In the 19th century many of the houses were extremely well built. They were soundly built, but in this century they became out of date. In Skinningrove, not far from my home, there were well built terraced houses which were repaired and improved with new bathrooms. They were first class houses as a result. To my mind that has been a very much better answer than what so often happens—that they are simply pulled down regardless and either high rise buildings or vast council estates are built, with the problems that they bring both by splitting up families, splitting up the discipline of streets and very often leading to lawless jungles.
I thought that the most interesting report was that of the inquiry chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh. It is very well written, easy to read and generally a superb document. It is a non-political approach, which is very refreshing. The report dealt with the need for good housing and the ability of people to pay for that good housing regardless of politics. I hope that we shall all rise above our political prejudices to see whether the proposals in that document can be put into effect, because I believe they would be very successful.
In particular, the concept of encouraging private enterprise to go into the housing market is useful. I quote one paragraph:
"The City institutions seeking investment opportunities could and should be attracted on a large scale by the opportunities in residential letting … so long as rent levels reflect a fair return on capital—around 4 per cent. inflation-proofed—pension funds, insurance companies and others could put money into financing new homes just as they do for new offices. and building societies could extend their investment from owner-occupation to rented housing. This new flow of finance would then be available to all reputable organisations—local authorities, private sector landlords, housing associations and other non-profit organisations—to meet some of the acute housing need we have identified".
One must not read that without remembering that the report also introduced the concept of grants to individuals rather than to bricks and mortar.
That report highlights many problems and offers many solutions. For example, it highlights the problems of security of tenure. It also exposes many anomalies. It is interesting that while it is different in concept to the present housing policies it was a unanimous report by a diverse group of people. I hope that the Government will see what they can do to implement its provisions.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the housing slogan we have heard most in recent years is that of the right to buy. We have heard very little about the right to rent. We have had a Building Societies Bill before your Lordships' House in which the competing claims of the right to buy and the right to rent were debated to some extent. However, I wish to dwell mostly upon the implications of the right to buy and the right to rent.
The right to buy carries with it a very heavy charge upon tax revenue. We are all aware of that. In recent years the charge on tax revenue has risen considerably. All this represents an indirect subsidy on house purchase. It is an open-ended charge on tax revenue and, as such, upon the resources of the country. I recommend that your Lordships read the report of the Pubic Accounts Committee published only a few days ago which describes some of the worries about the administration and the cost of the right to buy through mortgage tax relief. I do not want to dwell upon them. I shall say that the Exchequer has two worries in this connection. One is the verification of refunds of tax deducted from the interest paid made by the Inland Revenue to the lenders. The other is the test of the validity of a great many claims in respect of mortgages for home improvements. After all, home improvement is the condition, among others, of tax relief on mortgage interest. There are loopholes and serious flaws in administration in both those matters. They are dealt with in the report of the Public Accounts Committee.
But what is the right to rent? We are only just hearing about that. What are the implications? The Government have neglected the construction of houses to rent in recent years. We are now confronted with the position that to buy a house is virtually the only option for many people who are looking for accommodation. Many are not able to buy or to rent and they are "making shift" as best they can. A great many of them are becoming absolutely without hope. That is a quite shocking situation.
On the right to rent, I have another recommendation for further reading to suggest to your Lordships. It is an interview between Mr. David Lipsey, the editor of New Society, and Mr. Ridley, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the issue of 7th November 1986. There we have a most fascinating disclosure of the workings of the mind of the Minister. He is giving very deep thought to the problem. The right to rent and the building of houses to rent raise far-reaching issues which we have not yet fully studied.
One issue is the basis of rent to be charged for the right to rent. Is it to be an economic rental or a subsidised rental? Are we to differentiate between the public and the private sector? Are the rents of public sector accommodation to be subsidised, but not those of the private sector? What about the security of tenure of rented accommodation, and other issues of that kind? How can we obtain a fresh stock of houses to rent without settling whether or not we are to have rent control and security of tenure granted to unfurnished accommodation?
It may be that we shall finally be forced, if we have the right to buy alongside the right to rent, to consider
1156
balancing the tax concessions for the right to buy alongside the demands for a reasonable rental for the right to rent. We may then be easily led to the conclusion that everyone has to be subsidised in their housing accommodation. That is where we may get to unless we pull ourselves up short and decide where this is leading.
None of that can be decided this side of the election. We all recognise that the Government have no wish to tamper with the mortgage interest relief for house purchase; except to deal with the question of whether two unmarried people living together can take advantage of the £30,000 limit of tax relief on the mortgage, whereas a married couple can have only £30,000 between them. That is an anomaly to which the Public Accounts Committee has referred and it should be justified if it is to be continued.
However, there is enough to occupy the minds of noble Lords—who probably have more time to consider these matters than many Members of another place—in deciding where our housing policy is to go. It will not be solved merely by saying that there are many unemployed workers in the building trade who want jobs and they ought to be set to work. Who will set them to work? Will they be set to work to build public housing or private housing—the right to buy, the right to rent? If so, can we know the economics of that before we consider the social implications? We have grave problems in this area. We are not facing up to the issues of rented accommodation in the private sector. We will not get back the private landlords until there is some economic basis for their investment. Are we to rely wholly on the right to rent public housing with no other right to rent anywhere, except at exorbitant charges for the diminishing private sector?
That is enough for my seven minutes. I have left a minute to spare for my neighbour.
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity to debate a matter of such fundamental concern to the whole country, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his masterly opening speech.
Housing has moved up the public agenda over the past two or three years, and that has been noticeable in a number of ways. As your Lordships have already heard, there have been a number of well-researched reports, one being the National Housing Inquiry, of which I was a member. I was glad to hear that being commended by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. There have been numerous broadcasts and articles and we have again heard reference to some of those today. Those have been marked by a widespread agreement about the seriousness of the situation, including the continuing decline of the rented sector and the evidence that the housing stock is deteriorating overall. We have also heard about some of the fiscal and legislative measures needed to give the country a much clearer and more consistent housing policy.
In particular, many people are now more ready to admit, privately if not publicly, that we need reforms which will create greater fiscal neutrality between the various kinds of tenure. The widespread assumption that only council house tenants are subsidised by the

1157
state is at last being replaced by a more accurate perception of the facts. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has pinpointed this financial issue with his customary clarity and focused on one of the key issues; that is, whether one subsidises the person or the building. That is one of the main issues which must be worked at very hard over the next few years.
There have been some welcome changes at national level over the past few years. Those include the release of a little more capital into the housing pool and the approval of a new initiative by the Housing Corporation to harness funds from building societies and banks which will increase the number of housing association properties for rent. It may also pave the way for a real breakthrough in bringing private finance back into rented housing.
It has also been good to read about the work of organisations such as Care and Repair Limited which specialise in providing schemes to help old people in the private sector (as has been mentioned) with problems of house repair and improvements, so enabling them to stay put longer. I understand that there has recently been a Department of the Environment grant of roughly ½l million, which will enable this organisation to develop about 25 new schemes throughout the country. That is the good news. There are some signs of hope.
However, the overall position is very serious. It is focused most sharply in the growth of actual homelessness, especially in London and the South-East. There are now more people officially recorded as homeless in London than there were 40 years ago; and most lists are kept as short as possible. That does not include the even greater growth in the list of people who are single homeless and who are not officially recorded at all. It has happened because all parts of the rented sector have continued to decline except for housing associations—a process accelerated by the sale of council houses and flats and the partial closure of some hostels.
In the various debates on housing at which I have been present in your Lordships' House over the past six years, there has always been one recurrent theme: what will happen to the homeless or the less well off if the rented sector declines too far, especially in those places where the volume of council housing is relatively low and sales are popular at discounted prices? The answer is now becoming clearer and clearer.
I heard recently from the local vicar of a lady in a southern part of the Southwark Diocese, which goes down to Gatwick and nearly to East Grinstead. Her husband had left her and she and her child had to leave a tied house. She was due, therefore, to be evicted. Her local council told her they could offer her no accommodation whatsoever in that area but would try to fix her up with temporary accommodation—presumably bed and breakfast—in Thornton Heath or Wandsworth, ironically. In desperation, because she did not want her child to leave his primary school, she took a job in domestic service which happened to be available and gave her accommodation. Her case is one of three in that school alone, and it indicates something of the social cost of the growing lack of rented accommodation.
1158
In London itself, vast sums of money are now being spent to keep families in lodging-houses and hotels, as we have already heard. The number is still rising. Not many of us here would have found it bearable to bring up our families in one room when we were young. When stress is being placed on trying to improve the quality of family life, how can we feel unconcerned about a situation where such pressures are being put upon people who are often ill-equipped to cope with them?
If one stands at the top of the tower block in Guy's Hospital and looks south, one will see one of the largest concentration of high-rise blocks of flats and deck-access estates anywhere in Europe. In the attempt to clear large areas of decayed Victorian dwellings and house thousands of people on a relatively small amount of land, this generation has become landed with a new problem of daunting size. I have been inside a number of those flats and have walked round estates with boarded-up windows, squatters, vandalism and depressing surroundings in many of them—unless work has been done. However, it is becoming clear that things can improve if the money is found to make substantial repairs and major changes to the layout, if tenants are allowed to become more involved and if management significantly alters its style and efficiency. However, that extra funding is an essential part of the total approach. We cannot leave it out. We can see clearly what can be achieved by looking at some of the estates where the money has been forthcoming such as the Henry Prince Estate in Wandsworth.
It is not a question of throwing money at the problem, as is sometimes said, as if it could be solved without financial cost. The cost of human discomfort in such places is very high in human terms as well as in medical and social terms. Old people are afraid to go out at night. Muggings and threats, noise and squalor all lead to mental and physical illness, the break-up of marriages and so on. Racial prejudice tends to increase on such estates. In other words, the cost of doing little or nothing is very high, although it is not easy to measure.
There are two other areas of social cost about which I should have liked to have said something, although I do not have the time. However, I shall just mention them. The first area concerns what happens when young people are forced into the position of having to buy—and again this is an acute problem in London—and then of possibly going through all the agony of repossession. The second area which is emerging concerns the anxieties which are now felt by many council tenants about the possibility that they will be asked to leave their present homes and move somewhere else under the powers provided by the new Housing and Planning Act. The anxiety may be exaggerated, but that it is there is a message which is coming through loudly in many parts of my diocese.
An adequate supply of good housing, with some choice of tenure whenever possible, is a fundamental condition of stable community life. I am sure that that is a concept in which we all believe. In Christian terms, we owe it to our brothers and sisters to see that they have shelter and warmth just as much as food and clothing, for we are interdependent, and the homelessness that exists is a scandal in a prosperous and civilised society.

1159
There is considerable agreement—and this is a positive aspect—on all sides of the community about the way forward. There is already a great deal of money around in housing allowances and subsidies, but most of the time it is not going to the right places. Can we now take the urgent action needed before the human and the economic cost of our present housing situation becomes unbearable?
3.33 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I recently read in The House Magazine a profile of Geoffrey Lofthouse, who is the Member of Parliament for Pontefract and Castleford. He told of how he was one of several children of a farmworker who, with their mother, were evicted from their tied cottage when the father died young. They all had to live with grandmother—14 people in a one-up, one-down terraced house in a mining town. Nevertheless, he said that he had had a happy childhood. His story is a marvellous illustration of how the human spirit can overcome the direst material circumstances.
Such a story would not so easily be found today, although no doubt the right reverend Prelate would find another story similar to the one which he told. However, his story would not be so easily repeated because that type of story inspired the post-war mass house building programme, and that programme unfortunately coincided with what can now be seen by everyone as a horrific period of architecture, where the relentless pursuit of novelty and experiment took primacy over most other considerations. As a result, the houses have a dreary aspect and the layouts are muddled and depressing. As if that were not enough, well-tried building techniques were discarded or driven out of fashion, with the result that taxpayer and private owner are having to foot an enormous bill for repairs which should never have been needed.
I hope that I am right in detecting signs of a return to a more caring form of architecture and properties which are better built. Meanwhile, it is important to observe that that great housing programme did not solve the housing problem, mainly because the problem itself changed due to a relatively unpublicised fact which I consider should be better known.
Whereas in the 1950s and 1960s we concentrated on building two-, three- and four-bedroomed family houses, already in the early 1970s it was beginning to be seen that there was an unsatisfied demand for much smaller dwellings, and that was due to a steadily reducing occupancy rate of dwellings. I hope that the Minister has the latest figures, which I know vary from place to place. However, they show that countrywide the occupancy rate has reduced from over four people per dwelling in the 1960s to something around two-and-a-half people per dwelling in the 1980s. In other words, in the space of 20 years the demand for separate individual dwellings has almost doubled. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, adverted to the demand for accommodation for single persons.
What has happened is that mother and father have kept their house, or it is equally likely that they have divorced, needing separate accommodation; granny has gone to an old people's home; lodgers are no longer in favour; and the grown-up children have split off each to their own flat. That is a socio-economic
1160
development which planners could not have foreseen any more than they foresaw the huge increase in private car ownership and failed to allow for it.
The reduced occupancy rate is responsible for a great deal of homelessness, in addition to complicating enormously the needs which must be addressed. People's circumstances are so various that they cannot and should not be coped with by 1960s-type blanket solutions. That is where housing associations come in. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will say something more about housing associations than I have time to say today. However, they are major producers of houses to rent and could produce more. I do not know what to admire most about housing associations—their variety, their ingenuity or their dedication. Certainly without them the housing situation would be very much worse than it is.
The Government need to maintain wholehearted support for housing associations through constructive criticism, as well as encouragement, for if they are well run they are a most flexible and cost-effective instrument. The Government cannot depend upon private money to solve the housing problem. However, it is welcome that recently much more private money has been coming into public housing, bringing more ideas as well as more funds.
Ideas are just as important as funds. I wish to emphasise that we should not hold the belief that all that housing requires is money; it needs a great deal of sensitive thinking as well. We have seen the impersonality, desolation and sheer bad quality that money without thoughtfulness can buy. People deserve a great deal better than that and I hope that the Government for their part will direct a great deal of effort towards seeing that they get it.
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for raising this matter for debate this afternoon. Even without taking up the full time allowed to him he has put his finger on the main point; namely, the question of rented property. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for what he said about housing associations. As the noble Lord said, there is an immense future for housing associations—for their whole structure, for the manner in which they are handled and for drawing into the problem so many people who want to help and who have not previously found a way in which to do so.
We are drawing to the end of the century, and people will soon be making comments on what this century has done for housing. I think it is important to remember that in about the year 1920 Parliament accepted responsibility for housing policy. It is, if I may say so, very much we—if I may use the word rather sententiously—who carry the responsibility for what has happened. We can say that since that time we have trebled the stock of housing—22 million houses or so. We can say that the general standard of housing in most places has greatly improved. In a recent poll, about 75 per cent. of people said they were satisfied or very satisfied with our housing—I say that to show that this century has not been wholly empty—but that leaves some 25 or 30 per cent. of the population who are not satisfied.

1161
We have been through two world wars this century. We have built ships, aeroplanes, guns and tanks. We have more recently prided ourselves on the invention of aeroplanes like Concorde, the Spitfire and so on. Why have we not succeeded in providing this essential requirement for the country? What has happened to prevent us from doing so? Quite frankly, I think that we have had far too much legislation: something like 20 Acts of Parliament affecting housing have been passed in the last seven or eight years. If one goes back 50 or 60 years, the amount is colossal. What is the effect of this? It is to frighten people—certainly private money—away from going into enterprise, surrounded by regulations, and never quite sure what additional regulations will be added in future.
The problem is quite a simple one. We subsidise council houses. There is an element of subsidy, as the noble Lord said, in owner-occupation. In housing associations there is undoubtedly an element of subsidy. However, there is no subsidy for rented property. Anybody who knows anything about housing today knows that rented property is the first demand. I am certain that your Lordships will find that in any part of the country, as I did last week in Glasgow.
Why can we not solve that problem? What are we finding it so difficult to do? We have already had several reports on this. What is even more curious to my mind is that, if we go overseas, we find that the poorest countries have the highest rate of owner-occupation, notably, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India and maybe others, whereas the richest country in Europe has the highest rate of rented property, and that is Switzerland.
Why are we denying the right to people to have rented property? The answer, of course, is Rachman. But Rachman is no answer to any question at all. There are wicked landlords; there are wicked tenants too for that matter without any doubt. It is no good pretending that one can answer the question that way. We can find a way if we want to. If the House demands it, we shall get that way.
I do not want to press the Government too far, but I ask just this. Have the Government given any consideration to the next 20 years? I think that we shall need at least 2 million more houses. I believe that owner-occupation will not rise above 70 per cent. It is not a bottomless pit. We can see this happening all over the world and in no case, I think, is it much above 70 per cent. We have, therefore, to provide 30 per cent. I suggest to the noble Lord, if I may, that perhaps half that should be council houses and half market rented houses. Can he give us any indication that this is a matter that he is considering?
I find the greatest encouragement in some of the words of the Minister for Housing, Mr. Patten. He seems to me to grasp the essence of the very subject we are discussing today. I wish him good fortune, and I hope that he will succeed.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for introducing this important subject. I
1162
wish to speak briefly on an aspect of it that I think may have had too little attention over the years; that is, the effect of bad housing on education. I wish to speak in particular of one school of which I have some knowledge as an example of what I am trying to say.
This is a school in Bethnal Green. Bethnal Green is part of London where over the last 10 years there has been a considerable influx of Bangladeshi families. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships know that this has not been a very happy settlement.
These families have three grave social disadvantages. The first is language; they have very little English. Often the parents and grandparents have none and are dependent on their children for any sort of association with the outside world. The second disadvantage is that they are the victims of racist attack. The third disadvantage is housing.
The school about which I am talking is a secondary boys school, Daneford School, which has 650 boys, of whom 450 are Bangladeshi, and the number is going up. In this school between one quarter and one third of the boys are suffering from the effects of bad housing, which takes the form of overcrowding, substandard accommodation and temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, sometimes a long way from the school.
I should like, if I may, to give one illustration of the conditions in which some of these boys are living. It is the custom in this school that, when teachers suspect that a child is suffering from bad accommodation in the home, they investigate the matter, seek out the boy's home and tell the headmaster about it. On this occasion the headmaster himself went along with one of his staff, and they found themselves in what he described to me as a Dickensian situation.
There was a broken-down door between two derelict shops on which they had to hammer for about 10 minutes. When they gained entry they found themselves going up a narrow, rickety staircase, with the plaster peeling off the walls. When they reached the first floor they found a family of five living in two rooms. One room was the bedroom, where there were five beds, all touching each other, with very little floor space. The other was the kitchen where they found a pedal bin and a storage cupboard hoisted half way up the wall in an attempt to deter rats. The family was sharing a washroom with other families in the same building.
In conditions such as these, it is surely not difficult to realise that education takes a very low priority. The family is really concerned with survival. That includes any boy who might have been at this school.
This is in Brick Lane in Bethnal Green, and the year is 1986; it is not 1886. Bangladeshi families are particularly ill-suited to coping with the plight that they find themselves facing, first, as I say, because of the language problems; secondly, because that prevents them from being able to understand and handle the situation—to use a rather slang expression—and, thirdly, because they are essentially a rural people. They have come from a rural background and they are seriously maladjusted to the urban environment in which they find themselves. Lastly, they are very unaggressive by temperament.

1163
The headmaster was talking to me about a situation—and it is not just an isolated situation—in which a boy at his school was the only member of his family who knew enough English to go round to the authorities, the housing associations and the local council in search of accommodation. Imagine the stress that that boy undergoes when he knows that the whole family are depending on him. He may be only a 13 or 14 year-old, and he is tramping the streets during school hours and thus missing such schooling as he might have.
Another problem of course is temporary bed and breakfast accommodation, which may well be a long way off. I understand that in Tower Hamlets there is very little of it. The headmaster had occasion to interview one particular fifth-year boy who was constantly late for school in the morning. He discovered that this was because he was travelling every day from Heathrow to Bethnal Green. Homework is an impossibility in these circumstances. I asked one of the staff what they did about it and he said, "We forget it. It is useless attempting to set it".
There is one other aspect, and I have already mentioned this in passing. For these lads the streets are not safe. It is an area where the National Front are rather active and the boys' families do not like them being out at night. Particularly in the winter when darkness falls, what happens is that families lock themselves into their small homes, so that the stress and the over-crowding are prolonged by several hours more than they perhaps need be. The school does what it can. The headmaster has intervened with housing authorities on several occasions, twice successfully this term; so much so that I believe some of the local families were queuing up because they thought that if the headmaster was successful in one or two cases with his own pupils he could be successful with other families, and he therefore had to stop the process.
What worries me is that we have here a vicious circle. These people see the only way out of their tragic situation as being education, and yet the situation itself makes education difficult or impossible.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I feel happy to be following the noble Lord who has just sat down because I am glad that he has brought some of the realism required into this debate. I am equally grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for so doing. I need to apologise to my noble colleague Lord Winstanley for not having heard his speech. I can only assure him that I shall read Hansard. I apologise profusely for not being here.
In recent debates we have talked about government housing policy and we have done it on predictable lines. People like me speak about the frightful statistics of homelessness and the state of Britain's housing, and then the Minister replies by giving the statistics about the degree of ownership. It always sounds callous complacency to me. But when I think about it, and particularly when I read government announcements, I recognise that it is not surprising because the main aim of the Government's housing policy—and here I quote—is "to increase the level of home ownership". What that means is that dealing with homelessness
1164
and bad housing—about which people such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and I keep talking—is a lesser priority; and that is the point. The growth of home ownership takes precedence.
It is those consequences that we need to face this afternoon. In the few minutes I have I want to try to invite the House to face them. Expanding home ownership is not an unmixed blessing. Increasing numbers of home owners with low or irregular incomes lead to increasing mortgage arrears, evictions and homelessness. The statistics for mortgage default show that to be true. The number of building society mortgages in serious arrears has risen dramatically over the past six years.
Furthermore, home owners struggling with a mortgage on a low income will also face difficulties when it comes to paying for much-needed repairs. And an increasing number of elderly home owners can neither do repairs themselves nor afford to hire others to do the work for them. The last official house condition survey found that owner-occupation had overtaken private renting as the tenure with the highest number of unfit dwellings. That is a point requiring concentrated attention.
Increased home ownership is not the answer to Britain's housing problems because of the existence of poverty. The poor suffer disproportionately from homelessness and poor housing. Records from Shelter's housing aid centres, for example, show that over half the people approaching them for help are unemployed. The Government's house condition survey shows that the average income of households living in unfit dwellings is only half that of households in satisfactory homes. The same survey shows that the majority of those living in unfit houses would be unable even to afford a loan to pay for repairs.
Ever-increasing levels of home ownership are not the answer because for many of those living in the worst housing conditions today, buying a home is not an option. Some of course are already home owners, but their houses are often in a poor condition which they cannot afford to remedy. A housing policy whose single aim is the growth of over-occupation has little to offer them.
I wish I could stop there. I have argued that a policy whose single and overbearing aim is to increase the number of home owners in Britain will not deal with the real housing problems we face today. But there is more to it than that. Increased home ownership does not simply fail to help the homeless: a policy of expanding home ownership at all costs, which is the policy at the moment, actually reduces the chances of those people of having a decent home.
First, let us remember that because of the links between poverty and bad housing the provision of good-quality rented houses has been vital to securing decent accommodation for the homeless and those living in overcrowded or unfit houses. That is the raison detre of the policies of having local authorities provide housing and of the existence of housing associations. But the Government's policy to promote home ownership does a little worse than that because they set out to make home ownership more attractive while renting has been made less attractive. By that I mean that rents have been forced up by cutting

1165
subsidies and housing benefit. Meanwhile, financial support for home owners has remained untouched. Investment in repairs and improvements for rented housing has also been restricted. Therefore the message is loud and clear: if you want to have a home, you have to buy it.
Figures for public spending tell the same story. This is the reality of what passes for housing policy today, and we see its consequences in the increasing numbers of homeless, in the rising bill for disrepair, and (may I say it?) in the increase in house prices. Let us not forget the human suffering which lies behind the statistics. Poor conditions, cold and damp undermine people's health, particularly among children and the elderly.
Strain and insecurity lead to anxiety and depression; relations between husband and wife are poisoned; and children are growing up emotionally scarred by homelessness. That is the daily damage that is being done. Encouragement of home ownership is not incompatible with a housing policy with the main aim of dealing with Britain's major housing problems. It is however a matter of putting each aim into perspective. In my view, the single most important objective should be to end the scandal of homelessness and bad housing.
I hope that when the Minister replies—I know that his heart is in the right place because we have chatted many times—he will be able to tell me that the Government have taken this on board and have recognised that the consequence of their policy is not what they hoped. The policy is in fact having consequences which are unacceptable. I hope that the Government will take steps to remedy it.
4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords will doubtless have realised that those speaking from these Benches in the debate initiated by my noble friend are trying to take a particular sector of housing and deal with it in the brief time that we have. I have chosen to speak about homelessness among our youth. I do so with a certain reluctance because this is a subject that I am sure would have been dealt with by a friend whose memorial service we attended this morning. I am sure that noble Lords will echo my sentiments that it is a great sadness that Lord Crawshaw of Aintree is not here to join in this debate.
There is enormous evidence of an increase in homelessness among the youth of this country, not just in the inner cities but throughout the length and breadth of the nation. Government and local authority reports, the advice agencies and other local surveys confirm this. The figures show that in 1985, in addition to the 93,830 families who were homeless, there were some 80,000 homeless young people. There were 50,000 in board and lodging, much of which was substandard.
Leaving home is important to young people. It is part of growing up, and the vast majority of young people leave home between the ages of 16 and 25. They identify the leaving of home as one of the most important events in their lives. The Review Group of the Youth Service found that 49 per cent. of children expect to leave home by the time they are 20, and 75 per cent. expect to leave home by the time they are 25.
1166
Furthermore 71 per cent. of them expect it to be very difficult to find accommodation or doubt whether they will be able to find accommodation at all. Actually, about 80 per cent. of single people are still at home at the age of 20, and 66 per cent. are still at home by the age of 23.
One hears people say from time to time that there would not be so much homelessness and that the problem would not arise if children stayed at home. I have a quotation which I think underlines the situation from the best possible source, the Prince of Wales, who said in March 1985:
"For young people, leaving home and gaining independence is an issue of paramount importance in their lives. This is complicated by the lack of housing and employment options open to them".
The reasons for the problems and for the frustrations are clearly to do with young people's change of status in the labour market—the dramatic rise in youth unemployment, which reduces their ability to find employment, while adult unemployment reduces the family's ability to continue to support them at home. The steep decline in private sector rented accommodation has already been referred to many times. It has more than halved over the past 10 to 15 years.
The fact that young people do not qualify under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, now superseded by the Housing Act 1985; the fact that local authorities traditionally give a lower priority to young people and, indeed, some local authorities will not register them at all on their waiting lists; and the fact that the 1985 regulations on board and lodgings restrict the maximum amount of benefit to the young and set a maximum of between two to eight weeks for a young person to claim benefit as a hoarder in any one area are dreadful problems for those under 26. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Banks will deal with that matter when he speaks in a few minutes.
Many landlords do not accept tenants under 18. Their belief, understandably, is that such tenants cannot be sued for the rent and that minors cannot enter into contracts or hold a legal estate in land. What, then, are we to do? I believe that the first and major step is a recognition of the problem. I believe that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in highlighting the problems following upon what he has seen under the arches at Charing Cross, has given a welcome lead. He was greatly shocked, like many of us, by the sight of homeless children on the streets. Indeed, shocked we all are by the sight of people in good accommodation blocking the opportunity for him to purchase houses so that some of these children could be housed! I ask those people in Kennington who have very expensive houses, first, to examine their consciences and, secondly, to look at what is happening under the Charing Cross arches and to consider whether Crisis at Christmas is not something to which they can bend their minds.
There is a need for recognition by the Government, as has already been said. There is a need for recognition by the local authorities. Specific measures are needed such as an expansion of shared ownership as starter schemes; bringing in legislation in England and Wales in line with that in Scotland, where it is illegal for those under 18 to be excluded from waiting lists; 16-plus children to be treated as adults so far as

1167
tenancies are concerned; the repeal of the 1985 board and lodgings regulations; the extension of the provisions of Part III of the Housing Act 1985; and the taking up of Shelter's call for a wider interdepartmental review of the needs of young people in housing involving the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the Home Office. This is not simply a responsibility of the Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing.
As my noble friend has said, there are problems in schools arising from bad housing. There is a need for counselling of young people on the problems of leaving home. There is certainly a need for the Home Office to consider the aspects of homelessness that bear on increasing crime rates and, particularly, on drug abuse. But is it any wonder that young people, faced with a total lack of anywhere to lay their heads, seek the oblivion of the use of drugs? One may not applaud that, but it is a fact of life. This is not confined to inner city areas. I know that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with me that even in the fair town where he and I both live, there are problems of homelessness. It is an awful start to life to be faced, as a young person, with the possibility of having no home to go to. If this country does not tackle housing as a crisis then we are laying the seeds for a destruction of our society when these young people grow up.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I wish to deal with the sometimes heartless bureaucracy which administers the matters that we are debating this afternoon. In Danvers Street, Chelsea, an unpretentious little street leading from Paultons Square to the river, there are seven houses vested in the royal borough. Of those, Five are empty and two are occupied by four tenants apiece, all old ladies. Of those eight tenants, six are opposed to the rehousing scheme proposed by the royal borough. One was in hospital when the poll was taken and one, I think, was away with the fairies and had no opinion. I have a round robin from those six objecting to what was proposed and I shall place it in the Library. Most curiously, this hostility of six to none is transformed by the magic of local government double-speak into a substantial majority in favour of what the royal borough proposes, according to the correspondence, all of which I have studied.
The story starts in 1983, when the tenants were advised that their homes were to be refurbished, beginning perhaps in two years' time. They were promised that they would be fully consulted before any scheme was finalised. Such consultation was of course requisite under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 and the tenants were quiescent in the belief that it would be fulfilled. During the spring and summer of this year—that is, three years later—they were shown an exhibition of what was intended and what had already been put out to tender. At a subsequent meeting they were allowed to ask questions. No records were kept of that meeting, no minutes; there was no consultation.
In July of this year Councillor James Arbuthnot wrote to the residents' association saying:
"The precise consultation you were offered did not take place. For that, you are certainly owed an apology and I do apologise".
1168
They are not owed an apology; they are owed a consultation. A promise is a promise, and this was more than a promise. It was a statutory obligation and the royal borough is in quite clear breach thereof.
At the meeting, where questions were allowed, the director of housing, a Mr. Kingsford, told these old ladies that rehoused old ladies did not last more than six or seven years and that their personal wishes were secondary to wider considerations. What tact, my Lords!
Meanwhile the tenants had evolved an alternative scheme which they submitted to two consultants who are prepared to be named and quoted—Peter Ford, the housing manager of the WRVS, and Mr. Michael de Styrcea of Chestertons. The latter is a consultant also to the Westminster City Council. He said that the tenants' plan was what he himself would have proposed to Westminster if the situation had been under its control and that it would have adopted it without hesitation.
The director of housing, however, refused to consider it on the false grounds that any variation would involve forfeiting the DoE grant in support of this refurbishing scheme, in which case the council would sell the property and rehouse the tenants more cheaply, seriatim in North Kensington, thus breaking up the little community of mutual assisting friends and neighbours, the eldest of whom is 91, one of whom has only one leg and another of whom is on two crutches. But they help one another, thereby saving themselves from being a burden on the rates.
What is one to make of this situation? Shakespeare said it, did he not?
"Man. proud Man. dressed in a little brief authority
Most ignorant of that he is most assured
His glassy essence, like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep!".
So much for that model of tact, Mr. Kingsford, the director of housing!
What is it that the old ladies object to in the council's plan? First, it gives them windowless bathrooms. These old people do their own laundry and they must have an open window to help dry it. Secondly, the small kitchen window is placed so that they must stand in their own light when confronting the work table. Thirdly, a lot of light is shut out of the living room; and, fourthly, the hot-water tank is to be located in the living room. The tenants' own plan avoids all these objections and the quantity surveyor whom I have quoted above says that it would be a little cheaper to effect than the council's plans.
But that is not the end of the story. Let us go back to 1983. The tenants were promised more than consultation. They were promised a month's notice when the time came to move them. On December 1st of this year—that is, Monday of last week—they were given one week's notice to be moved on December 8th. That was the day before yesterday. I intervened at this point with a call to Mr. Nicholas Freeman, the leader of the council, and asked him to take the situation into his own hands. He promised to do so. I added, somewhat icily:
"And you will write and tell me what you have done, won't you?".

1169
He promised to do so. I have heard nothing since. Another broken promise! However, a messenger called on one of the tenants and asked her to tell the others that they could disregard the week's notice given. There was no official communication to the residents' association via the secretary or the chairman.
Meanwhile I had taken up the matter with the Department of the Environment and I had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who wrote of the local authority:
"They, it seems, have conducted the appropriate consultations and have taken the decision to proceed with the scheme. They are quite within their powers to do so".
He added that in these circumstances the Department of the Environment had no locus standi.
All that this means is that the noble Lord's officials believe whatever the local government officers tell them. There has been no consultation. What the residents have had is an apology for not having been consulted. If I may presume to give a bit of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, he must develop an intuition for what not to believe. He then will be worthy of that paradigm, his noble predecessor—and I must sit down now—who, when I said, "The Serpentine stinks", got off his backside on to his sturdy stumps and went to smell it for himself. That is what being a good Minister means.
The administration of housing in the Royal Borough is manifestly slack, slapdash and arrogant. As a ratepayer, I object to those characteristics and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving me an opportunity to say so.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Winterbottom: My Lords, let me declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a small housing association. The association is young, small and innovative. I should be grateful to your Lordships if you would permit me to give a brief history of its first years—which leads up to a question which I wish to put to the Minister about the strength which the Government are proposing to place behind Sections 56 and 57 of the Housing Association Act 1985. Those two sections have the rubrics: "Applications for deficit grants" and "Payment of deficit grants".
In order to demonstrate the points I hope that again your Lordships will forgive me if I give a brief history of the events of the first years of this association. Two men for whom I have great respect mortgaged their houses and collected about£120,000. They set out to build starter-homes for young people, without any money being sought from the Government; it came mainly from their own funds, a merchant bank, the building societies and the usual clearing banks.
Their plan was innovative—and I shall not go into details—but it had great success and in the first four years approximately of its life they built over 1,000 houses for starter-homes for young people, without any money at all from the Government.
This caught the eye of the Secretary of State of the day and his housing adviser came to see us to ask whether there was anything the Government could do to help. We wanted to get into the Docklands and we
1170
said so. We obtained a site near Becton on which we could build 15 houses. Those houses were completed and we received over 500 inquiries for those 15 houses—which, I think, is an indication of the size of the problem facing young married couples.
Unfortunately, the Government also said to us, "Would you take over a certain site in the North of England, in Greater Manchester, which we wish you to manage and complete?". We, in our folly—I should say, "I, in my folly"—said yes. This is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. What we did not know was that the mores and the standard of living of the North made it very difficult to work on the same principles as those we had worked on in the South. But because the Government asked us to do it, we went on and did it.
This caused us very substantial loss because whereas, in the South, people, after a period of being tenants, bought their own houses and indeed in most cases people in our scheme have bought their own houses in the third year of occupation, in the North nothing like that happens. People seem to want rented accommodation, as other noble Lords have pointed out; and when the period of tenancy ran out they left. Vandalism was very great in Manchester and the surrounding area, and it caused us a great financial problem. We have overcome it but, with the very limited capital backing that we have, if we are to go on it would be of a very great help to us if the Government could assist us (as they seem to be willing to do) by inviting applications for deficit grants and the payment of deficit grants.
That is the real point I should like to put to the Minister. Can he tell the House what weight the Government are putting behind Clauses 56 and 57 of the Act? How much money are they willing to spend and how quickly are they willing to spend it? Perhaps I may just read the two clauses and stress what is of real interest. Clause 56 states:
"A revenue deficit grant or hostel deficit grant is payable to an association in respect of a period only if an application complying with this section is made by the association to the Secretary of State and is approved by him.".
Subsection (2)(b) states:
"shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may determine".
Will the Minister, when he replies, give some indication as to whether there is some memorandum or some formula which is generally known, giving guidance on the form of the information required by the Secretary of State for deficit grants of this type?
I feel that the Government take this seriously, because Clause 57(1) states:
"A revenue deficit grant shall be paid in a single sum in respect of the period to which it relates."
That means to say that there will be no tapering off but that they will pay if it is agreed. We now have over 1,000 tenants in houses built as starter homes and, if we could continue the work we have started knowing that there was some money to back us if we should run into problems again, it would be of great assistance.
It seems to be assumed that it is quite easy to build houses and dispose of them. It is not. Disaster can always strike; Murphy's law always applies. For that reason, any government hacking to assist a small

1171
housing association in a time of crisis will be extremely welcome.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winstanley outlined the general situation with regard to housing very clearly and comprehensively. Other noble Lords have looked at particular aspects, and I should like to concentrate for a minute or two on the relationship between housing and social security. This is particularly important because of the increase in poverty in recent years—poverty amid comparative affluence. Those with incomes under 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level have increased by 42 per cent. since 1979: an increase from 11·5 million persons to 16·5 million persons. According to a parliamentary Answer, only up to one-thirds of that has been caused by raising the supplementary benefit level and the other two-thirds is due to other reasons, among which of course is unemployment.
Housing benefit is the principal means of assisting people on low incomes with their housing costs. Its introduction in 1982–83 was attended by considerable upheaval; and "upheaval" is the word used by the Social Security Advisory Committee in their report for 1984. In that report they said:
"We have been, and continue to be, concerned about the distress which has been caused to people claiming housing benefit by the difficulties which have arisen in the scheme.".
Those difficulties were in part administrative and in part structural. We on these Benches objected to the transfer of the responsibility to the local authorities and the involvement as a consequence of both the Department of Health and Social Security and the local authorities, with two bases of assessment: one for those on supplementary benefit and one for those not on supplementary benefit. We criticised the complication and, as we saw it, the muddle at that time.
We also criticised the reductions in housing benefit in April and November 1984, which took place so shortly after the full introduction of the scheme. I believe that something like £250 million a year was knocked off the annual budget for housing benefit. However, we were glad when the Fowler proposals for social security included a simplified form of housing benefit with a single set of criteria for assessment. However, we regretted the Government's intention at the same time to reduce housing benefit expenditure by £500 million a year, or 12 per cent. of the current housing benefit expenditure. The Social Security Advisory Committee also objected to that.
It is true that housing benefit cost £4,600 million in 1985–86. as against £1,200 million in 1979–80. Of course one has to take into account inflation in making that comparison, but it is clear that housing benefit is one of the most widespread benefits. But, as the Social Security Advisory Committee say,
"It is targeted on claimants who for the most part have very low incomes indeed.".
In their 1985 report the committee add this—and I think these words are very significant—
"It is important to keep the level of spending in perspective as being principally the result of economic factors and of a conscious policy of transferring responsibility for costs within the housing system. The increase in unemployment, the real terms increase in
1172
local authority rents caused by the decision to reduce subsidies for the dwelling and place more of the cost on the consumer; and the real terms increase in rates, stemming at least in part from cuts in the general level of rate support grant; these have played important parts in determining the present level of spending on housing benefit and the number of claimants.".
That is what was said by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and we would certainly endorse that.
We know that most of the proposed cuts will fall on pensioners with low incomes. The total cost of housing benefit of £4,600 million in 1986–86 should be compared with the cost of mortgage interest relief at £4,750 million—almost the same figure. The housing benefit goes entirely to those on low incomes. The same cannot be said for mortgage income relief. There is a case for one system of assistance to cover both rent and owner-occupied property. The least that should be done is to confine mortgage interest relief to the standard rate of income tax, when some £320 million would be saved for other benefits.
We are also, concerned about regulations which we understand the. Government intend to introduce, which will seek to deal with unscrupulous landlords who raise rents, confident that housing benefit will meet the increase. The method proposed is to enable councils to withhold benefit from claimants. We ask whether it is right to put the penalty on the claimant rather than on the landlord directly. We do not think it is. The unscrupulous landlord, rather than the claimant, should be the Government's target. Perhaps the noble Lord, in replying, will be able to give the House further information as to these proposed regulations.
I have one final question regarding time-scale. As I understand it, the revised housing benefit system will come into force in April 1988. I should like to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the scheme can work smoothly from that date. One thing is certain: we do not want a repetition of the muddle and confusion which accompanied the introduction of housing benefit in 1982 and 1983.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I should like, in the very limited time available, to concentrate on one particular issue. The issue I should like to address is that of home improvement. During the course of this debate so far, we have heard of the very serious human and health implications of the housing situation in Britain today and of its impact on school children and on youth. All this stems from a condition of housing which is sadly wanting and which compares very badly with many of our Continental neighbours.
By now, your Lordships are well aware of the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, the statistics most commonly quoted go back to the English House Condition Survey 1981. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he replies, can tell us when we shall have the advantage of the information contained in the survey that is currently being undertaken. However, the figures of the 1981 survey are very easy to remember; they showed that, of the 18 million inhabited homes in England, one in four was defective in some way. The survey found that

1173
one in eight houses required major repairs and one in sixteen houses was unfit for habitation.
That is a very serious indictment of the condition of housing in Britain. Let us hope that the latest survey will show an improvement—although I must say that subsequent information does not suggest that this will be the case. The Department of the Environment, when it conducted its 1985 review of the condition of public housing, indicated that something like £19 billion would be required to put that housing in reasonable condition.
The National Home Improvement Council, with which I am closely associated, has recently worked out that if we took the whole of the housing in Britain, both public and private, something like £46 billion would be required to put that housing right. By "putting it right", I do not mean to luxury standards but simply to normal standards of habitation.
There can be no doubt about how large the problem is. Equally, there can be no doubt that this problem cannot be solved all at once. Nor can it be solved entirely by the efforts of government. We need to have a programme of strategy which will combine all the various initiatives over a reasonable period of time to correct this very serious disadvantage from which the nation suffers.
I should like to suggest four steps of a practical nature which can be undertaken to bring about this improvement over a period of time. First, so far as the public sector of housing is concerned, it does seem anomalous that on the one hand the Government should recognise as a result of their own survey that £19 billion would be needed to bring that housing up to standard, and yet that something of the order of £6 billion (which has been obtained from the sale of houses in the public sector) should be effectively frozen or held in reserve and not used to bring this much-needed improvement about. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what the Government's policy is in that regard and how they propose to bring into balance the two factors of need on the one hand and availability of a resource so far frozen on the other.
Secondly, there is the question of home improvement grants. I must say that the policy here has been one of stop-go. We had a big surge of home improvement grants in the period 1981 to 1984; indeed, in 1984 the level of such grants was in excess of £900 million. This stimulated people to improve their homes; it stimulated local authorities to ensure that, so far as the public sector was concerned, advantage was taken of these grants; it stimulated the manufacturers of building materials to extend their facilities and builders to extend their capabilities. However, subsequently the sums made available under the scheme were massively reduced and today they are of the order of £400 million.
This stop-go policy gets us nowhere. It is something we have suffered from in this country from time immemorial. Ought we not to have a settled policy in this regard? Ought we not to have a proper recognition of the need for home improvement? My recommendation is simply this: let us return to the 1984 level and let us maintain it until we have made a big inroad into this problem.
1174
Thirdly, there is the question of taxation. Taxes have two impacts: one is that they raise revenue, which is of prime interest to the Treasury; and the other is that they give signals. The imposition (I believe in 1982) of VAT on home improvements may, and no doubt does, raise some revenue. But it gives quite the wrong signals. It is an impediment to doing the kinds of things that ought to be done. I strongly recommend, as part of this programme for improving our homes, that reconsideration be given to the question of VAT on home improvements. I hope that the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for housing, will take up the cudgels with the Treasury, which is responsible for raising revenue. I hope that for once we can give greater priority to a social need than we give to a revenue need.
Finally, I think there is a need for special schemes in relation to particular areas such as inner cities. I am very grateful to the Government who have, in connection with the National Home Improvement Council, made additional resources available for neighbourhood revitalisation projects. There will be a further 25 schemes as a result of revenue made available by the Government.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that we are, among industrialised countries, second rate in housing. We should not be second rate. We should get back to a first-rate position, and I regard that as a matter of urgent priority.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, may I declare an interest in that I am a builder. The quality of a person's housing is a prime component in the quality of his life. Yet vast numbers of people in this country live in inadequate and crumbling properties which are getting steadily worse. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ezra is wrong, but I fear he will be found to be right and that a reassessment will show that we are going backwards.
We seem to have no concerted plan for improvement and no over-all policy on housing that we can discern in our industry. During the last seven years, the building industry, essential to any improvement in the living standards of so many people, has been squeezed to the point where any substantial increase in workload will have to be brought in gradually and with careful attention to regional factors if skill and materials shortages are to be avoided and inflation contained. Although unemployment in the industry has been substantial, the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Winstanley should be interpreted with caution, not least because jobs tend not to be in the same place as the unemployed.
Sufficient land must be made available in the areas where people want to live. In the South-East, the land element in the cost of a new house already contributes 30 to 40 per cent. of the total cost. By ignoring the problems posed by planning, first-time buyers are being squeezed out of the market and more and more people are being forced to look for rental accommodation, even though many of them would prefer to have their own homes. In 1982, 64 per cent. of purchasers of new homes were first-time buyers. By the end of 1985, this was down to 39 per cent.

1175
An overall and comprehensive policy on housing is desperately needed but it must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Among other things, rigid cost yardsticks on council house building ensured that demolished slums were replaced in many cases by housing of such a low standard that it is already unacceptable.
The policy must also take into account the changes which have taken place and which will take place in the composition of our population. This matter was mentioned earlier. The average size of a household has declined from 2·91 in 1971 to 2·56 in 1985. At the present time, only 28 per cent. of households consist of the traditional family grouping of a married couple with dependent children. Thirty-five per cent. of households consist of couples without dependent children or with no children at all. One-person households account for nearly 25 per cent. of all households. The expected growth in the numbers of the retired population will also need to be taken into account. It will accelerate the trend that I have described.
The major growth in recent years in the sale of sheltered accommodation for the elderly has proved the attraction of this type of property. But for many purchasers, it is not a feasible option. Housing associations as well as local authorities have moved into this field with considerable success, but much needs to be done. In Wales, a demand of 8,500 units has been identified and schemes for 1,200 are currently in the pipeline. However, funds available to the Housing Corporation are restricting actual construction to 500 units a year.
The only discernible housing policy of the present Government is the right-to-buy. It has certainly been a success in enabling many people who wish to own their homes to do so. It has also removed the maintenance of those houses from the public sector. But that policy does not begin to redress the huge problems which face us. Eighty per cent. of the funds released to local authorities from this scheme are not even available for spending on replacement or refurbishment of property due to the restrictions placed on the local authorities by the Treasury. Meanwhile, the total bill identified by the local authorities for their necessary expenditure on housing is a staggering £75 billion.
Of course, there is no possibility of such funds being immediately available. But the sum illustrates the scale of the problem. It is a problem that will get steadily worse unless a concerted and sustained effort—again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—is made to tackle it. This effort must be developed in consultation with all those involved including the customers—the householders—and the building industry. It will need to include better provision for training in the industry, sadly disrupted by the falling workload of recent years, and also the expansion of capacity for material suppliers, who will not be convinced by a short burst of pre-election activity of the need for a capital injection into their companies to increase output.
Housing is much too important to remain an instrument of economic regulation. It must be brought to the centre, its importance to the lives of so many recognised, and a housing policy developed that tackles the problems presented.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is clear from this debate that we are confronted by not one issue but by two. There is the immediate issue of the emergency, indeed I would say the scandal, of our present housing position. It is the scandal of people queueing for homes in the council sector; the scandal of homelessness; and the scandal of the decline of our housing stock due to lack of repair. I would add the serious fact that the housing position leads to an immobility of labour, an immobility of people. With housing cheaper in the North and in the West people cannot move to the South and the South-East where the jobs are. This hampers the development of our industry and prevents the development of our education service. For example, it is well-known that teachers cannot take jobs in London because they cannot afford the housing, and they must live somewhere.
We need to do something as a matter of urgency to meet the emergency that is upon us. If anyone is in any doubt about the scandal with which we are confronted, may I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Tordoff who said that one should go under the arches at Charing Cross. If anybody can do so as night falls without a sense of shame, it is time they looked at themselves very seriously.
Suggestions have been put forward as to what we can do. But there is, of course, one action that the Government could take, and could take quickly. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Ezra. The Government have stopped local authorities spending the money they obtained from the sale of council houses. Will the noble Lord, when he replies, explain to me why, in terms of principle. accountancy or economics—and I agree they are not the same—it is proper for central government to sell capital goods in order to put money into current consumption but it is improper for local government to sell capital housing stock and spend the money either on replacing that capital stock or an renovating their remaining stock and, therefore, keeping it in better condition? I shall be very interested to hear the answer to that proposition.
I beg the noble Lord to find ways in which that money can be released, and released quickly, so that action can be taken immediately to begin the long task—because it cannot be done at once—of meeting the scandal with which we are confronted.
This is not only an emergency. It would be a great pity if, following this debate, with its many illuminating examples of what is wrong, we were distracted from the fact that what we need is a long term view and an agreed housing policy. Listening to the debate today, I believe that there is very broad all-party agreement that something needs to be done so that we begin not only to recover from the present deplorable housing situation but also to ensure that we do not get into it again.
Surely we need an estimate of what housing is required, and where. After all, unlike so many problems of planning, we at least know how many people there are, and we ought to be able to estimate what the likely housing requirement will be over the next two or three decades. We should look at ways in which we can overcome the problem of immobility, which is a serious economic handicap. We must look

1177
at the question of justice between house owners and house renters. That has been mentioned repeatedly by speakers on all Benches this afternoon. I do not pretend that it will be easy. Of course one cannot change the position on home owners overnight; but it is quite clear that there is no equity between the two groups. That needs to be seriously examined; and the need to examine it is recognised on all sides.
We need also—and, here again, I refer to the report from the Audit Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred—to take into account the very serious deterioration in the value of the capital stock in housing. This is an extremely important national asset. If we do not carry out the repairs and renovations that are required, we are frittering away an extremely valuable national asset.
There are all sorts of reasons for it. It needs detailed examination. No doubt part of it is the over-encouragement to buy. People have bought optimistically, many of them only to find that they cannot keep up with their mortgage payments, or, if they keep up with their mortgage payments, that they do not have tuppence left over to cover the repairs and renovations that are necessary in order to keep the property in reasonable condition.
I should like to add that, if the Government would do something about interest rates, it would begin to ease the problem in an extremely practical way. However, at the moment I am talking about the long-term view. Can we not have some all-party discussions about this and find a common basis? Of course there will be some differences between the parties but—and I am sure that I speak for all parties when I say this—there is no difference between us in the conviction that we cannot tolerate the present housing situation and that we must find a way in the future to deal with the problems more satisfactorily than we have done in the past. Let us get together and tackle these very difficult problems and work out a programme so that we never again find ourselves in the disgraceful position that we are in today.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to join with other speakers in expressing my thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving us an opportunity to discuss what, in a social sense, is probably the most difficult problem that is facing us at present.
Other speakers have made reference to the Duke of Edinburgh's report. I think that the last major debate on housing that took place in your Lordships' House was a most excellent debate on that very report. In that debate there was general cross-party agreement that something needed to be done very urgently and decisively. A couple of weeks ago—and I say this to your Lordships because I think it gives an insight into government thinking on housing—I was at the annual dinner of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The guest speaker at that dinner was the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of another place, who spoke very briefly indeed about housing. The only subject he mentioned was the success in selling council houses, and he said that it was hoped to do better at
1178
selling flats because of the Bill that had just been passed.
That was all very well and I do not want to go into the question of the sale of council houses since enough has been said about it already, but he did not say one word about the people who have no homes or who are badly housed. I am sure it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that in general the building industry and indeed everyone involved in building—private builders, the public sector and the trade unions—agree that we have the resources and that all they are waiting for is a change in government policy and finance to be made available which will enable them to get on with the job.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who said that money was not the sole answer. I accept that, but there is no way that the present housing situation can be reversed without a huge input of government money. Many statistics have already been quoted but I feel it is necessary to go briefly through some of them because within those figures there are others which are rather shameful when we analyse them.
The number of families who are accepted as homeless by local authorities rose from 53,000 in 1978 to 100,000 in 1985. The latest returns are expected to show an increase to 120,000. That means that we are adding approximately 6,000 families a year to the list of homeless people. I say that as a nation we ought to be ashamed of that figure. It is an appalling reflection of what we have allowed to happen.
It has already been said that there are over 1 million householders registered on local authority waiting lists and that the numbers are growing each year. While not all of them may be considered as priority cases, they include over 200,000 families who are living in overcrowded conditions; a further 200,000 elderly people who require sheltered dwellings; 10,000 people who are in need of wheelchair dwellings; 53,000 one-parent households and over 200,000 families who are sharing accommodation. During that period (1979 to 1985) new house building by the public sector fell from 130,000 in 1975 to 33,000 completions in 1985. Although of course the private sector has gone some way towards making good that deficiency, it is no way nearly far enough.
It has also been estimated that £19 billion to £20 billion is necessary to put the public sector back into some reasonable shape—not in any luxurious way, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, but simply doing necessary and urgent work. However, another factor which emerges is that the condition of private sector housing stock is in an even worse position. That has been said in these reports by people who have an expertise in the matter. An estimated £26 billion needs to be spent on dwellings which are unfit for habitation and in disrepair. Over three-quarters of all unfit dwellings are in the private sector, so it is true, as was said by one noble Lord who spoke a few minutes ago, that we are witnessing the dissipation and almost unbelievable destruction of what is possibly our most valuable national asset in social terms.
What has been the Government's answer to reports such as the Duke of Edinburgh's report? I have no doubt that on 2nd February we shall debate at length

1179
Faith in the City and that it will be a much longer debate than this one. I hope that by then the Government will have changed tack. I want to put to them some figures that I have available which demonstrate the Government's response to the local authority sector. As your Lordships know, the local authorities are governed by what the Government will allow them to spend and fund in the housing investment programme.
In the year 1979–80 there was a global housing investment programme allocation for the nation amounting to £2,800 million. In 1985–86 that figure was £1,650 million, which is a drop of over £1,000 million. That has not been obtained by accident but is a deliberate act of the Government in cutting money for the public sector—and then, my Lords, we start to beef about why local authority stock is deteriorating and very little work is taking place! That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
Obviously I do not wish to take up much extra time but I should like briefly to refer to a broadcast I heard on 27th November, which consisted of an interview with Mr. Peter McGurk, who is the director-general of the Institute of Housing. That is a professional body made up of 8,000 people who operate in both the private and the public sectors and who have no political axe to grind. Naturally he was being interviewed about the fact that the Prince of Wales would be opening an exhibition called Building Communities on the same day. He wholeheartedly welcomed the efforts of His Royal Highness but said that it would be a mistake to take that initiative out of context.
I end my remarks with a brief quotation from him:
"We can't get away from the need to invest and invest in our inner cities on a massive scale. and I welcome the initiatives that are being proposed this morning; but it can't be used to disguise the massive scale of the problem and the need for real government initiatives".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and some noble Lords have spoken about the unfortunate people who are homeless and who have to live under arches, and I have referred to the fact that their numbers are increasing by approximately 6,000 a year. Your Lordships' House will rise a week tomorrow for the Christmas break. We shall go home to our families, who are well housed, and we shall have a very fulfilling Christmas. Are we really being just, if we do not stop for a moment to think about those 100,000 families who are homeless? I think that their views on Christmas would be similar to those of Scrooge in A Christmas Carol.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this debate which has been instituted and opened by the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, and perhaps next year we may find ourselves talking about the awful figures that have been quoted today having been reduced and not confessing that they are continuing to grow. It may then be that your Lordships' House will be seen as some kind of benevolent Father Christmas. It is time to act, and act urgently.
5. p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, this short debate is a little like a jigsaw, a series of interlocking pieces in a box, and after the
1180
speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I am, too. I do not object to that, because the usual debates we have on the narrow issue of numbers of dwellings and public finance are somewhat excitable and sterile. I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to start at the point at which we in your Lordships' House usually finish.
As the House knows only too well, the problem is that many of the houses available for occupation are too often in areas where they are least needed or of a size and type for which there is little demand. In areas where the need for housing is greatest, far too much of it is standing empty and in some cases unusable. There are acute shortages, particularly of housing for rent, in high pressure areas such as parts of London and the South-East.
The majority of households have a wide range of choice of housing which they can purchase as home owners. But for those who cannot afford to buy their homes the range of choice in the rented sector, public and private, is much more restricted. It is this that needs our concentration now.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the question of labour mobility, and I am sure that we have all heard anecdotal evidence of unemployed workers from the North being unable to take up work in London and the South-East because of high house prices. I agree that there can be little doubt that this is indeed a factor influencing the free movement of labour. Increased labour mobility would improve the flexibility of the labour market as the economy expands and develops, but it would not of itself create jobs. There are probably relatively few vacancies in any part of the country that could not be filled from within the area. Nevertheless, we are keen to ensure that housing is available where people want it and at a price that they can afford.
One of the ways of helping to achieve this would be through a revival of the private rented sector, which has declined by more than 350,000 units in less than a decade. We have already taken some steps to create the necessary conditions for this to occur. In 1980 we introduced assured tenancies, which allowed approved landlords to charge free market rents. The Housing and Planning Act has extended the scheme to renovated as well as new property, and that should lead to a big expansion in lettings. We are looking at further measures which may be introduced in due course.
We all know that there are problems of poor stock condition in both the public and private sectors in some parts of the country. I agree with the reference of my noble friend Lord Gisborough to the report of the committee chaired by His Royal Higness the Duke of Edinburgh. Great progress has been made over the years in reducing the number of homes without basic amenities, but problems of disrepair have been growing. We shall need to await the results of this year's English House Condition Survey to see the extent to which extra public expenditure on the stock in recent years has made an impact on the problem. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we shall release this as soon as possible.
The noble Lord argued that the extension of VAT at standard rates to house improvements and alterations

1181
in the 1984 Budget has hampered housing repair and maintenance work. This was a point of view that was expressed by the industry at the time. I suggest that it has proved somewhat in error. During 1984 repair and maintenance work grew by 3·2 per cent, and between 1983 and 1985 it grew by a total of 5·6 per cent. Over the same period new work increased by 3·8 per cent.
There have also been many arguments about the number of jobs created by a particular level of investment in the construction industry. Indeed, there are as many different views and figures as there are experts. Only policies which are based on those principles will secure the lasting jobs in the construction industry for which we all strive.
While there have been improvements in housing conditions during this century, there have also been, rightly, rising expectations amongst the population. Most of us want and expect a choice of housing. We want more privacy and more space. More of us want and expect to become home owners. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, spoke about this. It is right that in a civilized society people should expect standards to improve. Nonetheless this provides added pressure on the rented sector.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, pointed out, we now live in a multiracial society. The housing needs of ethnic minorities are an important dimension of housing policy. The issues of racial harassment and discrimination are, as I know from our debates during the passage of the recent Housing and Planning Bill, of great concern to the House. We must avoid the creation of ghettos of poor housing occupied by ethnic minority groups, which can only lead to feelings of bitterness and alienation from the rest of the community. I suggest that this is not normally a fault of the housing providers. I think it is widely accepted that we need a diversity of occupancy. That leads me at least to suppose that the way to achieve this goal is by better education. Teaching Hindu, Pakistani or whatever as primary languages, so downgrading English, is something that cannot possibly help. I was working in Zambia at the time of the highly successful "Black is Beautiful" campaign. I learnt then that we should listen to how the ethnic community speak of themselves, because understanding each other is the only way we shall get integration in housing or anything else. I accept the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, made when he was referring, with all his wisdom and experience, to education.
This leads to all governments seeking to give people a better choice of housing within the inevitable constraints of public expenditure. The way this Government have chosen to do it is by helping people help themselves. This approach has led, I suppose, to the inevitable intellectual struggles in the local authority mind.
It is a vast sea change for them to appreciate that being providers and managers of low rent houses is less appropriate in the run up to the 21st century. We should like to see them, as I am glad to say they are beginning to see themselves, assisting in the provision of a greater diversity in the rented sector, whether public or private. Maintaining those dwellings they own to a high standard and charging rents
1182
commensurate with that. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it should be an economic rent.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, claimed that elderly owner-occupiers cannot afford to repair their homes. We accept that this is the position with some elderly home-owners who find the business of home improvements confusing and discouraging. We announced last month grants of up to £3 million to meet half the cost of establishing 50 new agency services offering advice and practical help to elderly people. As the House will recall, our Housing and Planning Act contains an amendment introduced by your Lordships, to remove the legal bar in those types of housing association which were not permitted to operate agency services.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark stressed the importance of improving management on our council estates. The Urban Housing Renewal Unit was set up last year particularly to deal with this problem and has made an excellent start. It has now visited 130 authorities and as a result 86 schemes have been approved, involving nearly £41 million of public resources, on estates all over the country. These schemes, which concentrate on improved management, best security and attracting private sector skills and resources where appropriate, will be of direct benefit to some 45,000 homes.
I can remember very clearly responding to the late Lord Crawshaw of Aintree in our last major debate in this House early in the summer. I said then that we had increased provision by £200 million and that we hoped it would be possible to secure further increases. It is of course a great sadness to us all that he is not with us today, but he would, I am sure, have been pleased to know that we have increased the gross provision for capital expenditure on housing next year by £450 million and in particular that we have increased resources for the Housing Corporation—a point which I will return to presently.
In addition to the £3·66 billion of public expenditure that will be used for housing next year, there is likely to be about £10 billion spent by private owners on their own dwellings. It would be wrong to expect all the £3·6 billion to be spent on repairs and maintenance. We also urge local authorities to give priority to the provision of housing for those with special needs which cannot readily be met by the private sector, although any distinctions continue to be eroded. The private sector is now meeting a wider range of needs than ever before.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out that there are occasions when redevelopment has to take place. I agree that that has to be done with sensitivity both as regards the tenants and the existing use of the area in general. The law is clear that under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 the local authority must make appropriate arrangements to enable those of its secured tenants likely substantially to be affected by a housing management matter, such as the proposed renovation of dwellings in Danvers Street, to be informed of that matter and to make their views known.
The authority must take account of the views expressed in reaching its decision. That is not a tenants' veto. I refer the noble Earl to our discussions

1183
on that point during the course of the Housing and Planning Bill. However, within that parameter, consultation is a matter for the council. I was interested to hear the noble Earl say that, although it is the law, consultation did not appear to him to have taken place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, one of the councillors apologised for its not having taken place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot intervene or follow up the noble Earl's suggestion of a government inspector because I have no powers so to do. The law, however, provides two remedies. The first is the courts, which I accept are costly and may not be appropriate in this case—I hope that I do not receive a furious reaction from noble and learned Lords—or, secondly, through the local ombudsman. I understand that that case has already been referred to the ombudsman. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the case.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on that important point, and with regard to the shocking case related by the noble Earl, we take it that the people involved will be allowed to stay where they are until the ombudsman is satisfied. Is that right?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl on that point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Housing and Planning Bill which we completed a few weeks ago. Is it not a fact that people from this side of the Chamber, not just from my party but others, warned the Government that activities such as those about which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has been speaking would take place? That is why we thought there should be a mandatory ballot, paid for by the local authority. It would appear that the tenants do not have the protection under that Bill that the Government thought that they would have.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would not be profitable to rehash the arguments we had at that time on the Housing and Planning Bill. The point is that whatever form of consultations one has—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry. I should not wag my finger at the noble Earl. I am not talking about the case to which he referred, but it would be inappropriate for the minority to have a veto.
The Government have become increasingly concerned at the growing evidence of the problems faced by people living in privately owned blocks of flats. We strengthened the rights of those tenants in the Housing Act 1980, but the report of the Nugee Committee, which we set up to look at the problems, showed that more needs to be done to ensure that blocks are properly maintained and serviced.
The report provides an agenda for further legislation in this important area. The Bill which we intend to introduce this Session will give tenants important new rights. The main ones are a procedure for asking a
1184
court to appoint a manager where the block has been neglected; the right of first refusal where the landlord wishes to sell; and in leasehold blocks, where the ground landlord has failed in his duties, the right to apply to a court for the right to buy out his interest; tighter control over service funds and insurance, and the right to be consulted about the appointment of management agents.
However, the number of reasonably priced rented units in the private sector continues to worry us. We shall put the greater portion of our efforts into that over the next five years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that it is a matter of priorities. At a time when the expressed need of people was for home ownership, it was right to concentrate on that. Now that more and more houses are available to buy (some 160,000 a year are being built) we must concentrate on the rented sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made the point strongly that people in the rented sector have to pay the rent. The noble Lord asked me about regulations designed to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system by unscrupulous landlords. I am advised that evidence of such abuse is largely anecdotal. My department is currently discussing with the DHSS and the local authority associations ways of tightening up the system to prevent that abuse becoming more widespread. I do not consider that the answer lies in moves further to regulate the private rented sector. That would have serious consequences on our attempts to extend provision of accommodation in that sector.
The noble Lord also asked what steps we are taking to ensure that the system is ready for implementation in April 1988. I assure him that the Government are in close consultation with the local authority associations to ensure that all possible difficulties are smoothed out in good time.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that many socially responsible private landlords would be prepared to provide rented homes if they were allowed to charge a rent which gave them a reasonable return on their investment. We have begun in the Housing and Planning Act—which extended the assured tenancy scheme in the ways I mentioned earlier—to bring responsible private landlords back into the market.
I accept that we need to introduce further changes when possible but, nevertheless, I am not so sure that the fifty-fifty mix that my noble friend Lord Selkirk spoke of is right. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on taxation. I shall take that matter up with my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked whether the Government are looking towards housing requirement over the next 20 years. He suggested that at least 2 million more homes will be needed. I can tell him that at current levels of building more than 3 million new homes will be built by the private sector alone in that period. In addition, the public sector will continue to add its share of new provision, especially for those with special needs. I cannot predict what share of that new provision will be for rented accommodation. As I said, the Government are taking steps to encourage more investment in the private rented sector. I am confident

1185
that the developers will react positively to the new market opportunities presented to them.
Returning to the present, two specific initiatives have been granted additional resources for next year. The Estate Action Team, which as the Urban Housing Renewal Unit has already made tremendous progress in helping local authorities with the problems of their run-down estates, has been allocated £75 million for 1987–88, an increase of 50 per cent. on this year's allocation. The second initiative will, I am sure, be of particular interest to the House because it centres on the housing association movement and in its initial form is designed to help reduce the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1987–88, the details of which were announced yesterday, has been increased by £20 million to allow for provision of £30 million to be spent on schemes involving the private sector. Under that initiative, housing associations will receive grant for no more than 30 per cent. of a scheme's cost, with the private sector making up the balance.
The £30 million or so of public investment will therefore lead to additional housing expenditure of about ·100 million. I believe that that is an exciting breakthrough in the arrangements for financing housing association schemes. It is, I understand, similar to an Alliance proposal for a social housing sector, and I hope it will be welcomed by noble Lords in that corner of the House. A major priority for this additional money will be to provide, in consultation with the local authorities involved, interim accommodation for homeless families currently living in bed-and-breakfast hotels, the need for which we all deplore.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, asked whether guidance was available to housing associations to help them apply for revenue deficit grant under Sections 56 and 57 of the housing associations legislation. The answer is yes. I shall send him a copy thereof, and it would be appropriate if I were also to put a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned this matter, and I am rather surprised that there was only one, but the Government regret as much as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales the death of the proposed homeless hostel in Kennington. There is a most regrettable increase in homelessness, much of which has been caused by social factors. For example, the proportion of those made homeless because of marital breakdown has risen by 25 per cent. since 1979. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the problem of youth unemployment and indeed youth housing. Young people are leaving home without fully appreciating the difficulties of finding alternative accommodation.
The right reverend Prelate spoke on homelessness more generally. I agree with this depressing analysis. However, we need to answer this question. Do we have the right mix of government and private provision? It is easy to say that there is not enough government money, but I welcome the appreciation expressed by
1186
the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, of our efforts to increase private sector money for this purpose; for example, in the recent Building Societies Act. While these factors leading to homelessness are largely outside the Government's control, we recognise that there is preventive work that we can do. We are therefore planning to commission research on the housing consequences of breakdown in relationships. In addition, as I said when we debated the Housing and Planning Bill, we shall be setting up a working party with the local authority associations to look at the implications for housing management in the public sector. Both these matters will result in future actions.
However, the House will want to know about the present situation. My department has also offered to those London boroughs with the most acute homelessness problems direct help through the Estate Action Team. Extra resources, as well as the team's knowledge and expertise, have been offered to authorities which can take immediate advantage of them to bring empty units back into use for homeless families. It is up to the local authorities whose need in this area is greatest to use the service which we have provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the £6 billion which the local authorities now have as a result of the encouragement which the Government have given them over recent years to attract capital receipts. My noble friends and I, over numerous debates and questions, have explained to the House that local authorities can spend their capital receipts over time on building and renovating houses.
Last year local authority capital spending on housing was £2.6 billion. Of this sum, ·l billion—which I suggest is quite a lot of money—was funded from capital receipts which they themselves raised. I readily accept that they are not permitted by the Government to spend all their money at once. We are told by the economists that this would have dire inflationary effects. However, they do not lose this money. They retain it; and even with the 20 per cent. rule (about which the noble Baroness will know) they spend 50 per cent, within three years. If the noble Baroness wishes further information on that I shall have to write to her because I find it an extremely complicated subject to discuss verbally.
This has been an interesting, wide ranging and challenging debate. I have tried to put over the Government's belief that the main areas of our housing policy—to increase opportunities for home ownership and to provide greater variety and choice in the rented sector—are the most likely to bring economic and social benefits because they are based on providing the type of housing which people want. We admit there are difficult housing problems. These can only be tackled by the public and private sector working together.
It is easy to forget that in 1985 in England alone 160,000 dwellings were built, 110,000 public sector buildings were renovated and 245,000 private sector buildings were renovated, making a total of 515,000 dwellings in all. Public sector resources—although increased for next year—remain limited and must be focused on those parts with which the private sector cannot deal. In this way they will be used to maximum effect.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the time has come for me to draw this interesting, and I believe very important debate, to a conclusion. I hope that it will prove to have been helpful, but time alone will show that. As much of the debate has been anecdotal—we have heard most important anecdotes from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee—perhaps I may add my own.
It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that at the time my daughter was a student she regarded me as something of an expert on these matters. When she was housed with seven other students, paying very high rents in dilapidated premises in which neither the heating nor the hot-water system worked, she sought my advice. I advised her to call in the environmental health officer, and that she did. Some three weeks later she rang me in triumph and said, "Yes, he has been and has said that he is not going to tell the landlord we called him in. He is going to say it was a routine inspection and he has declared the place unfit for human habitation. That means the local authority will have to rehouse us". I said, "My dear, it means that the local authority will have a duty to rehouse you. It does not mean that it will do so. It means that it will put you on a housing list". As a result of seeking my advice on housing my daughter became homeless. I hope that my advice to your Lordships' House today may have more helpful results.
We have had some most interesting speeches. It has been demonstrated from all parts of your Lordships' House that this matter needs to be tackled on an all-party basis. It has also been emphasised over and over again in all parts of your Lordships' House that it needs to be tackled by the community itself. In that connection I should say a word of thanks for, and pay tribute to, the work of the community as represented by important organisations such as Shelter, SHAC and CHAR and other organisations working for the elderly such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, which do such splendid work in this field. I would not perhaps include them, but I would add the Churches in this area, because the work that they have done to spread awareness of the problems of homelessness and housing difficulties has been very important.
We have had interesting speeches from noble Lords in all parts of the House. Noble Lords have exercised a great deal of disciplinary restraint in making short speeches—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gairloch Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Shetland Islands Council (Ham Voe, Foula) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Supplementary Benefit: Mortgage Interest
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the arrangements for the payment of mortgage interest through the supplementary benefit system. As the House will know, eighteen months ago, in the Green Paper Reform of Social Security the Government declared their intention to examine arrangements for reducing supplementary benefit help with mortgage interest. This was confirmed last December in the White Paper. We said then we would discuss with building societies and others how we might take this forward.
"In May, following these discussions we referred proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The main change was designed to limit the amount of benefit payable during the first six months only of a claim to supplementary benefit. We have now considered the report of the advisory committee and other comments and laid draft regulations before the House today that embody the Government's decisions. The committee's report has also been laid together with the Government's response to it.
"The Government have decided to proceed with the principle of limiting supplementary benefit assistance for mortgage interest but to make two significant modifications to our consultative proposals. First, the period in which only half the mortgage interest payable will count in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit will be reduced from the six months originally proposed to four months. The regulations actually refer to 16 weeks. Thereafter the full amount of mortgage interest due will again become eligible for payment. Secondly, we have accepted entirely the SSAC's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a mortgage interest trap and the draft regulations have been amended to achieve this. This will help some people to qualify for supplementary benefit payments after 16 weeks who might otherwise not have been able to qualify at all.
"The draft regulations also include changes to tighten up the payment of benefit in cases where a home is also used for business purposes, where the mortgage includes a business loan, or where a home is unreasonably expensive. The SSAC have supported all these proposals and we are carrying them through. Our intention is to bring the changes into operation on 26th January 1987.

1189
"There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations shortly but there are several matters I wish to draw to the attention of the House concerning the main change. First, it will only affect new cases. Secondly, the changes will mainly affect short-term claimants. Fifty per cent. of unemployed people leave the register within three months. Thirdly, the draft regulations reflect several important safeguards and improvements. No one over 60 will be affected; those whose claims are longer lasting will get full help after 16 weeks and extra help with interest on any arrears arising from this restriction. There is also a linking rule between claims to protect people who go on and off benefit and a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies. Fourthly, the reduction in expenditure will be about £23 million compared with £30 million under the original proposals. Finally, we shall be encouraging and helping claimants to make early contact with their lenders to avoid difficulties.
"I should like to stress to the House that the SSAC have acknowledged in their report that the changes should not bring significant financial hardship to the majority of claimants affected. They were of course commenting in the context of the six months' restriction and not the lesser 16 weeks now proposed. Moreover, the Building Societies Associations have indicated that they will respond to changes sympathetically and responsibly. These are welcome and important assurances. I hope therefore that, with the safeguards and concessions I have described, the House will recognise that the Government have struck a fair and reasonable balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am especially glad that the noble Baroness has told the House there will be an opportunity to debate these regulations. I can assure her that I shall be as brief as I possibly can, not only because I am very much opposed to Statements turning themselves into debates but also because we have been promised a full debate. Also, there is another very important subject before your Lordships later this evening.
Perhaps I may ask one or two questions in order to clarify the Statement. I welcome, as do all of us, the reduction from six months to 16 weeks referred to in the Statement. I understand from the Statement that the Government reckon there will be a saving of about £23 million as a result of this change. Will the Minister tell us how much an average family on supplementary benefit will lose in these circumstances? I have been given a figure of approximately £8 per week. That is quite a lot for a family on supplementary benefit to find out of their existing benefit, especially as they will also be trying to pay something off the capital.
I appreciate what the Minister said about approaches to the building societies, but there are many people whose mortgages come from banks, finance houses and second mortgages. Will the
1190
Minister tell us whether there have been any sympathetic conversations with those other organisations?
I should also like to ask whether, in estimating a saving of £23 million as a result of these changes, the Government have taken into account that there may be increased homelessness following the difficulties in getting building society interest paid. It seems to me that that should not be overlooked. The figures I have from the Building Societies Association show that in 1979 they repossessed 2,530 properties as a result of failure to keep up payments. By 1985 that figure had risen to 16,590. Homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation or other emergency accommodation are accounted for to the extent of 10 per cent. by people whose homes have been repossessed as a result of mortgage failures. I feel it is essential that in a fuller debate we should look at this question. There are causes and effects which must be taken together. It seems to me that we are in danger of increasing repossessions, leading to more expense and misery.
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether there will be any consideration for special hardship. Without going into too much detail, I am thinking of deserted wives who suddenly find themselves in trouble because their errant husbands have left and fallen behind with the mortgages.
I will not take up further time of the House today. many of my noble friends and I are very apprehensive lest there may be greater hardship and homelessness and all these attempts to make a property owning democracy extend itself may result in hardship and homelessness for some of our people.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am bound to say that we on these Benches are also unhappy about this proposal. We are glad, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that the period of reduction is to be reduced from six to four months. We also note that the reduction is to apply only to newcomers. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is correct, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, that the new cases will lose an average of £8 per week, as compared with now, and that it will be greater in particular cases? Also, is it correct that as a result most claimants will fall into arrears? We know that evictions have been increasing in recent years. Will they not be further increased by this measure? The Statement says that the saving will be £23 million. In view of the drawbacks, is it worth making this particular saving in a social security budget of £44 billion?
I mentioned during the debate which we have just concluded that the cost of mortgage interest relief is £4,750 million and that if that were reduced to the standard rate, a saving of £320 million could be made. I should like to ask whether that proposal has the support of the building society movement. The Statement says that the building societies will respond sympathetically, but what was their reaction to the proposal?
Finally, who else was consulted? For example, was the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

1191
consulted? It would seem important to have the benefit of the advice of those people who are themselves giving advice to people faced with these problems.
I have pointed out to the Minister my first reactions but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I want to consider the details very carefully when the regulations come before the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. They are both perfectly right: there will be an opportunity to discuss these affirmative regulations, and the question of when will be a matter for the usual channels.
As regards the increase in homelessness, the effect of the proposals must not be exaggerated. Only a tiny proportion of mortgages are seriously in arrears. The proposals will increase the average family's mortgage arrears by £170, which is not over-significant when compared with the average 25-year mortgage debt and the £12 billion interest and £12 billion capital repayments made to building societies in 1985. Indeed, SSAC acknowledges that the original, harsher proposals would not have led to significant financial hardship for the majority of claimants.
The Government acknowledge that lending organisations will need to operate proposals sensitively and they are confident that they will do so. Various bodies have been consulted on this issue—for example, the Halifax Building Society. I cannot answer for the particular body to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, but numerous bodies were consulted and the answer that we received was that they would deal with the matter sympathetically. I remind your Lordships that when the miners went on strike, no mortgage payments were made but the miners were not dispossessed of their homes. The building societies acted extremely responsibly during that time.
As regards the special position of people suffering hardship, I point out that I have a note on wives but not on husbands. I hope that that is not sexist! However, as regards the position of people suffering hardship—for example, lone parents and the sick and disabled—the Government's decision to reduce the restriction period from six to four months and to avoid the mortgage trap will lessen the impact on all claimants. Those such as lone parents, the sick and the disabled, whose claims may be long term, will have their full interest met after four months, plus any element attributable to capitalised arrears. The Government will look carefully at the operation of the changes to see whether more needs to be done and would advise all claimants to contact their lender at an early stage. The arrangements for the department, with the claimant's consent, to notify lenders that benefit is being paid will greatly assist.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about whether it was worth making the saving of £23 million. My answer is most certainly yes. The Government are seeking to establish a fair and reasonable balance among the lender, the borrower and taxpayer; the proposals are not just about saving money. I have been passed a note and I am happy to say that the citizens'
1192
advice bureaux were among the organisations that were consulted.
I am sure that I have been asked other questions. However, there is just one other point that I should like to bring out and it concerns a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. I have already said that the average family will have £170 added to its outstanding mortgage loan if it remains on benefit for the full 16 weeks. However, many claimants do not stay on benefit that long: 50 per cent. of unemployed people go off the register within three months. I suggest to your Lordships that we return to this matter on another day.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the building societies have been brought into the heart of this matter. Are not the Government being far too lenient with them? Are they to remain aside like a lot of moneylenders, without feeling some responsibility for a situation which arises from the relations between moneylenders and borrowers? Are not the building societies, or some of them, racing too hastily in the market for unsecured loans and other financial services and not paying enough attention to the trail of distress which is being left behind by overlending?
It seems to me that the building societies, which are amply provided with funds to deal with distress, callously rejected the proposal which I put forward during the passage of the Building Societies Bill that either building societies should be given permission, or the Building Societies Commission should be given authority, to request building societies to create distress and hardship funds.
When I was connected with the movement we had such a fund and nobody was allowed to fall into any situation which involved serious peril to the home and property. Will the Government tackle the matter? they are dealing now with a great many societies that want to be in the moneylending market on a very large scale. If the nation is to continue borrowing and borrowing, those who lend should take some responsibility for the consequences.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should prefer not to embark on a debate on the rights and wrongs of the building societies. I merely say to the noble Lord that it is surely wrong for anyone to enter into a mortgage commitment on the understanding or otherwise that help will be available from state benefit if he falls on hard times.

AIDS
5.47 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to call attention to the measures announced by the Government to combat AIDS, to the research dimension, and to the problems of care and treatment posed by the disease; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have tabled this Motion because we believe that your Lordships' House has a constructive contribution to make to the national debate on AIDS. I shall not go into the characteristics of the disease, which have been

1193
frequently described in the press, on television, in the Government's leaflets and other leaflets and in advertisements. Despite the focus on the sexual aspects of transmission, I do not believe that there is widespread support in this country for retrospective moral judgments or punitive measures. I think that the general view is that we start from where we are and not from where we ought to be; and the important point is where we are going. I think that that is the Government's view, too.
Recently the Government announced a major public information and education campaign, which we welcome and on which we congratulate them. The Secretary of State's announcement was followed by a debate in another place in which the sense of national emergency cut right across party lines. At this point I should like to acknowledge the openness with which the Government have provided briefings for spokesmen of Opposition parties. All that helps to create an atmosphere in which members of all parties and none can join forces. However, we must all recognise that it will be a long, hard campaign.
My basic proposition this evening is that the campaign cannot ultimately succeed unless it is conducted simultaneously on three fronts: first, prevention, in which education aimed at modification of behaviour is the most powerful weapon: secondly, care and counselling of the afflicted in which the NHS must take the lead, though the voluntary bodies have a vital role, too; thirdly, research, which offers our only hope of defeating rather than containing the disease. An alternative to the military metaphor is that of a tripod which will not stand up unless all three legs are in place.
The Government have begun well on one leg—that of prevention. The Secretary of State has increased funding in that area from the £2 million originally pencilled in for 1986–87 to £20 million—a very substantial increase. The College of Health of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington suggested £30 million. However, broadly we are in or on the threshold of a realistic level of expenditure. Even so, it is only if this campaign is properly backed up by the necessary services that it can achieve its full potential.
While still in the area of prevention, there is one sensitive issue on which I want to touch. Have the Government made up their mind about the recommendation of the McClelland report that clean needles and syringes should be issued to drug addicts on a new for old basis? I am aware of the objections, but we must rank our priorities. The Government say that there is very little spread into the heterosexual community so far. But we have to remember that addicted prostitutes are a major bridge into the community at large. Chilling evidence of this was provided by the ITN programme of 2nd December on prostitution in Edinburgh, which some of your Lordships may have seen. Naturally we hope that behaviour will change, but history offers no grounds for expecting it to change overnight. And it is likely to be slower among certain alienated and fringe groups. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to make an announcement about this tonight, or perhaps we shall have to wait for the Secretary of State's return from Amsterdam where this has been brought into practice.
1194
Either way, I hope that the Government will take the plunge.
I come now to the main problems confronting the National Health Service. First, there are those coming right up the track that will stem directly from the Government's publicity campaign. The voluntary demand for testing has already increased fourfold in some hospitals. After 23 million leaflets have gone through letterboxes, backed by television advertisements, this may well quadruple again, imposing a terrible strain on sexually transmitted disease clinics and voluntary bodies already working to capacity. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness what measures are in hand to meet this demand. It will severely vitiate the effects of the campaign if people coming in for testing or counselling are turned away; this could drive some people to despair and tip others back into the very anti-social behaviour that the campaign is designed to prevent.
Then there are the built-in demands that the system will face over the next five years or so and that it would still face if a vaccine were discovered tomorrow. There have been various estimates of carriers and potential cases. The surest guide is almost certainly the approximate doubling of patient numbers every year. Taking 600 cases this year, a simple geometrical progression gives us nearly 10,000 cases in 1990 and nearly 20,000 in 1991. The most reliable estimate of the cost to the NHS of an AIDS patient from presentation to death, based on a study of 40 cases by Mr. Malcolm Rees, is £18,000. Therefore, 20,000 cases would represent an NHS cost of £360 million compared to only £4.5 million attributable to the current year. These figures, which are not based on the most alarmist projections, indicate the scale of the problem confronting the NHS.
As regards human resources AIDS care, treatment and counselling are extremely labour-intensive. Training of new staff is, therefore, essential; otherwise, the dedicated teams that have been in the front line for several years with the same personnel are simply going to burn out.
It is also vital, on humane and financial grounds, that facilities should match the phases of the disease. Much of the treatment could take place in outpatient clinics with day beds to relieve the pressure on acute beds. In order to equip such a clinic, St. Stephens, Fulham, needs only £150,000 to top up a charitable gift of £500,000 and thereafter just under £200,000 a year revenue costs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that this will be approved.
St. Mary's Paddington, needs to increase seven or eight AIDS beds to 20, but not at the expense of other provision in the hospital. St. Mary's "path lab" may be crippled by a threatened cut of a few thousand pounds as part of the district squeeze. Surely, that would be folly. These relatively small demands, if not met, will cause great strains, and will soon be very much magnified. It is therefore vital to get a proper funding mechanism in place. I will return to that at the end of my speech.
I turn to voluntary bodies. Representing as they do the spontaneous reaction of society to this terrible disease, they clearly deserve, and must have, our support. I will not go into much detail because my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington is much more

1195
knowledgeable in this field. His college of health runs a healthline that includes AIDS information. The development of a hospice movement will clearly be important to relieve pressure on hospitals as the disease spreads. This is best done under non-governmental auspices, but it may need some government help. Perhaps the noble Baroness will say something about that.
The Terence Higgins Trust, which is running on only £300,000 a year, including a grant of £100,000 from the noble Baroness's department, desperately needs funds to move from its present warehouse warren to a place with a walk-in area and more space for information and live counselling. It has 300 volunteers on its books whom it cannot begin to deploy in present circumstances. It provides domiciliary care to about 100 patients, thus freeing hospital beds, and this number will clearly rise.
It is also the base of an extremely impressive flying squad called Frontliners, composed of AIDS victims who are still well enough and brave enough to succour their housebound fellow sufferers. The morality of our age is often denounced, but there is another side of the coin. Some truly admirable acts of mutual help have come to light among the worst afflicted. I, for one, should like to pay tribute to them. All is not doom and gloom on the moral front.
Before leaving current sufferers, may I raise the question of social security with the noble Baroness. There is no special benefit to AIDS victims who, like those with terminal cancer, notice the cold more and require special diets. Also, permanent doses of antibiotics devitaminise the body and may require up to £10 a week of vitamin supplements, while heavy sweats may require frequent changes of bed linen and clothing leading to high laundry bills. A single person's sickness benefit of £29 a week even when brought up to £38 or so by heating and laundry allowances is not much to get by on in these appalling circumstances. Will the noble Baroness look into this?
The Motion also embraces research. This is the third leg of my tripod. The present AIDS-related sums funded by the Medical Research Council are extremely modest—£1.5 million on 15 projects over two to three years, of which health departments have provided £300,000 entirely for epidemiology. Of course, the MRC is not the only—or even the largest—source of research funds, but it is almost certainly the best lead body for the AIDS epidemic. There is a strong case for its commissioning research in this field rather than just waiting for applications. It has been claimed that no worthwhile AIDS projects have been turned down, but there are other views on this.
When pressed on this precise point at Question Time on 4th December, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe—and I took down his words—said,
"Have we got the right people in the right places where the money can be spent?".
He then added that if anyone could help to identify them, the sums were relatively small and there should be no difficulty. I welcome that, because identification is not difficult.
There are two essential points to make. First, we enjoy specially fertile conditions arising from the
1196
interface between academic medicine and the NHS, which we debated in your Lordships' House only the other day, and whose underfunding some of us sharply criticised then. This is peculiar to this country and offers unique opportunities for clinical research; that is, unless our excellent cadre of clinical scientists simply caves in under the strain of overwork and shortage of funds. Inspirationally-led teams are in danger of dispersal. That would be little less than a tragedy under the current circumstances.
Secondly, the easy-going notion that we can just leave it to the Americans is just not on. America tends to throw money at repetitive research; our research productivity, on a far lower budget, is very high. There are outstanding British achievements already in the AIDS field. It was precisely because of the quality of our basic research in molecular biology that we were able to develop an anti-body test in the fantastically short time of only one-and-a-half years after the discovery of the virus by the French. That is the sort of achievement, including a possible prototype vaccine, that we are putting in jeopardy by the Government's general policy of attrition of research funds by 2 per cent. per annum.
This is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It is one of the things that we are good at. If the Foreign Secretary, or any other member of the Government, were to talk to Professor Jarrett of Edinburgh, Professor Boyd of Manchester, Professors Weiss and Tedder, or Doctors Farthing and Pinching, here in London, I think that he would be left in no doubt that we have—so far—the right people in the right places and that a relatively small injection of money, by international standards, could be crucial in a field in which we excel.
There are many other important AIDS-related topics such as housing, employment and schools on which I have not touched and which time does not allow me to touch, but I am sure that other noble Lords will speak about them during the course of this debate.
In conclusion, I come to my main point, which is that we urgently need a national strategic plan in which money and method must go hand in hand. The Secretary of State has asked all health authorities to submit their plans for dealing with AIDS by the end of this month, but their plans in the final analysis must depend very largely on his; that is to say, on the Government's. He must reassure them that AIDS funding will not simply be sliced out of the main National Health Service budget, because that would set colleague against colleague and department against department and could lead to a rising tide of public resentment as other services were adversely affected. It must be new money.
I therefore propose something like this. The DHSS should certainly remain the lead department. Its AIDS unit should become the national command post. To avoid mismatch (which has occurred) between top-down allocation and evolving health authority needs, district authorities' bids should be fed directly into the AIDS unit, whose responses should be geared to the national strategic plan, which does not yet exist though elements of it are there in embryo.
How would this plan be agreed and how would it work? It would be negotiated by the Secretary of State

1197
for Social Services with the Cabinet on the advice of a national aids council constituted from elements of the chief medical officer's present advisory committee supplemented by the royal colleges, the MRC and health economists, presided over, I suggest, by the Minister of Health. Its main job would he to recommend, on the basis of all the national and international facts, the level of AIDS-related public expenditure on a medium-term basis of not less than three years. That should be outside the RAWP formula. After approval or amendment at Cabinet level, it would be the task of the administrative arm of the AIDS unit to see that the relevant sums were dispatched direct to destination and applied as intended.
One sub-committee of the council drawn from the MRC working party, clinical academics and industry should recommend the level of government-funded AIDS-related research; another sub-committee could deal with the needs of voluntary bodies, possibly in liaison with a new fund-raising charity. It may well be possible to devise a better model, a better perspective, from inside government; or possibly other noble Lords—and I am thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, with his great experience—may be able to suggest a better model than mine. What I am saying is that some such system is essential; otherwise we shall always be catching up and never be ahead of this deadly game.
On next year's funding, I do not want to be dogmatic. Allowing for increased NHS revenue and capital costs and some additional sums for research and voluntary bodies (and including the £20 million pledged by the Secretary of State), my guess is that we are looking at some £60 million. As to the future, I believe that the right levels will emerge from the kind of framework I am suggesting because we shall be asking the right questions and getting nearer, with experience, to the right answers.
Finally, if we really activate all the strengths of our National Health Service, the skills of research establishments, the commitment of our voluntary bodies and the commonsense morality of the British people, I believe that we can avert catastrophe. But we need all these interlocking elements if we are to win. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a highly emotional subject, and of course rightly so because unless we arouse people's feelings and interest to the extent that is necessary we shall not have the disease contained and people in general sufficiently aware of the need to take precautions. HIV—human immuno-deficiency virus infection—includes AIDS. The word "AIDS" is applied when it becomes the full-blown disease, and at that stage 90 per cent. of people affected die within three years. But there is a much larger number of people who are carriers, known or not known—people who are infected with this virus.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the number of cases has doubled every year since 1983. Half of the cases in the United Kingdom are in the north-west Thames region in London. The Praed Street clinic, which again
1198
has been referred to, operates an open door technique and it has always been famous for the excellent care it has given to patients with sexually-transmitted diseases. People go there because of the anonymity and availability of the service.
In fairness to the DHSS, I must say that they have made additional funds available there. In this year alone they gave an extra £500,000 through the region, so it is not that they have been expected to provide all the service without any help. There is of course a great need for the future to assess what is going to be needed from here on, and there is a case before that district health authority this very day to consider the various aspects of this matter.
The publicity given so far has been so successful that there has been an enormous increase in the number of people presenting themselves for screening just in the last month since these campaigns started. Of the 1,285 cases screened between October 1985 and 1986, 191 were antibody positive; that is, one for every seven cases tested. In October 1986 alone, 297 people applied for screening. That is the equivalent of 22 per cent of the number in the previous year in that one month. In the first two weeks of November 220 more came and asked for screening.
Of the 700 screened in the period from June to October 1986 there were only 11 per cent. positive cases; and indeed there has been no increase in the number. The number of positive cases has remained fairly constant. That is because as more and more people come there are more and more in the low-risk categories and therefore the good news is that the proportion is not increasing; but of course it is to everyone's advantage to discover, if possible, the cases which are the carriers.
The service is under great stress now, and there will be a need for more health advisers, research workers, contact tracers and support staff. All those categories will be needed if the new publicity campaign that we are going to see creates a great explosion. It is important to give people an awareness but not to create a great fear. That is a worry at the present time. A lot of people are quite unnecessarily frightened. I have heard of mothers whose children have picked up a toy somewhere. If such a child has blown a toy whistle someone has said, "Put that down. You will catch AIDS". That is a total misunderstanding of the way this disease is transmitted.
As a practising dentist I must say that we are very much at risk in this matter. People have a worry that they may go to the dentist and pick up AIDS. There is no known case yet where it has ever been transmitted through a dental surgery. There is no known case either of any dentist who has contracted it. Nevertheless, there has been a workshop of the dental health and science committee of the British Dental Association which has considered cross-infection in dentistry. It was originally set up because of hepatitis B, which is course of much greater risk to dentists but at least one can be immunised against it.
However, the Committee recommends that there should be comprehensive sterilisation in the surgery for all equipment used, and that all equipment should be sterilised between patients. Of course there are costs involved. An autoclave costs a minimum of £1,200,

1199
and because you need a lot of additional items of instruments and other equipment there is going to be expenditure of, say, £4,000 to provide adequate sterilisation.
Gloves are recommended for dentists to wear. Yesterday I saw a report in The Times saying that dentists should wear gloves, a mask and goggles. I thought "Heavens, people are frightened enough of a dentist already. Just imagine the reaction if you went in and got confronted by that." My research today—and I have spoken to all the experts on this matter in dentistry—indicates that goggles and a mouth mask are really not necessary, though some dentists may like to use them in a known case or in a advanced case.
On the subject of general hygiene, many members of the public do not know that bleach is a very effective disinfectant. A solution of one in ten household bleach will kill an AIDS virus, because it is a very low grade virus and is easily dealt with in that way. But not all materials can be treated with bleach. The woman who is at home and is very worried about her kitchen counter would be helped by knowing that just an ordinary household bleach solution used to wipe that bench and left in position would do that much good. The situation with dentists is to use good techniques, to sterilise and cleanse and to use disposable needles. I was interested to hear that 40 per cent. of the injuries to dentists through pricking themselves is because they are trying to put the cover back on a needle to keep it safe for someone else. I am pleased to see that needles are now being developed which will retract into the syringe after they have been used. That will be marvellous for all forms of disposal and a great protection to people.
The DHSS has played an important part in sending circulars round to all the dentists. There has been guidance from the chief dental officer on these precautions and postgraduate courses have been set up for general dental practitioners so that they can be brought right up to date with the techniques that are necessary. Instructions have been issued to family practitioner committees to check that good sterilisation procedures are being carried out in dental surgeries.
The message to go out from dentistry is that patients should not be concerned. If they are concerned they should ask the dentist and satisfy themselves that good techniques are being used. They should not put off necessary dental treatment simply because they are afraid as a result of rumours they have heard which are not based on fact. The only good thing that might come out of this terrible disease, which is such a scourge on our society, is the thought that the attention of the whole world is concentrated on trying to find a cure and a solution. With the resources that are being devoted throughout the world perhaps we may find that the researches solve more than just this disease. They may find the answers to other diseases that have troubled the world for so long. Let us hope so.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for enabling us to have this debate. I was glad to hear the way in which he introduced it and I am grateful to him
1200
for it. I am also very pleased to be following the noble Baroness, with whose speech I agreed very much.
AIDS is a worldwide problem. In this country by the end of October 1986, 548 cases of AIDS had been reported to our Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre. Of those 278 have died. As we have been told, the number of cases doubles about every nine to 10 months. It is estimated that there will be 1,300 patients in 1987 and 3,000 in 1988. It is likely that 30,000 individuals may have been infected with the AIDS virus. It is estimated that 30 per cent. may—the word is "may"—go on to develop the full pattern of the illness that is AIDS. But as there is no known maximum possible incubation period before the disease becomes apparent this percentage may increase.
Even if further transmission of the virus were to stop forthwith, there would still be thousands of cases within the next few years. We know that many others will suffer from dementia, as the virus attacks the central nervous system. If you are infected with the virus, you can infect others for the rest of your life. Some time later, four weeks to a year, you can develop antibodies and you may—the word is still "may"—go on to develop the full AIDS pattern of illness in which diseases such as pneumonia may be fatal.
Although all these people in the UK are already infected with the AIDS virus—so there will be several thousand sufferers over the next few years—we are faced with a challenge which we can meet. It is not yet too late to prevent the spread of AIDS into the general population of this country. AIDS is not the plague that it is often made out to be. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness speak the way she did, because she reminded the House that the virus is easily destroyed by bleach or by heating to above 90 degrees for 10 minutes.
AIDS is not spread through the air, by coughs and sneezes, nor indeed through food or water. It is safe to eat food prepared by infected individuals, to share most washing, eating and drinking utentils or toilet facilities and to live with infected individuals, provided sexual contact is avoided. Sharing toothbrushes. razors or other items likely to become contaminated with blood may be a source of risk, though, as the noble Baroness had told us, so far no one is known to have become infected by this route. The AIDS virus is only spread through sexual contact, infected blood or from mother to unborn child. This allows great scope for the control of the spread of infection.
Since the advent of AIDS into this country there has been a marked decline in sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals, suggesting that they have changed their habits. This suggests that a really concerted effort at health education, using the best expertise and all forms of the media, could be effective in slowing the spread of infection in this country. I am glad that the Government have provided additional resources for this, but the campaign should be long, hard and intensive. Resources greater than the £20 million so far suggested will be required.
Health education is vital and should explicitly describe the way in which AIDS is transmitted and how it can be avoided. However, if we are to persuade our young people that we really mean it, something

1201
more than mere advertisement is needed. We should reinforce the health education message by making condoms widely available at the places and times where sexually active young people meet. For people who inject drugs it is not enough just to say "Always use a clean needle". We must provide the clean needle.
But we must do more than that. We must make it very much easier for drug addicts to receive treatment and very early in their treatment they must be persuaded to stop injecting. This involves a tremendous increase in drug rehabilitation clinics so that drug addicts can walk into one and be accepted for treatment, just as they can a VD clinic. Active treatment of drug addicts must be regarded as an important part of the campaign against the spread of AIDS. The Government must take this on board.
There are grounds for hope. Thanks to remarkable developments in the sciences of immunology and molecular biology during the last 20 years or so, the cause of AIDS was identified extremely quickly after the first cases appeared among homosexuals in America. We now know far more about the virus that causes AIDS and how it attacks the body than we have ever known about any other disease at a comparable stage in its history. A new drug called AZT is being tested. It does not cure AIDS but it may help to slow the progression of the disease. Currently scientists are working towards a vaccine to prevent AIDS. While we should not expect this vaccine to be available for a few years at least, the more support and resources we provide for research the sooner we shall be able to prevent and treat this dreadful disease. I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. had to say.
The Government must increase resources not only for the MRC but also for the pharmaceutical industry, for it is the pharmaceutical industry that is most likely to help us by providing a drug which will destroy the virus, slow its activity, enable the immune system to overcome it or strengthen the immune system. We must always remember that it was through the arsenicals, and later penicillin, that we conquered syphilis. Success in the fight againt AIDS requires the co-operation of the groups most at risk and we must not alienate them by blaming them, by imposing upon them moral views they do not share or by isolating or discriminating against them.
Because AIDS cannot be transmitted through ordinary forms of contact, there is no medical reason to restrict the rights of sufferers or infected individuals. Because of the nature of AIDS and the available methods of testing for infection, screening and isolation would not be effective in controlling it. We must not spend our time going down that road. Finally, we must be prepared to take care of those who are affected and we must show them the standards of care and compassion that all ill people have a right to expect.
At different stages of the illness they have different needs. Full in-patient treatment in a general acute hospital is needed during episodes of acute illness, but in the later stages of the disease sensitive nursing in a peaceful home or hospice environment is more appropriate. All this requires money. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, it may cost about
1202
£18,000—or, as is the estimate given to me, about £20,000—per patient spread over two years.
What we want is for the Government to make sure that resources are available. That is very much part of their job. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to assure the House that the Government are fully alive to their obligations and will provide the necessary resources to enable the community to withstand this challenge successfully. The point is that we can successfully overcome this challenge if we pursue it in the right way and with the requisite amount of vigour. I hope that we shall do so.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in the earlier short debate today which I had the honour of opening the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, apologised to your Lordships and to me for not having been here to hear my speech. He will realise that I have had no opportunity of avoiding hearing his speech since I had to speak immediately afterwards. But he may like to know that I listened to it with very great care and I agree wholeheartedly with his concluding remarks.
I think that the first debate we had in your Lordships' House on this subject was on 18th March—that is, about 21 months ago—initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It was a most interesting debate. At that time I think that I asked some eight or nine questions and looking back at them I find that only about three so far have been finally and clearly answered, which shows that we still have much to learn.
At that time I told the Government spokesman who answered the debate that I thought that one of the most urgent requirements was to convince the British public that this was not a disease which exclusively affected the homosexual population. I am bound to say that we have not yet succeeded in that task. There are still people who think that this is a disease that affects homosexuals and homosexuals alone. Of course we know that it affects haemophiliacs and we know that of one class of patients suffering from haemophilia 50 per cent. are now infected with AIDS; a tragic figure. We also know that babies are born with AIDS. Mainly these are babies born to parents who are intravenous drug addicts. We know that too, and I do not think that anybody suggests that these babies are homosexuals or anything of the kind.
The important lesson to get over is that the disease is a disease and that it is very important indeed that the whole British public should understand fully how it is transmitted. When they understand that, we are in with a chance perhaps of conquering it. Much of the earlier work done for the public in regard to this disease was done by members of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I say this not as a criticism of that trust, which has done marvellous work, but it was set up as a result of the tragic death of a homosexual youth, and that tended to reinforce the belief in the public mind that this was exclusively a problem for homosexual people. It is not.
Having mentioned the Terrence Higgins Trust, to which we should all be grateful, let me say that counselling both of sufferers and of friends and relations of sufferers is crucial in this area. Most of the

1203
early counselling was provided at very considerable personal cost by members of the trust. Counselling is not just a matter of being sympathetic, and saying kind words and listening; it is a highly skilled, professional craft. If people are counselling patients in this desperate condition they themselves are exposed to serious dangers of psychological trauma. A counsellor is attached to one patient and develops a relationship with that patient. In the fullness of time the patient dies—and these patients all die; I know that we all die but they die sooner—and the counsellor goes to another patient, establishes another relationship and then that patient dies.
That is not a satisfactory situation. I mention it merely to say that there is a desperate need for more professionally trained counsellors in this field. Had she been here, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, would have echoed that. I think that the requirement is for training and for investment. It also requires a certain amount of government action to provide the necessary skills and professional expertise for counselling.
I now come to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, with whom I always agree profoundly because she is at the grass roots of some medical matters. What she said about screening was very important indeed. A lot has been said about screening. It has been suggested in your Lordships' House that everybody coming to this country should be screened and tested. About 6 million visitors come to Britain every year. It takes about three months to get a result from a blood test. What do you do in the interval? Do you put them all in hotels near Heathrow and then wait for three months? And when you have the answer, what do you do then? You can do nothing at all. Perhaps you can send some away. The same applies to screening the whole population here. It would consume a massive amount of resources, resources which are already in scarce supply.
Having screened people and obtained the answers. what do you do? We are in the sad situation that we can do nothing except to tell people that they are infected or they are not infected. Let us look at screening not as a measure whereby if we screen everybody suddenly we know whether or not we are all right. What are we to do? Are we to have them all coloured blue, red or some other hue as being the people with the wrong blood test result? It is not a practical proposal at all. I ask noble Lords to remember that.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, in his excellent opening speech, concentrated very much on research. How right he is. I should like to say a few words about that. Certainly we all hope that some day there will be a vaccine that will provide protection against this desperate disease. But it takes very many years indeed to pioneer and develop a protective vaccine and I do not see the possibility of one being available for at least 15 years. If one is available then, splendid! The answer is to develop a specific and effective therapeutic agent as rapidly as possible. It is in that field that more research needs to be carried out.
We have in Britain perhaps the leading virologists in the world. We also have a situation at the moment where most of the clinical work in looking after AIDS
1204
patients is being done by members of university academic staff, clinical teachers. The people who ought to be doing the research do not have the time. They are busy dealing with the patients, because the resources for dealing with them are not there. The research is being left to the Americans. I am not saying that they will not do it properly; they might do it as well as we could. One of my fears is that some of our brightest research workers in this field may decide to go over to America and perhaps work there, where they have better resources and better opportunities to carry out the research work. This point was referred to in a debate only very recently with regard to the crisis over academic clinical staff.
Let me come quickly to one other point; I shall be as quick as I can. I am not one for censuring television. I am not one of Mrs. Whitehouse's gang. I do not like violence on television and I always switch it off; but I am not in favour of censorship. However, I believe that fictional television has some effect and it sets an example. I find that now in a television fictional series if ever a man meets a woman you can guarantee they will be in bed together in no time at all; similarly, if a boy meets a girl it is suggested somehow that casual sex and promiscuity are the norm.
They were not the norm in my young days, even for me, and I was not one for following the rules! I do not honestly think that they are the norm today, but I believe that in fictional series in particular an example can be set. If we all agree, and I think that we do, that we should set an example in regard to smoking, that characters in fictional series should not smoke and that there should be less smoking, perhaps on television there should be less of something which rhymes with "smoking", although I shall not actually say what it is.
Let me refer briefly to one other point. This has been an interesting short debate. The Alliance, which is two parties, is allowed three days on which to choose the subjects for debate. Divide three into two and you get one and a half; and so today on two very important subjects—first housing and now AIDS—we have two short debates. If the Alliance had four days instead of three, your Lordships would have had a full day's debate on housing and you would now have a full day's debate on AIDS—and both warrant that.
6.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing this timely debate. I should like to say how much I agree with him that we must not be moralistic about those who may unfortunately already have the AIDS virus. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just given us a very grim picture about research. That is all the more reason to ask that research should be co-ordinated internationally, if possible. It seems to me that this is a worldwide disease. I read the World Health Organisation's forecast and it seems that there will be 100 million people infected with this virus by 1988. It seems to me that if ever there was a case for international co-operation, it is here.
I am sure there will be a general welcome for the publicity that the Government are giving to the dangers of AIDS. Most AIDS cases, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would agree, actually

1205
come from sexual transmission. However, I wonder whether the present advertisements are explicit enough. What is needed is clear language; words which ordinary people understand and use. I confess to being a little disappointed by what I have seen so far. It seems to me it is better to be explicit than to cause death by failing to convey a warning crudely enough. I should like to think that Her Majesty's Government would call on young people's magazines to co-operate here. Also, I should like public advertisements to be oriented towards those carriers of the AIDS virus who have not developed the disease. Surely, they are the people who are most dangerous and who have a special obligation not to pass it on to others.
I spoke at some length on this subject when we were debating the Address on the gracious Speech. Obviously I do not want to repeat myself but I feel that I must again enter a call for chastity as the only safe way of avoiding AIDS, transmitted through sexual intercourse. By "chastity" I refer to abstinence from all immoral sexual intercourse, to chastity before, during and outside marriage and, so far as homosexuals are concerned, either to sexual abstinence or, if thought right, to exclusive loyalty to a single partner.
I do not think it is impossible to bring about a fundamental change in lifestyle in this matter if we have the co-operation of the mass media that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has indicated we need. Condoms, which feature in Government publicity, no doubt have a place for people who will not adhere to this standard. There seems to be no objection to continuing the provision of free condoms, providing it is done in a way and in places that would not encourage their use in a promiscuous way. However, it is a fact that condoms are not totally effective. They are not totally effective as contraceptives, and they will not be totally effective in preventing AIDS. Also, publicity for condoms does not guarantee their use. The "safer sex" campaign in the United States did not raise the profits last year of the best-known company which manufactures condoms. I could wish that Government publicity would focus less on condoms and more on chastity—not for moralistic reasons, but as the only really safe way of avoiding AIDS.
I hope that the Government will make facilities much more easily available for anyone wanting a test for antibodies against the AIDS virus. An increasing number of worried people want tests. They want results very quickly. And that is now possible, with certain new techniques. However, it takes some months before the antibodies develop. So a negative result does not guarantee freedom from infection. People who find that they have a positive result need counselling—not only those who actually have AIDS but those who suddenly find that they are positive following a test. This ought to be available both before and after a test. The Government should make sufficient money available for the training and employment of a sufficient number of counsellors to deal not only with those who actually have the syndrome but also with those who wish to be tested—both before and after the test—to see whether they have the virus.
1206
Since AIDS is not caught in the normal way of infectious diseases, the possession of a positive test surely ought not to be a notifiable disease. This might deter some people from coming forward for the test. The test should not be compulsory for all, as argued by previous speakers. That would be quite impracticable. For the same reason—this seems to me very important—there should be no discrimination against those who are positive but who have not developed the disease and who are not infectious in the normal way. Furthermore, the results of a test should be totally confidential to the person concerned, since communication to others might affect reputation or career. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already pointed out how absolutely impracticable it is to test everybody who enters this country or who returns from abroad. In any case, the test might not show the actual state.
As for the care of those who already have the disease, the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England has issued a little pamphlet, simply called AIDS, of which very large numbers have already been sold. It explains what it is actually like to find that you have been afflicted with this killer disease and it makes helpful suggestions about the needs of such a person. It also deals with the terrible difficulties faced by family, friends and sexual partners, who suddenly wake up to what has happened. Equal difficulties, already touched upon, are encountered by medical staff and indeed by clergy who minister to such people. The pamphlet gives practical advice to those who nurse AIDS patients at home, and it also gives advice about hospital care.
Incidentally, hospices have been mentioned. I gather that not all of them are willing to take AIDS patients. I think that they should be persuaded to take at least some. It may be necessary to open new hospices with part government funding. I believe that the churches ought to take some kind of initiative here, although I must confess to your Lordships that I do not know exactly how they would do it. People really do need pastoral care; those suffering from AIDS, and especially those who are dying. I hope that this booklet may be a help. Of course I gladly acknowledge the other agencies that are making a large contribution, and especially the Terrence Higgins Trust. I am glad that somebody else has asked that its grant should he increased, because it is under tremendous pressure.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend the right reverend Prelate. I agree with most of his remarks this evening. He was widely quoted during a debate in the other place, and I am sure he will be quoted again after our debate this evening.
I know that this is not the first time we have discussed the problem of the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, and there is no doubt it will be a subject for debate here for many years to come. I am sorry that owing to the extreme pressure of my daytime work at this time of year I have not had as much time as I should have liked to enable me to work on a more interesting contribution to our debate this evening. In the debate in another place on 21st November there was no mention of a dental

1207
connection. This evening, 12 per cent. of the speakers are dentists. I therefore hope that I shall not repeat too much of what has been said by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
As your Lordships will know, it is inevitable that I have a personal interest in the progress of this epidemic. Like my noble friend, I practise as a dental surgeon. I use normal dental techniques and I also use some techniques from alternative therapies. The acceptance of the fact that there are now about 30,000 people in this country who are infected with the HVI virus leads to the projection that about one million people will be infected by 1990. This increase, along with a similar increase in the incidence of hepatitis B, enables the calculation to be made that general dental practitioners in the United Kingdom could now be treating approximately 250 carriers a day. In the majority of cases, these carriers will not have been identified. The growth in the number of carriers of hepatitis B virus, non-A, non-B hepatitis virus and HVI virus is such that as many of 10 per cent. of the population might be affected by one of these in the foreseeable future. Members of my profession will be treating positive patients every day where neither the dentist nor the patient will be aware of the condition.
It follows from this that new standards are required, including full case histories, safe sterilisation and surgery hygiene routines which will prevent cross-infection. In view of the inevitable shortage of resources, I believe the Government are doing as much as can be expected at this stage. However, I do have some questions for my noble friend the Minister a little later in my remarks.
In April 1986 all medical and dental practitioners were sent a letter from their respective chief officers with a document of guidance for dealing with patients infected with HVI. This guidance was very comprehensive, although (as my noble friend Lady Gardner has said) perhaps it was not very practical with its advice. I should hope that, in view of the escalating costs of this sort of change to our surgery routine, the Minister will be able to confirm that any extra costs arising from recommended procedures for routine practice will he taken into account by the Dental Rates Study Group calculation of expenses, and that it will also be realised that the treatment of patients known to be carriers of HBV and HVI will involve the dental practitioner in extra time as well as expense which will have to be considered when the General Dental Services Committee discusses with the DHSS the basis on which fees are calculated.
It should be pointed out that in this country there has not yet been any recorded incident of dental treatment being the cause of any patient becoming a carrier of the virus; nor has any dental surgeon caught the disease or become a carrier. I have a copy of the latest CDR report containing details of the cases of AIDS reported in the United Kingdom up to the end of October. It contains a follow-up survey of health service staff who have been exposed to HVI infection and it includes a substantial number who have sustained needlestick injuries. With one very unusual exception, no seroconversions have been observed. A similar study in the USA, reported in the Weekly Epidemiological Record of the World Health Organisation, followed up a serological study of 1,758
1208
health care staff where only 26 persons or 1·5 per cent. were found to have HVI antibody in their blood. But of these, 23 were in a high risk group.
I can also confirm that there have been no known cases of patients who become infected after acupuncture treatments; nor are there any cases of acupuncture therapists contracting the virus. As with dental practice, all acupuncturists are considered to be irresponsible and negligent if they do not either use disposable needles or effectively sterilise their instruments. I know that they would be quite happy to see legislation to make this compulsory.
Perhaps I may mention that I myself have started using acupuncture. I am learning this at the International Society of Biophysical Medicine in Liverpool, which has set up one of this country's foremost centres for the treatment of heroin addiction. It is opening a clinic in Glasgow and will soon be opening one in London. Owing to the high-risk nature of their patients, they are teaching the use of and using stimulation with electrodes rather than needles. Some of your Lordships will have attended a presentation which I organised with the society a year ago in the House of Commons and will be pleased to hear that their splendid results are continuing.
There are alternative treatments for AIDS which basically involve the stimulation of the patient's immune system and of the affected T-lymphocytes. Whether this is done by acupuncture, homoeopathy, oesteopathy or other means, I should like to ask the Minister (knowing of her interest in alternative therapies) whether her department has made any assessment and given any consideration to this form of treatment.
I have here a letter from an AIDS sufferer. I hope your Lordships will permit me to read a few sentences.
"I was diagnosed as suffering from AIDS a year ago during a severe attack of TB which very nearly killed me. I stopped allopathic treatment halfway through, and the TB has been successfully controlled by my homoeopath. I now refuse to take allopathic medicine in any form, although I am going for check-ups at St. Mary's clinic.
"The TB quickly followed by the appearance of Kaposi's sarcoma which I have inside and outside, particularly in the lungs. The Kaposi's sarcoma in the lungs impedes the correct flow between oxygen and blood, and I have ordinary infections as a result.
"Some two or three months ago I sought acupuncture and Chinese herbal treatment, which seems to he giving good results. I also visit an osteopath once a week.
"My last check-up at St. Mary's was on Thursday, 27th November, and the doctor said that I had not deteriorated as much as he had expected, and that on the strength of these encouraging signs I would wish to continue my therapies.
"The reason why I am writing to you is because I am finding it impossible to cover the expense of these treatments as my pension allows me only £49.50 per week. I would he very grateful indeed if you could be of any help in assisting the cost of my therapies, particularly in view of the very promising progress I have made so far".
As we are going to hear this sort of depressing story more and more often, can the Minister offer any encouragement to AIDS sufferers who find relief through the natural therapies? Is she prepared to offer financial help to all sufferers from AIDS so that they can take advantage of any treatment that may be able to alleviate their physical distress and prolong their lives?
In conclusion, I believe that your Lordships will see that there must be a change in standards. Routine

1209
procedures for sterilisation and surgery hygiene must be adequate to prevent cross-infection. These procedures will include the use of operating gloves, comprehensive decontamination and sterilisation of equipment and instruments, burrs and hand pieces being autoclaved between patients and a maximum use of disposables. On no account may needles or anaesthetic cartridges be used for more than one patient. It may well be that some practices already meet these standards, but it is more than likely that a substantial number do not.
I am able to tell your Lordships that the BDA are continuing their campaign to persuade the profession to take this matter seriously. At the same time they are becoming fearful of the impact of AIDS on the population at large. There are reports of patients who are cancelling their appointments because they are not sure that dental treatment is safe. The problem is likely to increase following the Governments' distribution of the AIDS leaflet to all households next year.
As dentists, we must consider how best to reassure the public. That is a matter of urgency. However, such reassurances will be ineffective unless all dentists are thorough in their procedures to prevent cross-infection and are seen to be thorough in doing things properly. Clearly we require from the Government and from the DHSS support which must include recognition of the extra costs which dentists will face and support for their efforts to reassure the public.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, sits down after his extremely helpful speech, may I ask one question? Would it not be possible for practitioners and surgeons, whether in dentistry or general physiology, to sample the blood of patients after each operation so that a bank of information about the presence of the virus is built up?
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I say that if I do not start at three minutes to seven, I shall not have 20 minutes to speak and I shall not have a hope of answering your Lordships' questions?
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness means three minutes to eight.
Lord Parry: My Lords, surely the House is free to ask questions in a debate of this order.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I was very worried when the noble Baroness spoke about having to rise to reply to the debate at three minutes to seven because that would have abbreviated my remarks considerably.
Like all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for tabling this Motion and I know that all noble Lords are fully aware of the terrible threat posed by this disease, no one more so than I am. If my remarks today are critical of the Government it is only because I am
1210
convinced that their campaign in this grievous matter is wholly misguided and erroneous, and I hope they may he persuaded to put it right.
The campaign's whole thrust is epitomised by the words that are used so prominently all the time: "AIDS is not prejudiced". Those words are designed to indicate that everyone is at risk and almost equally at risk. That is the linchpin of the campaign yet it simply is not true. I exclude from all my remarks the dangers posed to haemophiliacs and drug addicts. I am concerned here with sexual transmission.
Large sections of the community are in fact at absolutely no risk at all. Those who have never been sexually active, whether because they are too young, because they are indifferent to sex or because sex has never been available to them, are at no risk at all. Those whose sexual activity has been confined to kissing or masturbation, whether mutual masturbation, group masturbation or individual masturbation, are at no risk at all. Those whose sexual practices fall short of anal or vaginal penetration are at exceedingly low risk. Couples who have no other partner are not at risk. In all those cases AIDS is totally prejudiced in their favour, to use the catchy phrase employed by the ad-men responsible. The people embraced by those categories probably represent over half the population.
On the other hand, AIDS is highly prejudiced against other categories. In saying that it is strongly prejudiced against homosexuals I must add that I am not. I find it extremely unfair that they should happen to be so susceptible, but my sympathy for them must not divert me from the truth. The truth must be given, and that the Government do not appear to have done. Of some 600 fully-blown cases in the United Kingdom, only four have resulted from heterosexual intercourse, even though there are many times more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. We have to ask why.
The first reason is that homosexuals in general are much more promiscuous, sometimes compulsorily promiscuous. Secondly, sodomy happens to be the sexual practice through which infection is most likely of all to take place. I could go into details but I do not intend to do so. The risk is at its very highest if unhealed lesions in the anus have been caused through frequent, violent penetration. If the so-called submissive partner allows anal ejaculation when he has these lesions it is very close to suicide, especially if he is promiscuous; and yet this is commonplace.
Many homosexuals know all this, but, again, many do not. They have to be told and told with great emphasis. A condom is an effective barrier but homsexuals are not accustomed to using them; and because their use greatly detracts from satisfaction they are very much disfavoured, even apparently at the risk of death.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the right reverend Prelate—neither of whom are still in the Chamber—pointed out, one of the great problems is that a person who is screened will not be shown to be carrying the virus if infection took place in the preceding three or four months. Therefore, it is no safeguard if a partner says, "It is all right. I had the test done last week and I am clear". Furthermore, it may

1211
be five years after infection before apparent symptoms develop.
The syndrome can be carried across the border between the homosexual and the heterosexual communities if a heterosexual is infected through injection or transfusion, with which I am not here concerned. Otherwise it can be only through the agency of bisexuals of either sex, though male bisexuals are more of a danger than females. The particular danger of bisexual acts should therefore be strongly emphasised, and it has not been. Once the virus has crossed that border, as it has in Britain, it can obviously be spread by one heterosexual to another—more ususally from the male to the female—but that is likely to happen less quickly, except that the hetrosexual community is of course much the larger. That is, first, because anal sex is less common among heterosexuals and, secondly, because full intercourse takes place relatively seldom during menstruation—the other occasion at which the risk of sexual transmission is the greatest.
If AIDS is therefore very far indeed from being unprejudiced, how do we account for the completely mistaken emphasis, I suggest, in the Government's campaign? I can only suppose it sprang from a mistaken desire to avoid being thought prejudiced themselves. Let me put it like this. If a mortal disease were known to be confined 99 per cent. to, say, left-handed people, the whole thrust of any campaign to counter it would be directed towards those unfortunate enough to be left-handed. No one would mind being thought prejudiced against left-handed people.
Of course promiscous heterosexuals are at risk, but when such a dire threat exists, as it does at present, surely the government attack should be overwhelmingly directed towards the specific people and the specific areas where the risks are greatest. Instead of doing that, the campaign has had, and is having, two serious deleterious results. It has thrown into panic millions who are at no risk at all, or at the very slightest risk, undoing much of what has been accomplished in recent decades in spreading the gospel that sex is not dirty, wrong or shameful but an incomparable delight. It must also have the effect of giving false reassurance to homosexuals—those who, on the contrary, chiefly should be made aware of the dangers and many of whom are bound to react by thinking, completely mistakenly, "Oh, AIDS is not prejudiced. I must be less at risk than I thought". The danger is then clouded instead of being emphasised.
Finally, I refer to the Surgeon-General in the United States, who said recently,
"Knowledge is the only vaccination against AIDS".
It is this absent knowledge that the Government should be disseminating, not inaccurate generalities.
7 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest. I am the chairman of the College of Health. The college has an offshoot called Health Line, which is a telephone information service that includes AIDS in its coverage. We started the service on the subject of AIDS in November 1985
1212
and in the first six days after opening it for this purpose we had something like 30,000 calls, which showed the degree of concern and desire for information that existed at that time. That desire has abated hardly if at all.
It was not possible to deal with anything like the demand because we did not have the resources and in particular we did not have enough telephone lines to deal with such a large number of calls. It was only because we received support from the DHSS that we were able to increase the range and add to our number of telephone lines and have those lines staffed so that in small measure at any rate we could attempt to meet some of the demand for information about this new epidemic.
I do not think that it is only because of the interest that I have just mentioned that there is cause to congratulate the Government, as I very much want to do, on what they have achieved in the few months since last summer. If one goes back to July or August last year—and it is such a short time ago—that was a time when I at any rate was almost in despair. All those who had their eyes open could see that we were already faced with an epidemic that was spreading at an alarming rate.
We knew what had happened in the United States. The United States had mightily forewarned us about what would happen here unless action—drastic action—was taken. We have about three or four years' grace. Unfortunately we are following behind the United States on the same course; but we are about three or four years behind them, which gives us a chance to learn from their experience and to take the kind of preventive action which may mean that in the end we do not continue to follow the same dread course that they have followed.
Despite that warning, hardly anything seemed to be done on the front of public health education. It almost seemed as though the advertisements which the Government published earlier in the year were the first-ever advertisements that were meant not to carry any conviction with those who read them. They were opaque in the extreme, to say the least of it. Of course there were bright spots. Our own noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was a tower of strength, and there are excellent doctors and excellent civil servants in the DHSS. But it was not until the Cabinet reshuffle and the arrival of Mr. Newton as Minister for Health that those of us who were concerned about the epidemic began to feel that at least there had been a change and there was a spirit of courage and determination and a sense of action being taken—with the people concerned being ready to take action—which had not so far been in evidence.
Now we have had the beginning of an outspoken advertising campaign with the promise of more to come. We have been told that we shall have a national leaflet drop in January, and that is greatly welcomed. Despite what was said by the right reverend Prelate earlier in the debate, we are expecting next week to have a special sub-campaign directed at youth through advertisements in the papers and magazines that are read by young people. So there has been a change and it is very much welcomed by all the voluntary bodies in the field. I should like to make that point quite clear.

1213
Tribute has already been paid (and quite rightly so) by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords to the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I should like to add my voice to that tribute. The Terrence Higgins Trust was out in the forefront long before it became accepted, as it has now been accepted, that in this epidemic there was a challenge to the whole nation. The trust was trying to focus attention on this problem long before it became general and, as it were, popular. Other voluntary bodies such as the Gay Switchboard, Body Positive, the Haemophilia Society and others, have all done whatever they could—and it has been a great deal—to mobilise their own members and arouse interest and concern in this great problem.
I am afraid that there is a great deal of concern in this sector in particular at the moment about the consequences of setting up a special health authority in place of the Health Education Council. I have no doubt that this is a good step to have taken, though there must be some doubt about whether the new special health authority will have the degree of independence that the Health Education Council used to have and whether it will be able to speak out with an independent voice and when necessary be critical of government policy. However, by and large the setting up of this special health authority is welcome.
The anxiety on the part of the voluntary bodies in the field is that there may be a hiatus in administration. Nearly all the bodies which receive support from the DHSS are seeking support for next year. They need support for at least a whole year if they are to plan ahead sensibly. But will the continuity of policy that is so necessary be interrupted by the setting up and coming into action of the special health authority next April? I think that with complete unanimity the voluntary bodies hope that the Government will be able to assure them that there will be continuity of policy and continuity of the necessary funding. If the Minister is able to say something at the end of this debate to that effect it will be most welcome to all the people who are working with the voluntary bodies that I have mentioned and those that I have not mentioned.
If I may, I should like to say a word about the reasons the voluntary agencies are so important in this field. AIDS is not just a medical problem but a social problem of the gravest possible kind, above all because prevention is not only the best cure but is the only cure. Preventive work and education of the public cannot be carried out only by doctors and medical people any more than it can be carried out only by the Government. It goes much wider than that and the important messages that need to be put across can only be conveyed with the backing of voluntary agencies that cover a very wide spectrum.
I think I can illustrate the point by referring again to the Government's advertising campaign. This campaign is greatly welcomed but it is almost certainly the case that behaviour will not be changed merely by advertising. It never has been and it is unlikely that it ever will be. If advertising has an effect it is a two-stage affair. First, there is the advertising and then there is the personal influence that can follow it, which comes through the leaders of public opinion in their localities and workplaces who take up the message. The advertising campaign will only be effective if it is
1214
backed up and followed by large numbers of people who are going to translate the message contained in the advertising campaign into the kind of language and the kind of backing which will really carry conviction with the population at large.
This is just one reason why voluntary bodies are so necessary; there are other reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something reassuring, not only on the particular point that I have mentioned but also on the much broader point about the value of the contribution that voluntary bodies can make.
7.11 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I was very glad to read in the Secretary of State's speech in another place on 21st November that the Government are trying to get over the message, stick to one partner. That will not be easy, or popular with a public which has indulged in pill-happy promiscuity for a generation or more under the purblind eye of a succession of governments, and, I am afraid, the Church. And it has been encouraged by fiction both on the screen and in print, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, so truly said.
I was less happy with the continuation of the Secretary of State's message that if you do not stick to one partner you should use a condom. However, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has already touched on that, and so I shall not repeat the argument.
I was rather disappointed about half an hour ago when I got hold of the Health Education Council pamphlet, AIDS—What everybody needs to know. I read through it and it merely says that the fewer partners you have, the less you are at risk, and that the fewer partners your partner has, the less you are at risk. It is positively anodyne and I was very disappointed. I am sorry, but I think that morals do come into this. I make no apology for being thoroughly old-fashioned about it.
I keep hearing and reading that we do not want to equate AIDS with the wrath of God. Why not? With very great respect to the right reverend Prelate, who is not here—perhaps that is just as well—I should like to say a word to two about the wrath of God. I believe that the wrath of God to a great extent was the name that the old prophets (who were no fools) gave to the disagreeable consequences which they had observed were liable to follow upon flouting the laws of nature.
I know of no animal other than mankind which indulges in homosexuality. Many animals and birds are faithful for life to one partner. I think it is fairly safe to assume that homosexuality, and very often promiscuity, are against the natural order of things, and therefore if persevered in may bring trouble, often on innocent and guilty alike. I do not think it is possible to get away from the wrath of God altogether, although you may not wish to call it that. I believe that fear of dire consequences will be the Government's best ally in combating the AIDS epidemic with which we are threatened. I hope that the Government will stand firm and harness that fear.
AIDS is caused by a virus and viruses can mutate. Some viruses, such as the common cold virus, mutate continually, which is why it is so difficult to produce a

1215
vaccine against the common cold. Bubonic plague, the black death of the Middle Ages, was a virus and its chain of infection was man to flea to rat to flea and back to man again. At that stage, with greater knowledge of hygiene and good sanitation, it might have been easier to control. Then the virus mutated and it became pneumonic plague, and it spread from coughing and sneezing as colds and flu do today. That was the plague which was the great plague of London in 1665.
If the AIDS virus were to mutate in a similar manner, it would be rather a disastrous state of affairs to put it mildly. Therefore, it is vital to take all possible steps to check the spread of the virus now, at this stage, even though they may appear draconian and akin to scaremongering.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, in answer to a Starred Question on 14th October the Government were not very forthcoming on plans to combat AIDS. However, in answer to a further Question on 19th November, the Minister then told the House much more about their proposals, which were very well received by your Lordships.
Today we have heard a great deal more and a great deal of information has been given to your Lordships by previous speakers. I should like to congratulate the Government on what they have done so far. The situation which the whole world is facing is a desperate one. We all realise that. Co-operation among all countries is surely vital if we are to find a cure in the future, but as other noble Lords have said that may be very many years ahead.
I believe that the Government have the balance about right in their publicity campaign. I have read all the literature that they have so far produced. They are advising people in a very clear way how to avoid contracting AIDS and at the same time preventing panic, as I understand there has been in some parts of America. Obviously, the unknown strikes fear into us all. However, when we are faced with the plain truth I think that we all react to it, especially when we understand the language in which it is written. I find the government publications easy to read and to comprehend.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the press and television. I feel that if the press and television will now show responsibility in both their articles and programmes on the scourge of AIDS, the Government's task in combating this vile disease will be that much easier. For example, in Time Out earlier this year there was an excellent and well informed article by Tim Clark entitled, "Safe Sex". This is a magazine, as your Lordships are aware, which is read by a great number of young people in the city.
Finally, my noble friend will be relieved to hear that I shall not burden her with any questions this evening. The Government have my full support in all the measures they have taken so far.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall be very brief in an attempt to allow the noble Baroness her proper time to answer questions. I am all for campaigns of informa-
1216
tion directed towards young people, as everybody must be. But we should not lose sight of the fact that AIDS is not a young people's disease. In Europe, two-thirds of people who have AIDS are over 30, and more than a quarter are over 40. It is essentially a grownup's disease. It is a world phenomenon, although we have not heard much about this in the debate so far.
I have read in a report of an organisation called Panos, which appears to be a good report, that the World Health Organisation has been rather slow to get started. Even in November of this year, the WHO had still no organised information on the legal measures taken by governments to control AIDS, the education programmes in different countries, the national policies operating in different countries, and the results of blood tests showing the level of HIV infection in different countries. Obviously, this is not all the fault of the international organisation. The difficulties experienced by some African countries where AIDS is at its worst are well known. When the noble Baroness answers, will she say what we, as a highly developed member of the World Health Organisation, are doing to help the organisation overcome those difficulties?
I imagine that there are four scenarios. The first is that AIDS will die out of its own accord, and that would be the best. Secondly, we may lick it by a combination of chastity and research. Thirdly, it may go on as it is, with a doubling time of nine months worldwide. Fourthly and worse, it may mutate so as to become infectious, in which case it does not much matter what we do.
I suppose that AIDS is the most dreadful microbe ever to hit mankind, not only because there is no prevention, no cure and no hope of survival—all that we have survived in earlier mortal pandemics—but because beyond all those, AIDS, and it alone of all the killers we have yet known, is transmitted by the act of love. People will therefore learn to feel differently about one another's bodies and their own or, more accurately perhaps, to think differently about what they feel. That will be difficult. Mankind will of course survive unless we face scenario four, because some people will succeed in doing that, and those naturally incapable of doing so, will be bred out. For those who do want to do so, there is a ready-made, highly thought-out system of morality and feeling, proven over centuries, which will provide what is needed.
The ideal of chaste marriage has always exerted a magical fascination. It has always been a beacon. To a great extent it will now be not only the beacon but the lifeboat.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, at this stage in a debate so eloquently conducted by previous speakers, all that one can do is comment on some of the points that have been made. What do we know about various matters? The first thing we know is that we have an outstanding public health laboratory service. We have first class medical advisers. As a medical man, that is a great comfort.
We know that AIDS is a virus disease which attacks the immune system. It takes time to develop antibodies and therefore, as has been said, it cannot be detected for a matter of months. Only about 20 per

1217
cent. of people develop them. Unfortunately, women can catch the disease from normal intercourse. Having children may upset not only the woman's immune mechanism, so that she develops the disease, but, also, she can pass on the disease to her child. We know that some of the most tragic cases have resulted from blood transfusions with contaminated blood to haemophiliacs or after surgery. We hope that that is under control.
We know that in many parts of the world the disease is widespread and that it is spread by both sexes. We know that there is no cure for the disease and that people cannot be immunised against it. There are no immediate prospects of a vaccine. We know that the spread in this country, whatever happens elsewhere, has been mainly by homosexual contact. Whatever one's views about homosexuality, the facts must be faced, and, in the absence of prevention or cure, the only ways to control the disease must be examined.
We know that the rapid development of cancer of the cervix in the past 20 years, associated with promiscuity, was largely ignored by a great many young people. Fortunately for them, a treatment is now available if the disease is caught in time.
We know that the Government have taken active, vigorous steps to inform people about the disease, its dangers and the methods of minimising them. But we do not know what the public response will be and how effective the proposed measures will be. To be earnest is not enough. I am not blaming the Government; it is just a fact of medical research.
We know that many of the social and religious conventions of previous generations were introduced to protect women and children. What steps are now being taken by responsible individuals to protect the women and children on whom the future depends?
Fifty years ago, many men had a Wasserman test for syphilis before they married. Sometimes their prospective wives did so as well. Should some form of AIDS test not be available for people if they think that there is such a possibility? To demand that the Government spend more and increase resources on this disease to the detriment of other priorities in health such as cancer, coronary by-pass, the care of the mentally handicapped, and so on, is not an answer.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it will be commonly agreed that this debate has been valuable. It was opened by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock in a thoughtful and persuasive speech. That has characterised the contributions made on both sides of the House. I propose briefly to discuss three issues: first, the question of research; secondly, the problems caused by drug abusers; and, thirdly, the resources available to the National Health Service, a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter.
First, research: as my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock said, there is an extremely dangerous attitude abroad in this country on this question. It is, "Let's leave it all to the Americans". There, as we are aware, hundreds of millions of pounds have been made available for research. Here, the sums of money made available have been trivial.
1218
As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be aware, earlier this year a number of doctors who had been working in this field asked whether a substantial budget should be made available for research into AIDS. They were told that money would only be made available for specific projects which were sent to the Medical Research Council. To date, many of those requests have been turned down because, the researchers have been told, the MRC has inadequate resources. A general view has been expressed that we must have an adequate research budget. Many of us will look to the Government to give a clear assurance on that.
Secondly, there is the issue of drug abusers, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. We have discussed the problem of drug abuse in the United Kingdom in this House on several occasions. As we are all aware, there has been a steep rise in the level of heroin abuse in the United Kingdom, and it is continuing to escalate.
We must recognise that there is a genuine dilemma. We must take heroin abuse extremely seriously. As we are aware, in the United States it has run like wild fire through many communities. It has not so far had such a substantial impact in the United Kingdom, but it has been growing. In many inner city areas and elsewhere, we have the extremely serious problem of drug abuse and especially of heroin, to which I shall refer this evening. It is a major problem in many areas of inner London, Edinburgh, and Merseyside, and, I suspect the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will agree, in many parts of the West Midlands.
In such a situation it is the height of folly to take action which could in some way encourage drug abuse. However, there is clear evidence that the sharing of needles by heroin addicts is leading to the most rapid growth of AIDS among drug abusers. In my view it is the availability of heroin that will determine the number of drug abusers and not the availability of needles. The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Mellor, who has special responsibilities in this field, has made clear his personal position, that he is in favour of making needles available. I believe that he is absolutely right on this question. Many of us would be reassured to discover that the Government shared Mr. Mellor's view and were taking action accordingly. We cannot delay this matter too long.
My noble friend referred to that tragic piece of film on "News at Ten" the other night when we saw those two Edinburgh prostitutes who had contracted AIDS as a result of sharing needles. What were they doing? They were going back on the streets in order to earn enough money to obtain more heroin to feed their habit, and thus of course infecting more people with AIDS. I hope very much that we shall have an early Statement on what the Government are prepared to do in this field. In my view it cannot be delayed. I recognise, as we all do, that it is a difficult issue but I believe that it is right to take action along the lines I have suggested.
The question of resources has underlain many of the contributions which have been made in this debate. There are two issues here. The first is the National Health Service, and the second the voluntary movement. On the National Health Service, in the United Kingdom, as we know, there are 600 AIDS

1219
patients. Half of that number are being treated in two hospitals: St. Mary's, Paddington. and St. Stephen's, Chelsea. Each therefore has had in the region of 150 patients. However, we know that the numbers in those hospitals will probably double within the next ten months. Those two hospitals face what most of us recognise to be a crisis situation.
Let me illustrate the problem facing one of them—St. Stephen's. In the clinic at St. Stephen's they are facing overwhelming pressure. There will be no medical social workers until next April at the earliest. There is a desperate need for nurse counsellors—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Winstanley during his speech—to talk to patients and to plan their discharge arrangements. When these patients are released from hospital they face massive problems in the community. Many face the risk of almost immediate eviction from their accommodation as soon as their landlord discovers that they have AIDS. They even face the problem of getting food from Meals on Wheels. People are frightened to have anything approaching physical contact with them. There is the difficult problem of talking to these patients about how they will break the news to their families. It seems to me that this indicates the urgent need for nurse counsellors at that hospital and also at St. Mary's. I very much hope that the Government will indicate that they are prepared to give priority in these areas.
St. Stephen's wants approval in principle for a special AIDS clinic. Unlike many projects this requires only partial funding by the National Health Service because a large proportion of the capital funding has already been offered to the hospital by a private charity, CRUSAID. But the project requires a guarantee of revenue funding to meet its revenue costs. I believe that this is urgent. So far patients have been treated on an out-patient basis in the John Hunter clinic for sexually transmissible diseases or in an inpatient ward, the Macaulay Ward. They are now being swamped with patients. There is a real problem facing the Riverside Health Authority. It does not have the resources to meet the revenue funding of this new clinic. I again remind the House that 25 per cent. of all AIDS patients in the United Kingdom are passing through this hospital. I therefore very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to offer us something here.
Finally, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will have paid attention—as I am sure she did—to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said about the problem of where those patients are likely to go when they become terminally ill and have to be cared for in the community. As we know, many of these institutions which look after the terminally ill are extremely nervous about taking AIDS patients. I believe that there is need for some contribution between the private and public sector, perhaps with funding on a pound for pound basis between the private and public sectors. If we do not get action here we shall face the very serious problem of substantial numbers of dying people not being able to obtain any form of civilised treatment in the community.
As I have indicated, the need in these areas is urgent and I very much hope that the noble Baroness and the Government will respond accordingly.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to St. Stephen's Hospital in the Riverside district. The last I heard was that this hospital was on the regional list for closure. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that St. Stephen's will not close.
I wish to say how grateful I am—as I think the whole House is—to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for opening a debate which has brought forth some extremely interesting and important contributions. I found myself in agreement with a very large amount of what was said and perhaps particularly with the references that have been made to the important role that the media can play in trying to get across the message to the public. This has been mentioned by four noble Lords.
There is no doubt that Britain and other countries face the greatest threat to their nation's health in modern times or perhaps ever. To put it at its starkest, if the Government's education campaign fails, if people take no notice, at the present rate of growth of AIDS, AIDS victims could occupy all the present NHS acute beds by about 1995. That would be 145,000 beds.
"All out war"—a phrase that came from the leaders of Europe's 12 nations a few days ago—puts it dramatically. I think that we should see it in dramatic terms. It is not only a European problem, but an African problem and a problem for the World Health Organisation. However, that kind of projection need not occur if the Government put adequate resources into a massive campaign beamed at the key targets, and even more important, if people actually respond to the message. We all know what the targets are. I shall touch on four of them.
If we take sexually active homosexual people there is no doubt that there has to be a great deal of straight talking, using terms that homosexuals understand and describing clearly the sexual activities which put people—not just themselves but anyone with whom they have contact—at risk. Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, circulated all medical officers a few days ago with a statement. I should like to take one or two facts from it. He said:
"Male homosexuals with more than one partner and bisexual men—some of whom may be married—need 'urgent advice' on the dangers to themselves and others from their current lifestyle. Nearly 90 per cent. of the 599 cases of AIDS reported in this country fall into this category".
The chief medical officer also reports that one in four of those homosexuals attending clinics for sexually transmitted diseases in London are infected with AIDS. Whether one calls it morality or something else, this is the greatest area of danger and the area to which we have to get our message through.
It is rightly said that AIDS also affects sexually active people in a heterosexual sense. They must learn the message. We must direct it to them in very stark terms and above all explain the risk they take if they have more than one partner. I think the right reverend Prelate goes a little far is saying that all of us who are married must totally follow chastity. I think I ought to be allowed to have a sexual relationship with my wife without—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I defined "chastity" as abstinence from all immoral sexual intercourse, and I do not include that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am glad that the right reverend Prelate has made that absolutely clear. I entirely agree that we must learn a lesson. If we do not learn that lesson now, those who sleep around and think they can get away with it will not only suffer themselves but others will too.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made a very important statement concerning drug addicts. He spoke of the sharing of needles and the habit of mixing blood in the syringe in the mistaken belief that that purifies the drug before passing on the syringe for another person to use. Drug addicts are a section to whom we have to speak very sharply indeed.
I am most sad about two particular groups—the tragic case of haemophiliacs who have been infected with contaminated blood through no fault of their own, and, worst of all, small babies who have been infected by their mothers. They are indeed groups for whom we must express genuine and real sympathy.
The test of success of the Government's campaign is the exent to which people's behaviour patterns change. No longer can there be the easy morality—or immorality—the easy assumption that it is natural for young people to go to bed just because it is fun. No longer can that be thought as reasonable behaviour for the welfare of themselves or the nation. It is a major challenge to millions of our people.
I am concerned that the resources made available to the DHSS by the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be seriously inadequate. I should like to put six questions to the Minister concerning resources, about which I gave advance notice. First, how much is now available for AIDS research? That is a question which was quite rightly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Secondly, how much new money is being spent on public education? I do not mean funds already available to the Health Education Council. I share all the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, about the damage that may be caused to health education if the council's work is to be under the control of the Government and if it is not free to deal, as it does now, with issues that sometimes involve it in pressure upon the Government. Thirdly, how much money is available for the treatment of AIDS cases? In other words, how much is it costing to look after those already in our hospitals, and what extra money will be available on top of existing budgets?
Fourthly, what facilities will be available for voluntary screening and at what cost to the DHSS? I do not believe that it is enough to say to health authorities that they must prepare their plans for opportunities for screening in different parts of the country where people will undoubtedly want to be screened and for them to take it out of their very heavy budgets. I think that the Government need to put new money into health authorities. Fifthly, what resources are now available for counselling? That again is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. In many cases people are feeling desperate and need advice. As
1222
he and others have said, counselling is a specialised art. It is not something that any mug can do.
Finally, are the Government still proposing to cut £4 million from the funds of the Public Health Laboratory Service? That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. It is in fact the national agency for monitoring the AIDS epidemic. I believe that if there were such a cut it would be an extraordinary form of saving.
My time is up and I am glad that the noble Baroness has plenty of time in which to answer all the questions that have been put to her.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am glad too. The subject of this debate is of the utmost importance and in the interest of providing as much information as is known, I shall gladly answer as many of your Lordships' questions as possible. My right honourable friend, in the debate in another place on 21st November, made a detailed statement on the present situation and on the actions that the Government are taking.
Your Lordships have raised a number of points already covered in that debate in another place but have characteristically also introduced new and important aspects and further dimensions of the problem. I have also received many helpful letters. including one from my noble friend Lord Vivian. All such correspondence is being carefully studied.
Since the speech of my right honourable friend, we have received further information about the numbers of AIDS cases. At the end of November, 599 cases had been reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in Colindale; 296 have died. This represents an increase of 51 cases since the previous month. The trend is upwards and will remain so certainly for the next few years. In the light of this immensely worrying prospect, the important suggestions made by a number of noble Lords are all the more valuable. So let me now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I was most grateful for the advance notice given by those two noble Lords.
Research into AIDS is clearly of enormous importance. All possible steps should be taken to find effective treatments, and a cure for and a vaccine against it. Worldwide, a massive research effort is being mounted by the scientific community and by private industry. Considerable progress has been made, for example, in identifying the AIDS virus and methods of transmission. But, clearly, much more needs to be done. This country has some of the world's best scientists in this area and is making a full contribution.
A large-scale programme of publicly-funded research is being undertaken. It is being co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council, which has set up a working party on AIDS. On top of the work being carried out at its own research institutes, the MRC awards special project grants for research on AIDS. I am informed that, to date, the MRC has had sufficient funds for those AIDS projects that it has wanted to fund. I understand from a press release issued today from the MRC that it regards research on AIDS in this

1223
country, and by British researchers in Africa, as a high priority. We are to discuss with it the funding that will be needed for the new investigations that it believes are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke about research money, and I would totally disagree with his statement. The MRC, according to my information, has not yet turned down any worthwhile projects for lack of funds. I must repeat that.
The MRC is not the only body that funds research. Other public sector bodies are also pursuing significant programmes of research. These include the Public Health Laboratory Services, the National Blood Transfusion Service and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. A number of university departments are undertaking research in this field. It adds up to a considerable programme of work in the public sector. In the private sector, the British pharmaceutical industry devotes over £500 million a year to research work, and an increasing proportion of that is devoted to research on AIDS. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that research should be co-ordinated internationally.
AIDS is an international problem and there is growing international co-operation on research in the European Community, which has set up an AIDS working party. At the recent meeting between the EC countries, the need to exchange information was agreed. On a wider scale, the WHO is emphasising the need for co-ordinating research work as part of its global strategy on AIDS.
It should be clear from all that I have said that a great deal has been and is being done. Already significant advances have been made, for example, in identifying the AIDS virus and its methods of transmission. But much more needs to be done and this country will be playing its full part.
Turning to the engagement and training of new staff for AIDS clinics, most patients who are concerned that they may have been infected with the AIDS virus are seen at genito-urinary medicine clinics. The staffing of these is a matter for district health authorities, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be writing to all district chairmen asking them to ensure that their clinics are given adequate resources to meet the demands made upon them.
So far as concerns training, we have provided funds for programmes of training in counselling of HIV patients and those at risk of infection at three centres, in London, Birmingham and Bolton. They provide training not only for health care professionals but also for social workers and those employed in drug agencies and voluntary bodies. Over 1,500 people have been on courses in the London unit in the past 10 months.
The charity CRUSAID has put forward an imaginative and generous proposal for our outpatients' centre at St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham. That centre would combine out-patient requirements with day care facilities. Riverside District Health Authority (in which St. Stephen's is situated) and North-West Thames Regional Health Authority are urgently considering the practicalities of longer-term funding and location. They are pressing ahead with
1224
this work as they are very supportive of the scheme. The outcome should be known very soon.
North-West Thames Regional Health Authority has asked its districts to put in bids by the end of the year for increased AIDS resources. There is a growing need for increased resources and of' course a growing need for increased in-patient beds. Paddington and North Kensington Health Authority is considering what increased resources to bid for. It has not yet put in its bid to the RHA. There are up to 12 beds at St. Mary's at present.
Paddington and North Kensington's short-term programme is out for consultation. One cost improvement proposal includes £100,000 to be saved by more efficient diagnostic services—pathology and radiology. That is an efficiency measure, not a cut. There will be a special meeting of the health authority to consider the short-term programme and comments on the proposals later this month.
We regard preventing the spread of AIDS among the drug-misusing population and through them to the heterosexual population in general, as of the highest priority. We are already doing a great deal to curb the spread of drug misuse through co-ordinated strategy designed to tackle supply, demand and treatment. The fewer the numbers who become involved in drug misuse at all, the greater our chance of limiting the spread of AIDS. Both our education and information campaign against heroin and that about AIDS inform the public, professionals and drug users about the risks associated with sharing injecting equipment.
Nevertheless, we believe that we shall need to do more to ensure that as many drug users as possible give up their habit or modify their practices in the light of the threat posed by AIDS. I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, that we are therefore urgently considering further measures in the light of the McClelland report, which recommended: education in safer drug taking practices for injecting drug users who will not abstain; the issue of sterile injecting equipment to drug misusers on a one-for-one exchange basis, where assessment, counselling and treatment is available; the consideration of substitution prescribing for those patients whom it is likely to help stop (or reduce) injecting; and that advice on safe sex should be given to all drug users.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and other noble Lords will agree that the issues raised are complex and controversial, but I hope that we shall be in a position to make a Statement shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, added his voice to suggestions that condoms should be provided free as part of the fight against AIDS. Careful consideration will be given to whether that is likely to be worth while, given that they are already widely available at low cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also mentioned support for the voluntary sector. I fully recognise the valuable contribution of the voluntary organisations working in the AIDS field. The Department of Health and Social Security already grant-aids several voluntary organisations and has increased that support substantially this year to over £200,000. The department will do all it can to ensure that the voluntary sector can make as effective a contribution

1225
as possible. Sickness and invalidity benefits already make provisions for all sick and disabled people, including AIDS sufferers. I believe that the same rules should be applied to all beneficiaries.
I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about a new mechanism for meeting NHS costs. As the noble Lord rightly says, AIDS is a growing problem and will make increasing demands on NHS resources.
What is the future? It would be a very brave person who would make a prediction. All suggestions about how to provide necessary funding in the most efficient and effective manner are welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has had some very interesting things to say on this matter and has made some detailed and quite far-reaching proposals for a new framework for taking decisions on funding. I have taken note of the points he has made and I shall ensure they are conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Extra funds have already been allocated to the NHS to meet the demands on it of the spread of AIDS. Further funds will be allocated for next year. Those funds are on top of the main NHS budget.
To reply to the further questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about resources, we have already taken action to provide extra resources to those health authorities which are dealing with the great majority of AIDS cases. In both 1985–86 and 1986–87 extra money was made available to the three Thames regions which together account for some three-quarters of the AIDS caseload to date. Those sums were £700,000 in 1985–86 and £2·5 million in 1986–87. Indeed, £750,000 was provided for HIV testing to the public health laboratory service, and £370,000 has been provided this year for counselling services in the six haemophilia reference centres and for training courses in counselling. Decisions on funding for 1987–88 will be announced shortly.
I should add that the PHLS Board has not had its budget reduced. Over the past four years its funding has been increased by £7 million. In real terms the increase has been £2 million. Next year it will receive about £1·2 million extra cash. The board plays a vital role in the fight against AIDS. In recognition of that role it has been given special additional funding of £0·7 million to enable it to set up special facilities to do HIV antibody tests. That work is not under threat. Nor would we agree to any measures which would put its other important contributions to the AIDS fight at risk.
The response of the National Health Service is, of course, not confined to these centrally financed initiatives. All health authorities will be submitting their plans by the end of this year for taking local action to deal with AIDS. In the light of this, the Department of Health will be assessing the need for resources and for the training of staff in order to ensure that the necessary response is made to this terrible problem.
I was most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for her reassuring comments about dentists, which correspond with the advice that my department has given. My noble friend Lord Colwyn—I might as well take together the 12 per cent.
1226
of my noble friends who are dentists—spoke about the extra cost involved when dentists follow our guidance on sterilisation procedures. We are taking note of the possible extra costs incurred by dentists and others in following the guidance issued by my department. The system for their remuneration means that general dental practitioners are already reimbursed indirectly for all practice expenses. The NHS pays the dentists' fees for the treatment that they provide. These fees are set in such a way that the average dentist can earn the target net income set by the Government and have practice expenses reimbursed in full.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked me about alternative medicine and its use—an interesting thought. Some natural therapies such as homeopathy are already available in the National Health Service. We have seen no evidence that any of them is effective in preventing this disease or reversing its effects. However, if my noble friend has any new evidence on this, I should be most interested to have the details.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke about health education as a vital means to control the spread. I thank him for his helpful comments, which entirely accord with the advice given by the department. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, applauded the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I acknowledge from our side the very important contribution made by the trust in counselling those whose lives are affected by HIV. We have provided funds for a programme of training counsellors in the counselling of patients, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, touched on treatment costs. We expect health authorities to spend some £10 million on tackling the problem of AIDS in the current financial year. This should increase in 1987–88 to about £17 million. A further £7·5 million will be spent in this financial year rising to £16·5 million next year on publicity, the public health laboratory service and research funded directly by the Department of Health.
We are funding a study to investigate the costs of treating individual patients with AIDS. This will enable us to establish the cost of treatment to the National Health Service more precisely than we can at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, brought up the question of haemophiliacs. I should like very much to share the feelings of great sadness expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I wish, however, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that his figures are not quite right. A recent survey showed that 32 per cent., not 50 per cent., of those tested have evidence of HIV infection. I am sure that our sympathy goes out to those people who, anyway, have a horrid disease. If I may just include the babies, I think that this is perfectly terrible. Indeed, I think that it is terrible for babies to be born with withdrawal symptoms from drugs, let alone AIDS.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham spoke of a publicity campaign for young people. The government publicity campaign includes newspaper advertising, a poster campaign in major cities and a campaign aimed specifically at young people which will involve advertisements on the radio, in cinemas and in young people's magazines. BBC radio will also be running a youth campaign this

1227
month tied into ours. I should like to pay tribute to the BBC and ITV for the willing way in which they have helped the Government and have promised help in the future. We are most grateful.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke about condoms being not totally effective. Throughout our public education campaign we have stressed that having a number of sexual partners increases the risks of catching the infection. The need to avoid casual sex and reduce the number of sexual partners is our primary message. But there is evidence that condoms reduce the risk of the virus being transmitted. It would be irresponsible of us if we did not try to get that fact across, given that people's habits will persist. We agree that condoms are not totally effective in all circumstances, which is why we present them as second best to restriction in sexual partners to one who is faithful.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham raised the question of hospices. Hospices provide a tranquil environment in which terminally ill people can end their days with dignity. But by no means all—whether AIDS patients or not—wish to be in hospices. Some will need forms of acute care that hospices may not be able to provide. What is important is that a broad range of facilities is developed to meet the differing needs and wishes of AIDS patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, spoke of bisexual and homosexual activity. We agree that most cases in this country so far have been male homosexuals. But, as we know from evidence in Africa and elsewhere, the disease can be transmitted heterosexually. We believe it important therefore, in our public education campaign, to encourage people to take action to prevent such a wide spread among heterosexuals in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, spoke again of the role of voluntary bodies. He made a very strong plea. I should like to pay tribute to the healthline telephone service which, like the Terrence Higgins Trust, has provided a vital service to the public. We have no intention of allowing our proposals for setting up the special health authority next year to interrupt our continued financial support for those bodies whose work we regard as of the utmost importance.
I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There is indeed a morality issue but if we were seen to be moralising we would alienate may of the people whose attitudes and behaviour we are aiming to change.
In the course of the debate, we have considered a wide range of issues, including the various measures that the Government have taken or will be taking. However, there is one point above all that I should like to emphasise. It is that the problem of AIDS is not one that can be solved by the Government alone. Certainly the Government have important responsibilities. They must ensure, for example, that their citizens receive adequate treatment and care; they must get the facts across to the public.
The facts are that the disease is being spread by sexual contact and by drug misusers sharing infected
1228
needles. It is not being spread by people picking it up in swimming pools or pubs, or through any of the wide gamut of everyday social activities.
We must get these facts across to the public. That is why the Government have embarked upon a massive public information campaign. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that we shall be spending £20 million in the next 12 months on this campaign. I hope that your Lordships will give this vital campaign your fullest support. But, in the end, the major responsibility must fall upon individuals. It is by the actions of each and every person that the spread of this terrible disease can be halted and in time, I trust, reversed. This is the battle that we simply cannot afford to lose.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have a few minutes in hand and I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, say that we are facing a challenge that we can meet, provided we face it with the necessary resources and determination. I should like to add my plea for the haemophiliacs. Even if the numbers were wrong, they need help. It must be remembered that they are in the condition they are because of the imported Factor 8 which had to be imported because we did not have the facilities to make it. It is a consideration that the Government must bear in mind.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for giving us a definition of chastity that we could live with, and also to my noble friend Lord Kennet for his felicitous phrase that chastity in marriage was a beacon and it has now become a lifeboat. It was interesting that it was the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and not the right reverend Prelate who raised the issue of the wrath of God. I am happy to be able to reassure her that the AIDS virus is a retro-virus wrapped in a fatty membrane which cannot behave in the way that she suggested and turn into some sort of bubonic plague.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the wide-ranging response she made. She tried to pick up all our points. There are still one or two things I am a little unhappy about. She referred to the Secretary of State's request to the districts asking them to ensure that they have the necessary facilities to cope with AIDS. This is the wrong way round. It is up to the Secretary of State to ensure that they have the necessary facilities. They can make the bids but he has to put the money on the table.
As regards St. Stephen's and the out-patient clinic, I noted that she said that a decision was expected very soon, but I understand that the region is not likely to be able to cope with the recurrent revenue costs, and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. Where she referred to efficiency measures as not being cuts, of course there are two ways of looking at that. I am not sure that you can pare path labs any further by efficiency measure without calling them cuts. Perhaps the Government will bear that in mind too.
On the question of drugs and the issue of clean needles for old, the noble Baroness told us that there will be a statement soon. We must hope that it will be

1229
a statement in the sense that has been widely expressed in this House, despite the difficulties that we all recognise about the dangers of encouraging drug abuse. I understand that the Secretary of State has been in Amsterdam today, where a scheme is operating. Maybe that will help him to come down on the side of the general sense of the debate today.
On voluntary bodies, the noble Baroness gave us some hope, although it was not specific. I was a little disappointed that she was not more forthcoming on the sickness benefit, the social security side, for AIDS patients. Some are in extreme difficulties, and I hope that she will have a look at that. Some are living on very low margins indeed.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she would bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the sort of framework that I have suggested for funding. I certainly was not suggesting that it was the only possible model. I think possibly the Government themselves will come forward with a better one, but I hope that my suggestion will possibly be of some help and provoke some thought on the matter.
On the question of hospices, it is of course true, as the noble Baroness said, that there must be a wide range of provision, but hospices in particular are extremely difficult to get off the ground. They certainly will be needed so that AIDS patients can move out of acute beds and can pass their final months in humane and civilised conditions. I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of helping the London Lighthouse and any other body of that nature which may be contemplating doing something in this direction.
Finally, I was most grateful that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was able to be present at the opening of the debate. He told me that although he had a pressing commitment at Downing Street he would do his best to listen to as much of this debate as he could. We know that it is a subject that he bears close to his heart. I think all noble Lords will be encouraged that not only the noble Baroness but also the Leader of the House will be taking note of what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening.
I thank everybody for having made what I consider to be extremely valuable contributions. I am sure that the Government will look at them closely. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
8.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their view that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now pass from an almost wholly unbearable subject, where it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel, to an only moderately unbearable subject, where there is indeed light to be seen at the end of the tunnel, and we shall try to explore it together this evening.
Early in 1983 the President of the United States had a great vision of a shield that could be built over that
1230
country and its allies which would exclude incoming nuclear missiles and thereby, in his words, make nuclear weapons themselves impotent and obsolete. It is often said that that vision of the President is now defunct and that the Strategic Defence Initiative is going ahead on another and more reasonable basis. But as recently as this year's United States Defence Department Report to Congress on SDI, which came out in June, it was repeated that the President had called for SDI
"with the ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by nuclear ballistic missiles."
Therefore it is still there, and we have to face that fact.
This ultimate goal is a bad idea for two reasons. First of all, if it were to prove possible—and it might; this is what causes so much fear in the world—the first side in the arms race to get it would then be in a position of absolute security to issue nuclear threats to the other side and require its compliance with whatever order it might wish to give. Consequently the moment when one side was about to get it would be one of almost unimaginable danger and instablility for mankind.
The second reason is that if the purpose is to get rid of nuclear weapons, or just nuclear missiles—and it is a good purpose—the best way to reduce the number of nuclear missiles that can hit your country is to reduce the number in existence, and that can be done through agreed multilateral disarmament at no cost and with great saving.
Not too long after that the Prime Minister went to Washington at Christmas 1984 and agreed with President Reagan their famous four points, one of which was that the deployment of SDI would have to be a matter for negotiation. Those points have been reaffirmed from time to time by the Government, with the support of all parties in this country, and they have from time to time been torn up by members of the American Administration, most notably the Secretary for Defense.
Soon after that, in January 1985, Messrs Schultz and Gromyko, the latter then Soviet Foreign Minister, met in Geneva and agreed to negotiate to prevent an arms race in space and to terminate it on earth. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly, and rightly, endorsed that agreement.
In October 1985 Mr. Schultz struck a new note. He said:
"Any SDI deployment will have to be the subject of discussion and negotiation as approved with the Soviets, in accordance with the ABM Treaty.".
Note, it would have to be "the subject of" negotiation, not "subject to" negotiation. Here is the first appearance of weasel words in this matter, because in any case the signatories had in that treaty agreed not to deploy, so there is nothing to negotiate about "in accordance with the ABM Treaty". You can hear a new term here. Nevertheless, in March this year Her Majesty's Government rightly soldiered on.
Sir Geoffrey Howe said that one of the keys to progress at Geneva could be acts to strengthen the effectiveness of the ABM Treaty; confidence as to the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons might help to encourage big cuts in nuclear missiles. Again in June this year Mr. Renton in the House of Commons said:
"We would like to see the ABM treaty reaffirmed and strengthened.".

1231
As recently as 14th October, Mr. Renton again, at the First Committee of the United Nations, said:
"The 12 underline the importance of existing arms control agreements—including the ABMT of 1972—being strictly observed.".
I underline the word "strictly".
I come now to the reason for my question. We are now hearing a new tone, not only from the United States Administration but from our own Government. After her meeting with the President on 15th November, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister, in relation to SDI research which is permitted under the treaty, was asked, "What do you mean by research which you agree with the President is legal?". She replied this:
"You're still researching when you go right up to feasibility. If you don't know whether a system will work, you still research to find out.".
She suggested the establishment of a special committee "to resolve problems of interpretation" of the treaty, apparently forgetting that such a committee already exists.
If the United States SDI is to be developed and tested to "feasibility", the Prime Minister's word, the United States will be breaching the ABM Treaty. I do not know whether the Prime Minister had appropriate advice right beside her when she used this word for the first time in her press conference. Testing to feasibility is not allowed in the treaty unless one is to twist its meaning in ways our system of law would certainly not allow.
It was for that reason that I listened with pleasure and reassurance to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said on 18th November when he was answering questions on his repetition of the Prime Minister's Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and from myself. He said:
"Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me to put a gloss on my right honourable friend's statement of what she means by 'up to feasibility'. Do they really expect me to come to your Lordships' House and try to put a gloss on my right honourable friend's statement? If my right honourable friend says 'up to feasibility', it is up to feasibility so far as I am concerned, and I do not know what else I am expected to say. So I shall not say anything at all, which seems to be the obvious answer to that question".—[Official Report, 18/11/1986; cols. 148–49.]
That is a prime piece from the noble Viscount and it is to his skill with such answers that he owes his great success and beneficial effect on British political life. However, we can all see what lay behind his caution.
Another element is now coming into the talk of the British Government on this subject. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, himself on 13th November:
"the Soviet Union is insisting on severe new restrictions [on SDI research] while its own … activities remain unacknowledged".—[Official Report, 13/11/86; col. 117.]
This new line is as if the ABM Treaty did not restrict Soviet activities as much as United States activities. It is exactly the same both ways.
Sir Geoffrey Howe a little later said that the Soviet Union appeared to be demanding a super-restrictive definition—more probably a revision—of the ABM Treaty and a veto over any future deployments before questions about their feasibility are answered—as if the treaty did not exist precisely to prevent deployment.
I should like to turn for a moment to the new developments which are taking place. They are quite new and not very much is known yet about research into anti-tactical ballistic missile defence, ATBM defence, for short. This is a better, more worthwhile military activity. It makes sense. If ATBM defence is deployed within certain limits it is not destabilising and not against the hopes of mankind. The ABM Treaty limits the transfer of technology to non-signatories, in ground-based ABM, I would point out, as well as space-based ABM. That would include anti-tactical ballistic missile ABM. Experiments for the development of ATBM, ground based, would be legal anywhere—in the United States, Europe or anywhere else in the world.
Some millions of dollars from the SDI office are now going into it in Europe under the present European architecture studies by our Ministry of Defence and others. This research is also going on as government research in Israel and by consortia of firms in Germany, Italy, France and perhaps in Japan. Perhaps we could hear more about that. All this is to be dovetailed into SDI next year to become an "integrated and interactive system within SDI". At that stage will any future developments rely on United States space-borne C-3? If so, will they not themselves be illegal since space-borne C-3 will be illegal? I fear this may be the case.
Of the present stage of European Architecture studies, Richard Perle last week said:
"this is the ground floor of a very large structure that will be built over time".
We recognise our old friend. Aviation Week tells us further:
"The European Theatre defense will use both improved versions of existing air defence equipment such as the Raytheon Patriot and technology derived from the United States Strategic Defense Initiative for use against intercontinental ballistic missiles."
In other words, if the technology is transferred to European firms and governments it will be so transferred illegally. If it is not transferred our firms and governments lose out, and so we are on a hook.
In the second stage, which is to start next year, how much control of European firms in this matter will pass to United States firms and departments through the consortia which will have arisen? Could ATBMs themselves be a terminal, endoatmospheric stage of anti-strategic ballistic missiles in the United States, which in increased numbers would be illegal? That is a question to the Government. Shall we be asked to make them for the United States? Already two sizes are being talked of: 5,000 metres to intercept and 15,000 metres to intercept, which begins to sound more like the stage of an anti-strategic ballistic missile.
Answering a Question on 21st October the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the architecture study we are doing:
"will examine from a UK perspective, the threats with which a strategic defensive system would have to cope in the European theatre".—[Official Report, 21/10/86; col 260.]
How does that cloudy language relate, if at all, to what is now going on? What threats; threats to what target in Europe?—only ballistic missile threats obviously, not air-launched threats in general. What Europe? —United States assets in Europe obviously. What else?

1233
All this is or is not illegal under the ABM Treaty. How is that to be decided? The United States Administration have refused to release the negotiating record of that treaty to Congress, although the Senate has a judicial role in the administration of treaties. A Joint Consultative Committee exists between the United States and Russia. The United States prefers rather to complain about it than to use it. It is constantly being attacked by the Administration instead of being used and, with the United States withdrawal from SALT II, which has effectively happened, it is presumably to be killed off together with the agreed mutual tolerance of satellite spying by "national technical means".
I turn now to what can be done. On 13th November, my right honourable friend Dr. Owen wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in which he said:
"As presently drafted, the ABM Treaty already contains effective means of avoiding new competition in defensive arms; it need not be amended and it would help if you made it clear that you believe it should neither be broadened, nor narrowed. According to Article V of the Treaty, 'each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based'. It does not mention research yet both sides implicitly accept the legitimacy of research. There is no disagreement that the continued development, testing and deployment of a single,fixed, ground-based system by each side also is permitted. The problem is to identify the demarcation between permitted 'research' and prohibited 'testing and development' of ABM systems and their components, particularly those that would be deployed in space.
"Surely President Reagan should be willing to describe the specific activities which the United States plans over the next ten years. The Soviet Union could then specify which of those activities it would consider to be in violation of the treaty. At the same time the mirror-image of this process could be carried out: with the Soviet Union specifying its planned activities, and the United States identifying which of those activities it considered to be permitted and which prohibited by the Treaty. Through such an interactive process, the two sides hopefully would come to a precise understanding of the specific meaning of the Treaty's key provisions and there would then be no need to use the term 'laboratory' [which was then the vogue word] which is clearly too restrictive to allow any agreement.".
In the Prime Minister's reply, she, in effect, dismissed this constructive approach to the problem.
Now, let us try to put things together. The Government know that Mr. Reagan wants to deploy a shield. The Government know this is impossible, as does everyone else—including, apparently, even Dr. Teller himself, who first suggested it. The Government know that much of the serious work is being done on point defence systems to protect retaliatory forces, and C3 and decision centres—which can be sound deterrence. But it is not what the President wants.
The Government know that tests of ATBMs are useful for testing terminal ASBM systems as well: if we did them, they would not be in actual breach of the treaty but they would be a clear circumvention of it. The Government know that European prime military targets are vulnerable to aircraft and to air-breathing missiles and not only to ballistic missiles. The Government know that these European acrhitecture studies are only about defences against ballistic systems, all the same.
As the German Government—and presumably NATO as well—have pointed out, "Extended Air Defence" is what we need and what in any case we, and our NATO allies, have got to find money for.
1234
Neither propping up Mr. Reagan's vision of a shield, nor spending money to support the US Army Strategic Defense programmes, let alone spending it to shred the SALT II and ABM treaties is our Government's or NATO's business or interest.
The Government know that when the European architecture studies are completed next year, all at American expense, the next stage of programme definition and development is intended by the United States to be at our expense—financial and scientific.
The Government know that the productive deployment of our scientific manpower—a limited and infinitely valuable human resource, trained at the taxpayers' expense—is a national interest. Yet, here, without public discussion and without, apparently, a moment's thought, this manpower is being hired out to work on a "strategy" as misconceived in purpose as it is fanciful in application. The Government know, just as well as the Reagan administration knows, that Assured Survival—as they like to call the deployment of strategic defences against ballistic missiles by the United States and the Soviet Union—depends entirely on Soviet co-operation.
And they know that that co-operation is most unlikely to be forthcoming—which is why the President wants the United States to be allowed to deploy ABMs anyway and wants to get all his allies to help him. SDI is no longer just research; it is active United States Government policy; and so, necessarily, is withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The Government know this and should stop prevaricating about "only a research programme".
In its last two years, the American Administration is doing all it can to "create facts"—that is the phrase—and now our Government are aiding and abetting it in part by "creating facts" which will be beyond the reach of Congress. The Government know that SDI "Battle Management", the European part of which our Ministry of Defence is now to work on to the tune of 3.3 million dollars, depends on the total integration of all the relevant systems with as much "interception" as possible in the "boost phase"—which requires the "assets" (as weapons are now becoming called) to be over the target area the whole time. This the Government know and are in fact working to bring about, not to prevent.
The Government also know that the logic of all these schemes is the inextricable integration of Britain's and Europe's efforts and territory in a United States system at a necessarily low, or subservient, level. The "Battle Management" of the system our MoD is now being paid to study will not be in SACEUR's hands or in the North Atlantic Council's hands. It may well not even be in human hands at all.
All this is being conducted outside NATO in a series of bilateral deals so that there can be no NATO political control. The Government know also that the United States centre of political gravity is moving away from Europe and that at the same time these plans aim at integrating United States allies ever more closely with the United States military structures and activities.
I believe that things are now beginning to go through as routine in the Ministry of Defence which would not have gone through at all in Michael

1235
Heseltine's day—things leading to all that I have just described. How far do the Government intend to suck us in?
This brings me back, my Lords, to my Question, which seems to me the best formal way of putting it:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their view that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how".
8.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, it seems to me that the Question which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is of enormous importance, and I should like to thank him for raising it in this House. I agree with most of what he said but I want to put my arguments in a slightly different perspective.
The meeting at Reykjavik between President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev very nearly brought renewed hope for mankind by means of an epic agreement to limit nuclear weapons and to end the terrible nuclear arms race which is eating up our resources so badly—resources that are needed for creative purposes—and which is causing fear to darken the world. But that meeting at Reykjavik was a disaster. People sometimes try to dress up disasters as successes. This was a disaster and the cause of the disaster was the deep disagreement between the USA and the USSR on the subject of SDI.
SDI is contrary to the intentions of the ABM Treaty. The objective behind SDI is to build up a system of defence against nuclear missiles of such a character that even if not all missiles are shot down, so many of them are that the advantage of first strike, the shield, is removed. Never mind that some say that this would only cause a potential enemy to build more missiles if fewer are going to get through; never mind that some people say that you could never trust the computer system on which SDI depends; never mind all the other objections that could be brought against it; never mind if it belongs to a dream world. If that dream could, peradventure, be translated into reality, it would be contrary to the spirit of the ABM Treaty agreed between President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev on 26th May, 1972.
The preamble of that treaty runs as follows:
"The USA and the USSR, proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind:
Considering that effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons;
Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as certain agreed measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms, would contribute to the creation of more favourable conditions for further negotiations on limiting strategic arms etc … agrees as follows".
That is the preamble; and so the ABM Treaty is based on the view that the deployment of ABM systems increases the nuclear arms race beyond those permitted in the treaty. President Reagan's SDI plans proceed on the opposite assumption, that ABM systems could in themselves produce an adequate defence against nuclear weapons and so render the nuclear arms race futile.
The principles are contrary, and so the question arises: what is the view of Her Majesty's Government
1236
towards the stated aims of the ABM Treaty? I know that this country has not signed it and, in that sense, it is not our business; but it has been signed by our closest ally, with whom we are said to have a special relationship, and so we really want to know what view is taken of the principles of this treaty by Her Majesty's Government. I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister making that clear. Does it remain the view of Her Majesty's Government that the treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I should like to ask a question about feasibility. The Prime Minister said when she returned recently from a visit to President Reagan that she had agreed that SDI should be tested up to feasibility. Not being able to find an adequate description of what that word meant in this House or in the other place, I took refuge in my dictionary. I see that the word "feasibility" is derived from the Latin facere (to make) and so it should mean "up to practicability". Is it right to interpret this as meaning that SDI should not only be researched in laboratories but also developed and tested up to the point at which it would be practicable? This is such an important matter that I hope the noble Lord the Minister will at last be able to enlighten us; otherwise we are in confusion, and that is never a desirable state to be in when discussing defence strategies.
The matter is of peculiar importance for pressing reasons. In the first place, President Reagan, in his speech to the United Nations in September, acknowledged the Russian concession that laboratory research into SDI is permissible under the treaty, but he offered a new package which included a less restrictive view of research, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred. Instead of the 15 years' notice of withdrawal proposed by Gorbachev, Reagan proposed seven and a half years' notice—only half the period. But he coupled with that the proposal that should either side after that time decide to deploy ABM systems it,
"would be obliged to offer a plan for sharing the benefits of strategic defence and for eliminating offensive ballistic missiles".
Two years, he said, would be allowed for such negotiations and if after that period there was no agreement—and it seems highly probable that after those two years there would be no agreement—either side would be free to deploy its ABM systems after giving the six months' notice at present required by the treaty of 1972. That is an important proposal, and as the chief ally of the United States of America we should like to know the view of Her Majesty's Government about such a proposal.
There is another reason why this matter is so important. That is to be found in the phrase used by President Reagan, to the effect that during the initial seven and a half year period,
"each side should be free to research, develop and test strategic defences in accordance with the treaty".
And so the question to be asked is: how can such research and development be in accordance with the ABM Treaty? Do Her Majesty's Government agree, or do they not, with this interpretation of the treaty that this is permitted under the ABM Treaty?
We read in Article V of the treaty as follows:
"Each side undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, space-based or mobile land-based".

1237
That seems clear enough. It seems as though the development and testing proposed by President Reagan is expressly forbidden by the terms of the treaty. However, Professor Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College, London, has drawn my attention to Agreed Statement D, which is attached to the treaty. That reads as follows:
"In order to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components … the parties agree that in the event of ABM systems based on other physical principles and including components capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, SBM launchers or ABM radar being created in the future, specific limitations on such systems and their components would be subject to discussions".
I am told that statement was included in 1972 in order to ensure that Russian lasers, then being developed, would be included in negotiations; but now it would seem the United States of America is using it to insist that it has the right not only to research but also to develop and test ABM systems if they are based on new physical principles, because those lie outside the treaty. In 1972, it seems, the Agreed Statement D was included so that lasers might be included. Now it seems that it is being used so that they can be developed and tested outside the treaty.
If they lie outside the treaty, there seems no restraint to their being not only developed and tested but also deployed. Secretary of State Shultz had earlier said that the USA would abide by what was commonly thought to be the interpretation of Clause V, that they were forbidden. However, President Reagan, in his address to the United Nations seems to be redefining the position of his country not by Clause V in its obvious meaning but as interpreted by Agreed Statement D.
What position do Her Majesty's Government hold over this? Are they still in favour of strengthening the treaty or do they side with President Reagan in weakening it by regarding potential future SDI components of ABM systems as being based on new physical principles and so outside the scope of the treaty?
I ask these questions with some anxiety. Recent events have shown USA international strategies to be in some "confusion and disarray". I take that phrase from the USA. We cannot afford confusion in matters where a terrible nuclear arms race of potential unimaginable frightfulness is at stake. Agreement at Reykjavik seemed so near and yet so far. The influence of allies at a time of confusion and disarray cannot be without effect; and in any case I am persuaded that the citizens of this country would be more reassured if they could be clear about the views of Her Majesty's Government upon these important matters. I look forward with much expectation to the enlightenment that I hope the Minister will be able to give on this important Question, which I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising in this House.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us this opportunity for debate, even if it is rather late in the evening. The ABM Treaty was a product of the Salt I talks and was signed on 12th May 1972 by both
1238
superpowers. The treaty was ratified in September 1972 by both parties, and instruments of ratification were exchanged in October 1972. The treaty was reviewed in November 1977 by the US-Soviet Standing Consultative Commission and was found to be operating satisfactorily and therefore required no amendment.
The Labour Party in its document Defence and Security for Britain 1984 said:
"Labour strongly supports the existing Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is opposed to any action to undermine its provisions, including development of the so-called 'Star Wars Strategic Defence Initiative by the United States".
I gave a very full critique of star wars in the speech I made to your Lordships' House last Wednesday night. I do not intend to bore the House with another effort.
I think that there are two main issues tonight. The first issue is SDI and the interpretation dispute. In October 1985, President Reagan, supported by hardliners such as Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary for Defense, put forward the idea of an alternative interpretation of the ABM Treaty based on a new reading of Agreed Statement D. The motivation for the new interpretation was to pre-empt criticism of SDI on the grounds that it violated the ABM Treaty. NATO allies including Great Britain protested, and Mr. George Shultz persuaded the President not to persist with the proposals. However, according to an article by Lawrence Freedman in The Times of 16th October, President Reagan was still trying to convince Mr. Gorbachev of the correctness of the new permissive interpretation.
Mr. Gerard Smith, chief negotiator of the treaty, attacked the new interpretation in The Times in October of this year and said:
"This new version of the treaty has drastic implications for the survival of the treaty and indeed of the whole arms control process.".
John Rhinelander, who was also involved in the preparation of the treaty, said that the attempt to place SDI outside the treaty was,
"a dishonest and disingenuous interpretation of the treaty".
Those are hard words about his own government by an American who was a negotiator. Rhinelander was also quoted in the New Scientist of 28th October as saying,
"All but one of the American negotiators present at the 1972 talks agree that the new definition as argued by the Reagan administration is 'absolute rubbish' ".
He also said:
"It looks to me that Reykjavik foundered because the Russians were trying to make an interpretation of the treaty tighter than in 1972, while the United States was trying to make it much looser.".
As these Americans say, we ought to get back to and stick to the terms of the treaty. In any case, it is essential that an agreement on the meaning of the treaty be reached as quickly as possible so that it may underpin discussions on arms control.
The second issue tonight is that of alleged transgressions. Washington has long accused the Soviet Union of violating the treaty by the building of the radar system at Krasnoyarsk. The force of these allegations is weakened by two things. First, it is far from certain, in the view of a number of British analysts, that Krasnoyarsk is a violation. It could in fact be what the Soviets claim it is—namely, a radar for tracking manned space flights as claimed by the

1239
Observer on 24th March 1985. Secondly, Britain and the United States last month signed an agreement to modernise the early-warning radar system at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. Both Gerard Smith and Rhinelander claim that this system, plus an American system at Thule in Greenland and the Krasnoyarsk system, are all in violation of the treaty.
In October 1985, the Soviet Union offered to halt the building of Krasnoyarsk in exchange for the non-modernisation of the Yorkshire and Greenland systems. This offer was dismissed by the United States on the grounds that since Fylingdales and Thule existed at the time of the agreement they were therefore not bound by the treaty. Scientists have argued that the British and United States radars are not being modernised but that they are being replaced and therefore do fall within the scope of the treaty.
It is imperative that agreement should be reached. I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to help to reach such an agreement. I should also like to know why reference has not been made in this matter to the US-Soviet Standing Consultative Commission which was set up for this very purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said very recently, the trouble is that there is too much distrust. I believe that if we are to make progress, both in settling the dispute and in arms control, we must trust one another a great deal more than we have done.
8.57 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is an indefatigable questioner on arms control and disarmament matters. I make no complaint about that. But the line of the noble Lord's questions seems to indicate a fear that Government policy is somehow flawed. I hope I can persuade him that that is not so.
I have listened with great attention to what has been said this evening. What I say in reply will perhaps not come as a surprise to your Lordships. The reason is that the basis of the Government's policy has been clearly stated and explained to your Lordships on several occasions. Many of the issues raised in the course of this evening's debate and also raised more generally by others outside this House are simply questions which are not susceptible to rapid and easy answers now. The strategic and political issues raised by the strategic defence initiative and its relationship with the ABM Treaty will be with us for a number of years and will need constant re-assessment with the passage of time.
As your Lordships well realise, Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the 1972 ABM Treaty. But it remains our policy to contribute towards the maintenance of this treaty. We regard it as one of the basic components of the current strategic relationship. The drafters of the treaty had as their objective the creation of a stable and predictable strategic environment, one in which neither side was able to develop defensive systems capable of undermining the equation that had hitherto prevailed. But it is often held that this perception and the situation of mutually assured deterrence which it brings about is immoral. The argument runs that it is wrong to base one's security on the risk of massive potential destruction.
1240
Accidents could occur. A madman could trigger off a crippling first strike or a conventional conflict could escalate into an all-out nuclear exchange which would result in the nuclear holocaust.
The Government do not underestimate these concerns. The comprehensive arrangements to prevent the accidental release of nuclear weapons and for the closest political control over their use in practice make the possibility of accidental use or use by a madman vanishingly small. And the awful destructive power of nuclear weapons, with the certainty of massive destruction which they bring, provides the best guarantee against their use. Deterrence works and has been seen to work over the last 40 years. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. That is why we hold to the ABM Treaty which provides the framework of stability and predictability in which nuclear deterrence can be managed and further arms control agreements sought.
The question then arises of how to ensure that the ABM Treaty continues to provide this framework. Strict compliance with the ABM Treaty remains essential. United Kingdom concerns are well known. We believe that existing arms control agreements should continue to be observed scrupulously by signatories to them. That is why we have said that we believe the construction of the Soviet radar at Krasnoyarsk raises serious concerns which the Soviet Union should answer.
May I now say a few words about the United States SDI research programme. Many would have us believe that the SDI represents the main threat to the ABM Treaty, and that by participating in the programme Her Majesty's Government are contributing towards undermining that treaty. But such a belief is mistaken. First, the United States Government have given repeated assurances that their research will be conducted in accordance with the existing treaty obligations, including the ABM Treaty. The US Government publishes every year an extensive report to Congress on the SDI. This includes a comprehensive discussion of compliance aspects, including those affecting Allied participation in the programme. A copy of this document is in the Library of your Lordships' House and I commend it to noble Lords who have concern over this matter. I wish I were in a position to commend to noble Lords a similar document about the compliance with the ABM Treaty of Soviet research into strategic defences.
Secondly, many—and some noble Lords are among them—forget that the SDI is a research programme investigating the feasibility of strategic defences. That has always been the aim. The ABM Treaty permits research. Of that there is and can be no doubt and it is clearly right that the United States should conduct its own research programme in the light of the Soviet Union's own activities, which have been explained to your Lordships on many occasions. But, until it can be clearly demonstrated that the SDI holds out the prospect of something better, we shall continue to rely on nuclear deterrence. Churchill's words have often been quoted, but they bear repetition:
"Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."

1241
The Government adopt the same view with regard to the ABM Treaty. We should hang on to it as a stable element in a changing world.
A number of points were raised during the course of this evening's debate. I think the answers to many of them are well known, but perhaps I can help your Lordships just a little further. I first repeat the basis on which the United Kingdom and the United States see the strategic defence initiative. Your Lordships know of the four points that were agreed between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan in December 1984. Although those points have been often referred to in your Lordships' House, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat them again, because I believe that they deserve more study than they have perhaps so far enjoyed.
The first is that the United States and the Western aim is not superiority but balance, taking account of Soviet developments. The second is that SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiations. Thirdly, the overall aim is to enhance, not to undermine, deterrence; and I hope the right reverend Prelate will bear that point in mind. Fourthly, East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of defensive systems on both sides. That is the position of the United Kingdom Government. It is the position, too, of the United States Government, as they have reaffirmed on more than one occasion.
I turn now to the ABM Treaty itself, which is of course the subject of the noble Lord's Question. Her Majesty's Government have advocated strengthening the treaty through reaffirming and clarifying it. We believe that United States detailed discussion of SDI compliance with the ABM Treaty and attempts to discuss treaty compliance more generally with the Soviet Union are consistent with this approach. We also note, as Mr. Nitze told Congress last week, that the United States want, and I quote his words,
"to continue to discuss with the Soviets our view of what is permitted by the ABM Treaty".
That is the response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who suggested that that should take place. Indeed, I think he was quoting a letter from Dr. Owen to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; so that is the answer to that point.
It is a matter for regret that the Soviet Union is apparently unwilling to engage in detailed discussion about compliance of their own strategic defence work with the ABM Treaty, or to meet United States concerns in this area. The Soviets seem more interested in re-writing the ABM Treaty or, as they have put it, hardening the terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked particularly about the word "feasibility", which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and others, have used. I must say that I was much attracted to the definition of that word which my noble friend the Lord President of the Council offered to your Lordships not so long ago. However, I would add to that in this way. I think that I would take the commonsense view of what is meant by that word. Research is pointless unless pursued to the point of demonstrating whether the devices concerned are going to work. It has long
1242
been stated that the purpose of the SDI research programme is to investigate the feasibility of strategic defences. Feasibility must be assessed before taking the decision whether or not to move to the next stage.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way at this point. He is weaseling again. We all agree that the treaty permits research into feasibility or into anything else you like. What the Prime Minister said was that she looked forward to testing feasibility, and we all ought to agree that the treaty forbids testing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I have already answered that question.
Lord Kennet: No, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord referred also to the answer that my noble friend the Lord President gave a few weeks ago. I do not think I have anything to add to those two comprehensive replies.
I have been asked about the position of the radars at Krasnoyarsk and Fylingdales. I have already referred to one of them. The ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales was there long before the ABM Treaty, which does not prohibit modernisation of existing radars. Modernisation of RAF Fylingdales will be fully in accordance with United States obligations under the ABM Treaty. Fylingdales and the new large phased radar under construction at Krasnoyarsk are not comparable. That was fully explained to the Soviet authorities early this year. As I said earlier, we have repeatedly urged the Soviets to respond to legitimate United States concerns on the Krasnoyarsk installation.
At a meeting with President Reagan in December 1984 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed with the President an overall approach on the strategic defence initiative, and I have recited the four points which emerged from that meeting. That document has stood the test of time remarkably well. It tackled the main issues which needed to be addressed and will need to be addressed for some time to come. That approach remains valid and was indeed reinforced by the recent meeting between my right honourable friend and President Reagan again at Camp David. Their agreed statement on their most recent meeting said:
"We also agreed on the need to press ahead with the SDI research programme which is permitted by the ABM Treaty".
The complex issues raised by the relationship between strategic offences and strategic defences are being addressed in the bilateral Geneva nuclear and space talks. That is the forum, together with the specialised forum established by the ABM Treaty itself—which has been referred to this evening—in which treaty issues should be addressed.
The sixth round of the Geneva talks ended on 13th November. They resume on 15th January. Inter-sessional talks took place in Geneva last week. I hope that in a further round of talks progress will be made even before the main negotiations resume in Geneva. The statement issued following the meeting at Camp David last month set out clearly what the priorities are. But we look to the Soviet Union to address seriously the issues which the Americans have sought to discuss with it over a number of months.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock.