An Ageing Population

HL Deb 14 February 1991 vol 526 cc273-300

7.4 p.m.

Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what inter-departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend towards an increasing proportion of elderly people in society, and the implications of this.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper seeks to convince the Government of the need for an inter-departmental committee to discuss the question of the demographic trend towards an ageing population. This is not the first time that the demographic issue has been raised or discussed. The trend has been discussed for the past 30 years, but always the tendency has been to deal with one single aspect of the problem. There is a need to extend the debate. There is need for an inter-departmental committee to take a broader look, as I hope that we shall be able to convince the Minister.

Current overall demographic trends have received much publicity and are fairly widely known. In 1988 the population of the United Kingdom was 57,066,000. Of this figure 18.2 per cent.—that is 10,412,000 —were over pensionable age; 3,852,000 aged 75 or over, and 796,000 over 85 years of age.

Between 1987 and 2006 the total population of Great Britain is expected to have increased by 4 per cent. The projected increase in the number of people aged 65 or over is 8 per cent., and the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to increase by 74 per cent. Those figures represent an enormous projected growth in the numbers of very elderly people. We are saying that by 2006 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age will be 75 or over, and 13 per cent. will be aged 85 or over.

The increase in the number of older people is generally considered with some trepidation. Older people are seen largely in terms of a burden on health, welfare, and social security systems. The Government refer responsibility for "pensioners' affairs" to the DSS. People in the media and some in high government office talk about the "demographic time bomb" and view the future with apprehension. But no comprehensive analysis has been made of the precise implications of a changing population structure on society and on the economy as a whole.

With 58 per cent. of people of pensionable age looking to the state for at least three-quarters of their income, policies emanating from the Department of Social Security have a profound effect on people's lives. There have been projections about the cost of paying an increased number of social security pensions from a decreasing number of national insurance contributions. Again, there is the cost emphasis—the focus always on the "economic burden" of the elderly. That is of course important. But there are other factors affecting the economy as a whole to be considered.

An increasing number of older people have an additional income from occupational and personal pensions, and a considerable number now own their own homes. Therefore, many older people contribute to the economy as consumers, as workers and as voluntary or part-time carers and helpers. The real value of this contribution, the ways in which it is changing, and the full potential of our older population—that is, the positive aspects—have never been fully assessed. It is essential to the future economic prosperity of the country that the likely impact of a more extreme change in the population structure is now assessed.

We know from parliamentary answers in another place—and I quote a former Prime Minister that, Elderly people, like all other groups in society, are affected by the policies of many different Government Departments."—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/1989; col. 726.] A Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that Ministers and officials from different departments consult each other from time to time but that, Meetings are not held regularly but as and when necessary and in order to consider issues which arise."— [Official Report, Commons, 5/12/1989; col. 142.] That is a kind of management by crisis; the daily expediency approach. It is no longer good enough in my view.

I want briefly to look at the need for developing a co-ordinated and deliberate approach to policy on ageing. Other speakers will develop different aspects of the subject. I want first to examine community care. Scope for effective community care has in the past been diminished by policies relating to energy, to home insulation, to heating, to transport, and to social security because of lack of co-ordination among different departments. The service has been diminished. Housing is another area that springs to mind. The needs of older people are not always reflected in planning and design or the location of houses. Again, more co-ordination might prevent older people being shunted off into ghettoes, cut off from younger people or from the interest of living in a mixed community.

Another aspect of housing which concerns me is the question of home income plans. On a number of occasions the Government have suggested that older home owners should use the value of their home to raise money. Ministers have suggested that older people could use the money to pay for such things as heating or private health insurance. As the number of older home owners increases, the Government may in the future urge people to unlock capital tied up in their homes, perhaps to fund repairs, domiciliary care or long-term health care costs.

It is clear that government spokesmen making these statements have had little or no knowledge of how difficult it can be to raise money from one's home safely. In the last two years, and very recently, we have read about substantial numbers of older people who have taken up very dangerous schemes and who are now in danger of losing their homes. An inter-departmental committee could help ensure that statements, such as those imploring older people to raise money from their home, would not be made without reference to other departments under whose remit such schemes came.

We touched briefly today in a Parliamentary Question on the current situation of employment. The Government have recognised the need to encourage older workers to stay in or return to the workforce. Practices and attitudes, however, continue to discriminate against older people at work. The experience and skills of older people are often undervalued by employers. They can be regarded as less capable or less adaptable than younger colleagues.

What we need is a long-term strategic view of employment and consideration by the workforce of part-time, job-share and voluntary work. As the workforce and employment practices change, it will be necessary for attitudes towards full-time permanent work to change, and for it to become more acceptable for people to combine two or more part-time paid jobs, possibly with voluntary work. Access to training and retraining are important to ensure that people gain new skills throughout their working life.

Policies such as the abolition of the earnings rule are very welcome for encouraging older people to carry on working. But there needs to be an inter-departmental view of such policies, in order to assess the impact that they will have on pension structures and the relationship between retirement and pensions.

Older people are as diverse as any other group in the population, but to a greater or lesser extent they are all consumers. It has been estimated that people over 50 control more than £100 billion annually in the spending market. Yet older people's rights as consumers are often overlooked and marketing campaigns are rarely targeted at them. Older people are often denied credit, for no other reason than that they have reached an arbitrary age. Our stereotyped images of older people somehow make them invisible to marketeers.

There are a number of areas of health policy where poor co-ordination between departments in the past has had an adverse effect on policy and where an inter-departmental view of the situation could help to ensure that all factors are taken into consideration and that the best possible service is available for older people.

The development of policies for the long-term care of older people, in particular, needs to take many different factors into account, apart from simple projections of the likely numbers of older people who will need such care in the future. First, it is necessary to look at patterns of migration and the areas in which long-term care facilities need to be developed. Many older people move to be near their family or retire to the country or seaside. The funding of residential and nursing home care is an issue currently causing considerable concern to many older people and their families, and to those of us who take an interest in these affairs. The patterns and trends in pensioners' incomes; the growth in home ownership and in occupational and personal pensions; and the level of social security benefits available must all be taken into account.

Policies for the development and funding of care in homes must also take into account trends in hospital long-term care and policies affecting local authorities which provide long-term care, such as, for example, the community charge.

These few examples illustrate the need for a long-term inter-departmental strategic view of health policies for an ageing population. Planning for an effective health policy could involve not just the Department of Health, but also the Department of Social Security, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, at the very least.

We know, too, that the older population perform more than their fair share of caring and voluntary help. The commitment and contribution of informal carers to community care is increasingly being recognised. It is estimated that the saving to central and local government made by informal carers is £24 billion a year. The Government stated in the White Paper Caring for People: Their [carers'] total input was greater than the combined inputs financed from central and local government".

A large proportion of carers are themselves older people. Already, in 1985, among carers who devoted at least 20 hours a week to caring, 43 per cent. were aged 46 to 64 and 26 per cent. were aged over 65. The fit "young elderly", particularly women, provide services as carers both for the very old, often their own parents, and for people in work, looking after children or grandchildren.

I have tried to outline some of the advantages of, and the need for, an inter-departmental approach. Many voluntary organisations which have written to me agree with the proposal. Age Concern has made several representations to government on the subject. I know that the all-party group for pensioners in another place also supports the idea. There already exist a small number of inter-departmental committees; for example, the ministerial group on women's issues. There are similar inter-departmental groupings in other administrations. In the United States, there are a number of committees, and the Netherlands has an inter-departmental ministerial group to discuss such issues.

It is an accepted fact that demographic changes will have an impact on all sections of society. Effective policies to meet that challenge must be based on a clear understanding of the implications for the economy as a whole. The formation of an inter-departmental ministerial committee, to consider the impact of ageing on society and the economy, would help develop a long-term strategic response to ageing. The pattern of change should be looked on as an opportunity and not simply as a problem.

7.17 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in what he has said. That remarkable and wise man, the late Lord Seebohm, first argued for a generic approach to social work in his 1968 report on local authority and allied personal social services. In 1988, while agreeing broadly with the Griffiths Report on community care, he contended that care in the community would lead to an increase, not a decrease, in costs and argued strongly, looking to the future, for more forward planning and joint funding in the fields of housing, education, health and welfare, both locally and at central government level. Only thus, it seems to me, can we turn a liability into an asset.

The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has told us that 25 per cent. of the population will be aged between 50 and 75 in the year 2000—only nine years off—and that by the year 2006, 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age v, ill be 75 or over and 13 per cent. will be 85 or over. That means that a lot of carers will be needed. It also means that a lot of people will be available in the earlier age groups to do more work.

The trend already appears to be for earlier retirement to be required by employers, often by 50 or 55, and for those who retire to go into part-time work, just as many married women graduate returners re-entering the labour market are taking job sharing appointments in the Civil Service or in teaching. Dame Anne Mueller once told me that job sharing is working extremely well in the Civil Service. It is absolutely essential that action should be taken early to turn all these part-timers, and those who retire generally into a positive asset for society, not a charge upon it beyond their proper due as pensioners. People will need 10 work and society will need them to do so.

One of the surest guarantees of good health and good heart, mental and moral, is to be needed and valued. The present well-meaning arrangement for those over 60—that is to say, sheltered housing in which they are turned in on themselves and are no longer part of an active community or even sometimes a family, where the whole intention seems to be simply to keep them alive and safe—is not what most of us would choose, nor would we flourish there. I should much prefer to see more housing designed to keep grandfathers, grandmothers and aunts as part of the family and the community, there to sustain the children and sometimes to help to free married women, help single parents and indeed to work on their own account. The babushka in Russia is the vital ingredient in Russian family life. I myself was brought up from the age of 11 by a grandmother and two great aunts and I flourished on it. A generation gap is an excellent thing for both parties. I should like to see many more children able to enjoy it.

I return to my argument. Retired men and women can also work for themselves. Modern technology has made work infinitely more accessible and flexible. The work can come to the worker nowadays. The late Professor Wroth, a valued friend and formerly Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oxford, once told me that he had been much put out to learn that two of the best members of his research group would be withdrawing temporarily because they each expected a baby. But then he realised that the computer had changed the world. Both of them worked from home using modern technology, and both did, if anything, even better work than before because they were able, in thoroughly favourable circumstances, to combine meeting the needs of the child and the family with those of their work.

This pattern of part-time work at home could make an increasingly valuable contribution to the improvement of family life as well as to the needs of the country. If people over 50 are to do gainful work they must of course be employable. That will mean in many cases re-education and retraining. The Government have wisely abolished the earnings rule: now a strategy must be devised to match the special labour force to the needs and demands of the labour market. Thus a major potential employer, industry and the CBI must be closely involved in any planning, as must the trade unions.

How many permanent long-term jobs will there be? How many part-time, and where will they be in the country? What housing changes are needed? What are the implications for education both in schools and continuing education in the polytechnics and in retraining? What special part could the Open University play? Not least, can we afford not to have a co-ordinated strategy before we have to harmonise all this with what is planned in Europe, where the Council of Europe, I understand, recently agreed a policy for older people?

For all these reasons I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in urging that any interdepartmental body which the Government might contemplate setting up, as I hope they will, will include not only representatives of the Treasury, the DSS, the departments of housing, education and the environment and, above all, the DTI but also the private sector. It would be a fatal mistake and a terrible waste if all those departments addressed the issue separately, the more so because resources must necessarily be limited and should not be demand-led.

What are the country's chief aims for the 21st century? One of them must be to use our human resources wisely. That means for most of us to have the chance to be valued and needed for as long as possible in our lives. In concentrating as I have on the prospects for paid work outside the home in a formal structure, I do not forget the silent army of carers; namely, the mothers with young children, those who look after the frail, the sick, the disabled and the old, day in and day out, often without relief. My mother was one of those looking after the great aunts and she herself was partly blind. I know how unremitting that work is and how little of it is recognised and helped despite the best efforts of a series of governments. One of the worst features of that life is the absolute loneliness it often entails.

One of the tasks of that committee must also be to take a unified and, one hopes, a bipartisan approach to the whole question of care, since we are talking of strategy, in terms of housing, welfare and the needs of the family. That will save money in the end. It will also save lives.

7.25 p.m.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this discussion on the significance of an inquiry into our present demographic situation. He hinged his proposal on the position of the elderly and therefore I shall follow him along that line. Age specific death rates have declined: each successive cohort is less likely to die in infancy, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood and in middle and early old age. It has long been a commonplace of demographic history that this is not the result of the magic of medicine practised at the patient's bedside but has stemmed from the labours of dustmen and sanitary engineers and from improvements in the national diet.

Nevertheless marked social class inequalities in morbidity and mortality still exist. The latest estimates of life expectancy at birth for the United Kingdom are almost 72 years for men and nearly 78 for women, though these are significantly below those for many other countries. But in all countries most of the survivors from the early 70s onwards are women. The gloomy predictions about the burden imposed by the greying of the population have been overdone. Today the United Kingdom has 2.2 million people over 80. In 20 years' time their number will have increased by no more than ½ million. I here follow the convincing analysis of Professor Margot Jeffereys in the indispensable collection of essays under the title of Aspects of Ageing recently published by the department of social science at Bedford College.

She points out that there will be a shift from the young-old to old-old. In 1981 there were 11 individuals per 1,000 over the age of 85. In 10 years' time there will be 17 individuals over that age. Not everyone over the age of 85 needs looking after all the time. Many manage to look after themselves perfectly well. The so-called productive age group of 16 to 64 will not diminish significantly until the end of the century. Indeed the dependency burden, as it is sometimes called, in terms of the ratio of 16 to 64 year-olds to those under or over those ages will not alter significantly until the second decade of the next century.

The very concept of the dependency burden contains too many false quantities to be useful. Dependency no longer ceases at 16 and there has been a considerable decline, as a result of trade union pressure, in the once extensive employment of people aged 60 to 65. The dependency ratio does not allow for the increase in productivity and it assumes dependency among the retired. But it is the retired who sustain day-to-day life and emotional stability through caring for children, the sick, the disabled and many homes. "If this performance were costed", remarks Professor Jeffereys, "the assumption that the retirement pension is not earned but an unreciprocated gift from the employed to the non-employed, would be found untenable".

The demographic evidence points to the general view for new directions of social policy and departmental discussion. For example, let us have regard for the amount of care given today, as it has been throughout this century, by the family. That institution looks after some 1.5 million people, mostly women. Let us remember that community care in this society means family care and family care means care by women.

I wholly accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that demographic analysis is a prerequisite for the shaping of social policy which is relevant to the solution or palliation of the problems with which it deals. I shall cite one example in the form of a newly published paper by Melanie Henwood of the King's Fund Institute. She has undertaken a demographic analysis of excess winter mortality. Deaths from hypothermia are the most extreme manifestation of the effects of cold, but they are relatively rare. Much more common are the extra deaths which occur during the winter months, typically from respiratory and bronchial conditions, and among the old from poor diet. Even during the relatively mild winters of recent years considerably more deaths occurred during the winter compared with the summer months. Indeed, between 1983 and 1990 the excess of winter over summer deaths in England averaged some 40,000.

The argument that it is natural and inevitable that more people of this order will die in winter than in summer simply cannot be sustained. Dr. Henwood examined the mortality experience in winter and summer months across a number of other countries over a nine-year period from 1976 to 1984, the last eight years for which data were available. She reached the following conclusions. In all the months she examined there were 26 when deaths were at least 20 per cent. above the monthly average. Of those 26 months, 17 occurred in Britain. In the other countries such an extreme excess was exceptional; Germany and Italy experienced one such month in nine years, while the United States, Switzerland and the Netherlands experienced it only twice.

This demonstrates in terms immediately relevant to social policy our incapacity to cope with extreme weather. It also demonstrates that our preparations for the extreme weather that we do experience are hopelessly inadequate in terms of building standards, heating and insulation in the home, diet and the like. That is one specific and tiny example of pointers to social policy that can come from demographic work.

My mind goes back to the great importance in a very large number of areas of our national life of the seminal report of the Royal Commission on Population of 1947. That report promoted research and it resulted in the permanent establishment of the Population Investigation Committee under the chairmanship of the late Professor David Glass. The report destroyed on a large scale myths relating to contraception, childbirth and the like and substituted knowledge for opinion in very important areas. That knowledge became the basis of new policies with which we are now so familiar and which have become so much a part of our normal national life that we have forgotten altogether about the work of the commission.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that we need now an authoritative analysis which will deal with the demographic situation of women and will look at the relation between demographic trends and what is happening in the labour market and all the circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, drew attention. I do not think that anyone can regard the muddle, confusion and administrative waste of our present social policies without seeing the need for bringing them into relation with a new central theme. The most appropriate central theme for policies in those areas would be demographic. I do not care what kind of body is charged with this work. I should prefer another Royal Commission, but provided the work is done it does not matter whether it is done by a departmental committee or a working party. However, the work is now indispensable and I hope that the Minister will be persuaded of the value of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.

7.40 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, we have listened to three eloquent speeches from members of what I hope I can call, without offence, the "younger generation". I do not think that any of them have reached the allotted span and I am sure that they will not mind if some rather more decrepit or, at any rate, older Peers such as myself, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and above all our senior prefect the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as octogenarians and nonagenarians, look upon them as promising youngsters and offer our thoughts on the subject of elderly people.

The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was kind enough to say that some old people, who have reached the age of 85, like myself, are capable of looking after after themselves.

Lord McGregor of Durris

I think that I said "many".

The Earl of Longford

I do not know what proportion "many" represents. I suppose, therefore, that many are not so capable. I would have to declare an interest if I claimed that I was one of those who could or who could not do so. At any rate, I can assure the no ole Lord that many people over the age of 85 spend most of their time looking after people of his age; indeed, a large part of their time is spent in that way.

I should like to look at the matter before us in rather wider perspective. The two books best known to me concerning old age are Cicero's De Senectute and Simone de Beauvoir's Old Age. Incidentally, both books arrive at totally opposite conclusions. Simone de Beauvoir sarcastically quotes Cicero's eulogy of old age as follows: 'Old age,' said Cicero, 'is far from being deprived of good council, authority and wise maturity. On the contrary it has these qualities in the highest degree"'. I am sure we can agree in this House that as Cicero was only 83 years old when he wrote those words, anyone who is a little older than that may feel that he is speaking for them. The qualities of "good council, authority and wise maturity" were held in the highest degree by Cicero. Simone de Beauvoir was very sarcastic about that. Cicero went on to say: That senile decay which is commonly called second childhood is not to be seen in all old men" — and, presumably in old ladies— but only in those whose mind is naturally weak". Simone de Beauvoir poured great scorn on all of that, pointing out that Cicero was talking about a small class and really arguing the case for the dominance of the Senate which, I suppose, in a loose way could be compared to our own Chamber of mature people. She went on to quote Cicero as saying: It is impossible for old age to be borne in extreme poverty". She then proceeded to say that the lot of most old people was extremely hard and that it was quite ridiculous to say that as a group they were having a good time. Today, I find myself somewhere between the two views, although my feelings are somewhat closer to those of Simone de Beauvoir. She concluded that a total change of society was necessary if most old people were to have a bearable existence although I do not know how far she wanted to go in that direction.

A totally new approach is necessary to solve the problems of old age. That was implicit in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stallard, but I should like to summarise my view briefly in my own words. I worked for Sir William Beveridge for three years when he was drawing up his plans for a social security system. Undoubtedly the well-being of the elderly was in the minds of William Beveridge and those who worked with him. However, since that time, Western countries have become so much richer that we cannot compare the provision now made for the elderly with that contemplated by Beveridge during the war. We have gone a long way but we must go much further in order to provide what I would call "social security". Yet, however generous the contribution to social security becomes, we are still left with the question of whether it will be enough. For example, Simone de Beauvoir said: Once we have understood what the state of the aged really is we cannot satisfy ourselves with calling for a more generous old age policy, higher pensions, decent housing and organised leisure. It is the whole system". She means that the whole social system has to be reorganised. Therefore, I do not think that the approach indicated by my noble friend Lord Stallard —although that is not all that is in his mind—takes the matter far enough.

As a Member of this House I have made it a rule always to speak in any debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I usually adopt an obsequious attitude. However, I am not so grovelling tonight as is usually the case. I believe that his approach is on the timid side. If we are to consider the future of the elderly, I can sum the matter up in one sentence. We must not think of the policy as being one of security for the old; we must think of it as being an opportunity for the old. That is a very difficult concept to put into effect because the elderly arc people of all different kinds. Some want to work and continue to do so for years, while people like myself are somewhat fanatical in the way they stick to some kind of activity which passes itself off as work. Other people want to put their feet up when they retire from the Civil Service at the age of 60. So there are tremendous variations. A policy of opportunity for the elderly would require a great deal of imagination and a great deal of hard work.

I should like to take the matter further than my noble friend Lord Stallard. I view inter-departmental committees with little enthusiasm. I believe that they can do a good job. Let us take for example one particular area about which I have spoken recently. I refer to mental offenders. In that connection, I believe that you can co-ordinate the work of the Home Office and that of the Department of Health with beneficial results. Both have good ideas; at present, however they are at cross purposes. That is the kind of area in which an inter-departmental committee could produce great benefits.

However, the realisation of a completely new vision will not be achieved by inter-departmental committees. Such a committee will not produce a whole new philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the inquiry into population. That, incidentally, has always interested me. It was thought at one time that the population was disappearing; later, it was claimed that precisely the opposite was taking place. Those undertaking the inquiry therefore had a very interesting experience. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the members of the committee, my friend Peggie Jay, gave birth to twins. That was indeed a memorable occasion. Nevertheless, the committee did a good job.

We had visions from the Robbins Committee, the Wolfenden Committee and from the Warnock Committee, though I add the latter with some hesitation and equivocation because I did not actually like its conclusions. However, no one will deny that it advanced the discussion on the whole subject. I do not believe that the matter should be left to officials; it would not get us very much further. It would tie up a few loose ends, but we must have something bolder. In my view there is no alternative except the kind of committee to which I and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, have referred. Therefore, in a way, I agree with the noble Lord. The precise machinery involved does not matter. But the chairman of such a committee must be fully aware of the concept of a new world of opportunity for old people. Tremendous benefits could flow from the setting up of such a committee. Without such a bold lead nothing will happen.

7.49 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I am happy to be able to join my noble friend Lord Stallard in the debate on his Unstarred Question and to be able to give him my support. When batting at number five one finds that the previous players have laid the foundations and one is free to roam in a way that would not be possible in the early stages of the debate. In any case, the previous speaker has given me a chance to raise tile question of whether interdepartmental committees, Royal Commissions or some other body are the best way to deal with the matter. I do not know. I have known of departmental committees that have made recommendations. Some have been acted on and others have not. I have also known of Royal Commissions that have made recommendations, many of which have not been acted upon. I am not sure which machinery is better.

We should look at the issue seriously. Human beings are a resource. The demographic changes mean that people are living longer. We should therefore decide how society can make best use of that resource. We are talking about people who have lived for 70 or 75 years, although it is said that the first five years are not relevant. That 70 years' experience should be used. I am 77, and some people of my age are often merely waiting for the end. There are other people who can envisage a further 20 years of life, and they act accordingly. We have good examples here of the latter. My noble friends Lord Longford, Lord Houghton and Lord Jenkins are good examples. One of the reasons why they are as they are is that they have this place. A useful, stimulating occupation plays an important part in making use of the elderly, experienced people who are living longer than previously.

I should like a commission or an interdepartmental committee to study the whole question of how the community can make the best possible use of such people. I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. In the society in which I was brought up elderly people are the bosses. They are the people to whom we go for advice. I remember that on New Year's Day I had to go on my knees to my grandmother. She would lecture me. I had to promise that in the new year I would be better and do all kinds of things that I had not done the previous year and abstain from doing things that I should not have done. My grandmother died at the age of 98. I had a great aunt who lived to 105. I have an aunt in the United States at the moment who is in her 90s. I am certain that the fact that they lived in a family with children and grandchildren played a big part in their longevity. My grandmother was a matriarch and we all looked up to her. She ordered us around, decided what should be done and how the household should run.

I do not suggest that that can happen in society now. I merely give that as an example. We need to study how people of the age of my noble friends whom I have mentioned can be made maximum use of in society. All people, regardless of age, require food, clothing and shelter. We need to think about the income and housing policy which will enable them to have such things. They also need a great deal more. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are thinking about those issues.

We must deal with the situation imaginatively. We cannot merely say, as many people say to me, "I do not know what we will do. So few people will be working to support a great many other people who cannot work". That is nonsense. People should be able to work for much longer. As I said, I am 77 and I still work. We should not say that people must stay in paid work, and work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until they are 75. On the other hand, we should make it possible for them to work until they are 90 if they want to do so.

We shall not find a solution to the problem unless we sit down with a group of knowledgeable people to draw up a programme. The Government need a programme. Whether they accept an inter-departmental committee or some other body, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing to move in the direction that we suggest.

7.58 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, this is not the environment that I should choose to discuss matters relating to the last 30 years of the lives of our citizens, because that is what we are talking about. Here vie are: the shrouds go on the television cameras; the lights go down; and the draughts that kill outside enter the Chamber. One feels the mausoleum is almost complete. We only want some gigantic doors to open beyond the Throne and someone to push this gigantic coffin into the furnace of history—because that is where it belongs if we cannot do better than this.

Much has already been said to show what a profoundly important subject my noble friend has raised. We all have an interest to declare. Every noble Lord speaking in the debate has to declare that he or she is an elderly member of society. Why of society? We are elderly members of all there is including the activities of life, enjoyment, happiness and the community. If we are becoming a little tired of old age, we ourselves are probably partly to blame. We have taken undue care, we have been temperate, thrifty, and we have denied ourselves. We have had a sense of public duty and trudged on in the hope that we shall get satisfaction out of life, as well as making a contribution to the well-being of society.

From time to time we hear conventional remarks. My own Member of Parliament, Sir Geoffrey Howe, recently announced that he would retire at the next election; he had reached the age of 64 and felt it was time to make way for a younger man. What rubbish! I have made way on two occasions for a younger man; both men are dead. Only Harold Wilson ever said that he would make way for an older man, which he did. That man is still alive.

The groove of ritualistic thinking and attitudes towards the advancing years of life is deplorable. We shall le retired for longer than we were at school or university. The phases of life change but they blend imperceptibly into each other. I should like to get rid of the word "pension". I should certainly get rid of any concept of the old age pension. My father was a cynical radical and he said, "The old age pension has created more old people than the Lord God Almighty". There is something in that.

We then went to retirement pensions. We receive them, even though we do not retire. Why retire? From what and to do what? We are probably leaving one vocation or career for another. I have had three careers and I have three pensions. Ridiculous! They are all intended to provide for my old age. They are annuities which ought to be blended into the progress of life in a different way—reinvested, if you like. Pensions and retirement gratuities are only part of the economics and finances of employment intended to provide for certain stages in life for which pensions seem to be appropriate.

I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on opportunities for health, training and education. A wealth of talent and experience in this country could be converted into activities. We are drooling away in conventional grooves of thought about life and what life is about. I am old enough to remember the earlier concept of a working class life. People left school early or were forced out of school because the leaving age was probably as low as 13. It was put at that age so that people could become part-timers. They worked as long as they could with the shadow of the workhouse staring at them as they became older.

Now we have an entirely different society. My noble friend referred to avenues in Australia. I was talking to an Australian at a business management meeting the other night. As an Englishman he went out to Australia 23 years ago to go into insurance broking. When he gave up his appointment in an insurance corporation he founded a co-operative for other professional men in a similar position who could offer their services temporarily and who were willing to take on short-term assignments or to undertake certain projects. He said that the co-operative had a turnover of well over 3 million Australian dollars; they are all happy and they all share. There is a small full-time staff to carry out the mechanics of the business.

I have probably overlooked one or two other interests that I ought to declare. One is that I have been a vice-president of the pre-retirement or preparation for retirement association for many years. I am happy to say that the Government support the association to prepare people for what is coming. When one sees a person taking his hat off the peg, saying, "This is the last time I shall be going home because I retire tomorrow" one wonders what on earth he will do.

When Lord Woolton was Minister of Food during the war he gave evidence to a Civil Service training committee of which I was a member under the chairmanship of the late Ralph Assheton, Lord Clitheroe. He said, "In all these institutions where people have an expectation of life tenure, I would put them on short-term contracts at the age of 50. I would make sure that they had toes to stand on for the last 10 years of their careers". It is pathetic when so many references are made to retirement such as "I am only three years off retirement", or "I would retire next year if I could get promotion between now and then; it would add to my pension". This country cannot stand the prevalence of such thoughts among people who hope to see Britain into the future. We shall be left behind.

I hope that noble Lords who were not present at the recent debate on the economy will read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I am sure he is right that attitudes in this country must change before we are fit for the world in which we shall live. That change will take more than governments, reinvestment, interest rates, and so on, to achieve.

I am rather proud that, taking a leaf from the Unilever magazine of many years ago, I started the idea of a retirement fellowship in the Civil Service. It was a break from the concept of the Civil Service Benevolent Fund. It is now the most thriving fellowship of retired people from the public service in the country. The fellowship keeps people together. They hold conferences and seminars, pay visits, and deal with matters of interest. Those activities keep them alive, with a common interest in their earlier vocations. All that is of profound importance.

We shall have to do much for ourselves to make life better when certain stages of our lives have passed. There is no central place where problems of the latter 30 years of life can be studied. We want industry to examine them. Many occupations probably require rejuvenation as they are arduous or unpleasant. However, the cycle of employment—leaving employment and going to other employment—must offer areas in which people with previous experience, possibly not in the same line of country, would be useful.

In the past, the unions have stood in the way of much that could be done in this field. They were in favour of sticking to the earnings rule because someone who retired under the national insurance scheme could be competitive in the jobs market. He would be able to work at a cheaper rate than a younger worker given the fact that he had a little pension in his pocket. Such practices have hung about over the years for a long time.

We should try to get used to something less continuous than the normal working week and the normal set of hours. There is nothing wrong in principle with part-time employment. Who said man had to work so many hours a week in a particular job for so many years in his life before he was fit to take a rest or to try something else? We need to change our attitudes.

I am sure much more will be said on this subject before we have finished, and if I stay alive I shall join in. I am sure we are all much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this matter. I appeal for another opportunity to consider these demographic trends. We need to undertake a demographic study to get the lie of the land. However, I shall conclude now as I have occupied as much time as I feel is justified.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I recall attending a party meeting which was due to come to an end while the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was also present, was speaking. The noble Lord sat down about one minute before the end of the meeting. I wished to say a few words but there was no time left. Therefore I simply rose and said that the only thing there was time for me to say was that I disagreed with every word he had said. I am sure the noble Lord will recall the occasion. However, that is far from being the case this evening. I am not sure that I can go to the opposite extreme and say that I agree with every word that he said, but I am bound to say that, as is normal, the noble Lord's contribution was well worth listening to. I am sure all of us will give considerable thought to what he has said.

I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing this important subject. Before I commence my few remarks, I should say that at this time last night I was taking part in an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. I said at col. 198 of Hansard: the Government did not intend the consequences of their own actions", but this is par for the course. However, it was reported in Hansard that I stated: this is part of the crux". That seemed to me to be such an inspired translation that I shall not try to alter it for the bound volume. I do not know whether the Government's reply to the debate this evening will be par for the course or part of the crux. However, whichever it is, I am sure we shall all await it with great interest.

My noble friend Lord Stallard gave a comprehensive introduction to the subject we are dealing with tonight. He made us aware of the nature of the problem, and at the end of his speech—this is not always the case with every speaker—he suggested the course of action that he thought we should take. I am sure most of us will agree that it is desirable that some kind of organisation, whether it be an interdepartmental committee or another institution, should obtain the demographic facts in a reliable and informed manner so that informed decisions may be taken in the future.

I once sat on a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. He and I were Members of another place at the time. The committee was a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses. Members of the committee were drawn from both Houses. That kind of committee rarely occurs. That committee recommended, on an almost unanimous basis, the abolition of the pre-censorship which used to exist for plays in the theatre. The occasion when that was decided was rather remarkable as the Lord Great Chamberlain who exercised the censorship was so fed up with it that he recommended his own abolition. That fact probably led to the unanimous vote in favour of abolition. However, it occurs to me that a joint parliamentary committee drawn from both Houses could be a good vehicle for examining this matter. Senior members of the committee could be drawn from this House while less senior members could be drawn from another place. In that way a fresh examination could be made of the subject. I put that idea forward as a possibility.

In my more skittish moments I sometimes think it is a great pity that our local government arrangements do not provide for senates all over the country. Perhaps Labour's constitutional proposals should revive the alderperson and second chambers, with limited powers in all municipalities, counties and regions. I believe that that measure would provide the same kind of facility as exists in our own Chamber.

The House of Lords is the country's finest geriatric institution, as it provides a useful occupation for those who are too old to survive the rigours of the House of Commons. Above all, it provides the great essential which no other institution does—that is, the illusion, and sometimes even the actuality, of usefulness. That function is not often available to people of the age that some of us have already attained. That possibly counts, at least in part, for the longevity which is a fortunate characteristic of Members of this House. I had better not insist on that point as I might become self-congratulatory. I fear that is one of the less fortunate characteristics of this Chamber.

Inmates of this establishment do not live in it. It is available only to a small minority of the population. However, perhaps it can teach us that older people do not really want to retire or to be put on the shelf. They want to be translated into a sphere where they can be usefully and gainfully occupied within their declining range and according to their abilities. We have not approached that concept. The kind of committee I have in mind would take that larger view, as well as a democratic view, of what kind of lives people of declining years wish to live. Do people really look forward to retirement? In some cases they do. Those of us in this Chamber who live relatively pleasant lives are rather inclined to ignore the fact that perhaps the majority of jobs—I may be exaggerating—in an industrial society are unpleasant and are jobs that people are glad to get rid of.

When people retire they usually want to devote themselves to their hobbies. In many cases people's interests derive not from their jobs but from their hobbies. That is not the case with noble Lords, but we are the exceptions. Therefore in many cases people are glad to retire and devote themselves to their hobbies. However, if those hobbies could be conducted in association with other people rather than on a solitary basis that could be a good development.

An inter-departmental committee has been proposed. I agree with my noble friend who opened the debate that such a committee should take a strategic look at the level of pensions held by an increasing number of pensioners among the population. We should consider the level of income that those people receive. The committee should try to adopt a co-ordinated policy and approach and it should attempt to make the most of the contribution that older people can make to society as a valuable resource. The committee should also try to plan ahead for the support and care needs of those who remain dependent on benefits.

Our society is changing. Before long almost half of the population will be in the old age bracket—made up of a combination of young old and the old old. That means that we have to look again at our society. It means inevitably that those who are employed will have to contribute a more substantial part of their income to sustain that section of the population. If we make use of the resources of the old instead of putting them on the shelf they will also be able to contribute.

This has been a useful debate. The Government's reply will perhaps be part of the crux rather than par for the course and we shall be left with the thought that some progress will be made as a result of what we have said here tonight.

8.20 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, there has been an exceptional degree of unanimity both on the value of the debate tonight and in the content of the speeches. That may be because all those who have spoken so far have first-hand knowledge of what it is to be old. I notice that the two speakers who will follow me are comparative juveniles. Their contribution, therefore, may be of a quite different kind.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, although I would not put it as grandly. He said that he wanted a change in the whole system. I do not believe in changing whole systems. The changes rarely happen and to the extent that they do it is usually in a direction which is not desired. However, a change in attitude is undoubtedly the first requirement for achieving anything like the right solution to the problem.

I disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. We must stop talking about people who are beyond a certain age as if they were all alike. The old: there is no such thing. People below the age of 60 are as varied as they possibly could be. I say 60 because for some extraordinary reason women are supposed to be old at 60 and men at 65, although we go on and on in a way that our male counterparts do not. It always seems rather queer that we should be regarded as old earlier than they are when we are so much better at sustaining old age. It is the diversity of people in every age group which is important. That diversity continues from the cradle to the grave. Therefore, if we stopped talking about "the old" that would be a very good start.

I should like to have one more crack at that horrible expression "senior citizen". At a pinch I will accept being called an old women—there is a certain validity in that —but I am damned if I will be called a senior citizen, if noble Lords will forgive the unparliamentary language.

Having said that, there are two or three major points that I should like to make. Among people who are older there are a proportion who are in need of help. It may be financial help or physical help. That does not apply only to older people; some young people may be in need of far more help than any of us who are older require. We need to consider those who need help and what can best be done for them.

I should like to make two points about those who are genuinely in need of help. Will the Government get on with the proper organisation of community care? I shall not embark on a long speech on that subject. I have made all too many, all too fruitlessly, in your Lordships' House in the past. We know that 6 million people are providing informal care. With the demographic changes, there will be a need for more rather than less care and that will cost money. It is now accepted that good community care will not be cheaper than institutional care. It will be more expensive. But it needs to be properly organised. The delay in implementing the plans for community care has been disastrous and deeply disappointing.

The second point concerns money. The question of finance for old people is a very complex one. At present 80 per cent. of the people over pensionable age are 80 per cent. dependent on their basic pension. If you are dependent for 80 per cent. of your income on your state pension you are very hard up indeed. A considerable proportion of those people have nothing but their state pension. Mercifully that percentage is falling all the time because of the increase in occupational pensions, but a great many of the people today who have something over and above the state pension have very little more than the state pension.

My party has put forward a proposal which I should like the Government to consider very seriously. It is probably too late for this Budget but the Government are always renewing social security regulations and this could form the basis of another one. The basic state pension should be exempt from taxation. That would mean that the people who have a little income in addition to the state pension would not have to pay tax on that very small amount above the state pension. There could be an adjustment higher up the scale in order for the measure to be neutral in terms of the cost to the Exchequer.

There are an increasing number of people who have a little more than the state pension but they are still in a very poor financial position. For that amount to be diminished by tax is very hard indeed. If that money were free of tax it would make a great deal of difference.

The financial position of old people who are in need and the need for care are two very important areas which should be considered. However, there are increasing numbers of people above retirement age who are not in need. Some of them will be very nicely off indeed. The people who will have the good fortune to inherit property in London, for example, from parents or maiden aunts and who already have accommodation elsewhere will be very nicely off indeed, especially if there are only one or two of them in the family and they receive the full value. Some of those people will want to go on working and some will not.

A very interesting study by the Institute of Personnel Management has shown the attitudes of people with such expectations towards retirement and the type of financial support that they want. That needs to be considered very carefully. On the one hand, as many speakers have said, as people get older they do not want to work full-time up to retirement and then suddenly stop and do nothing. Flexibility is the key to dealing with retirement and continuing employment.

It is clear from the Institute of Personnel Management survey that a very large number of people who know that they will be relatively financially secure, with occupational pensions on the one hand and inherited property on the other, want the opportunity to move into part-time employment—perhaps two kinds of part-time employment or a mixture of part-time employment and voluntary work— and they may want to be able to carry on almost indefinitely.

I see that kind of pattern emerging in the future and it should be encouraged. We need these people. It is not just nice for them to have the opportunity to work. Particularly if they are people with skills, competences or knowledge, we need them. This country is short of people with competences, knowledge and skills. We want to keep them to produce the wealth of the country for as long as possible.

All the studies that have been carried out and everything that has been said tonight bring out the point that we must get rid of the rigidity that has characterised our approach towards the problems of retirement and old age in the past and recognise the infinite variety of people and people's needs. That is characterised, if it can be characterised, by one word: flexibility. There is a need for great flexibility in approach and flexibility of opportunity for people in that group.

Those are the points that I want to contribute to the debate. In dealing with the question of people moving into retirement age the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that we want an inter-departmental committee to look into the matter. I come down very strongly indeed on the side of those who say that we need a total, thorough professional inquiry but not an interdepartmental committee. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, with his Bedford College background, I with my LSE background and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with his experience of working with Lord Beveridge, realise the tremendous difference between an inter-departmental committee and a commission or inquiry headed by someone such as Lord Beveridge, with people who are professionals or experts who spend their lives doing such studies and have the objectivity and diversity of knowledge which they can bring to bear on the problem.

I take this opportunity to say that I am deeply suspicious of the Green Papers that we receive in comparison with the papers that we used to get from Royal Commissions. On a Royal Commission people are nominated because of their professional reputations and their diverse knowledge and points of view. They have reputations to lose. They publish over their own names. They call people who are experts and they know whom to call. Those witnesses give verbal and written evidence over their own names and they too have reputations to lose. Therefore, one can obtain objective advice. With Green Papers we do not know who has written them or their qualifications. We know that they have been pulled out of the Civil Service. Inevitably the Civil Service is involved in the problems of day-to-day administration. I do not believe that people who are involved in the problems of day-to-day administration can be objective enough or professional enough to stand back and look at the problems involved in an issue of this kind. I beg your Lordships to consider a Royal Commission type of inquiry and not have an inter-departmental committee.

8.33 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite correct. With the exception of the Minister, who has, one might say, arrived here by the fast track route, a quick reference to Dod reveals that I am the youngest participant in the debate by some years. I listened with very great interest to a group of people who I quite sincerely believe are my elders and betters.

The House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for drawing its attention to what is perhaps the most serious problem in social policy that will face us over the next 20 years. The numbers involved are well known and have already been mentioned. We have a population which is ageing rapidly, with all that that means for health, social security and pensions, as well as for the relationship between the working and retired population.

It is natural to see the problem primarily in terms of economics, to over-simplify the problem by seeing the numbers in work being unable to support the retired population at a proper level of retirement income. That may be wrong. Although we know the numbers, none of us knows how the situation will develop. We have an inventive and resilient society. I should not be at all surprised to find that we can accommodate the problem without enormous difficulty. It has been pointed out that in the 20 years from 1961 to 1981 the population over 65 years increased by one third. We managed to accommodate that change without great difficulty. In the next 16 years the projected growth in the numbers over 65 is 8 per cent. and not one third.

There are a number of issues that we must examine in formulating policy. There is the possibility of having a decade of retirement instead of fixed retirement ages. That is an idea which has been floated as part of Labour Party policy. One may consider the deliberate recruitment of older people as the supply of younger people reduces or the implementation of different work patterns—a point that was brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Pitt. We all agree that there is need for a proper strategic overview of the problem, perhaps with an inter-departmental initiative, as mentioned in my noble friend's Question, perhaps through some more direct departmental response or—the route that seems to find the most favour—the demographic inquiry mentioned by a number of noble Lords.

That is the broad sweep of policy. I make no apology for moving now from the long-term strategic problem to a most immediate and practical problem. In fact I told the Minister that I would raise this matter. It is a very simple question which has an immediate and practical relevance for many old people today. What is the Government's policy on cold weather payments? That is a highly relevant question this week, which is borne out by the alarming statistics that were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. We became used to the previous Prime Minister making her policy on the hoof without attempting to inform her Cabinet colleagues of it. It appears that the habit is catching. On Monday this week, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, said in another place that the changes that had been made were only for that week and as from now the normal rules would apply. On Tuesday during Question Time the Prime Minister said: Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/91; col. 728.] That is welcome. However, will the Minister tell the House exactly what is the Government's policy on cold weather payments—or perhaps I should ask: what is the Government's policy today? Do we revert to the previous system once there is a thaw? What happens if we have only six days of cold weather instead of seven? I understand that a number of old people are not only very cold but are also certainly very confused at the moment.

Noble Lords may ask what this has to do with the Question on the Order Paper that we are discussing. I have introduced this deliberately as an exact example of the sort of problem that we shall increasingly face in the future as the number of old people rises. Will the Minister confirm that the only pensioners who are eligible for cold weather payments are those on income support with savings of less than £1,000? How many pensioners are eligible?

We are all aware that some pensioners have income problems. Fifty-eight per cent. of pensioners derive three-quarters of their income from social security benefits. We have a pension system, both public and private, which tends to mirror many of the inequalities in society, with tax reliefs that are carefully designed to ensure that the richest receive the most. It is interesting to speculate just how much we spend in total on pensions and how that sum is arrived at. There are the contributions to private pension schemes from both employer and employee and the tax reliefs on those contributions, the amount expended to provide the state pension, the cost of index-linking pensions in the public sector, the cost of the inducement to leave SERPS, and so on. If all those resources were put, together as a global figure and used to fund a pay-as-you-go pension on a fairly equal basis to all those of retirement age, the pension per head would be a very generous figure indeed.

However, as we know, our pension policy is skewed. A chairman of a public company retires with a pension of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Others are entirely reliant on the state pension and social security benefits. I refer to the self-employed. I have had a letter from my accountant only this week which advises me of the amount that I have to put into a pension plan before 5th April to ensure that my tax bill is kept to the very minimum.

The pension policy is skewed but it has considerable relevance to the matters that we are discussing. Time does not allow a full examination of the problem in depth. There are considerable implications with regard to health, social security, housing and transport policies. There is also the possibility of a backlash, which I believe is already occurring in America. The younger generation— which for all of us is defined as everyone younger than we are—is reacting adversely and vigorously to ageism. It is beginning to refer to the burden that the aged place on the working generation, implying that older people should have looked after themselves by buying enough pension provision when they were working so that the present working generation would not have to pay so much in taxation to provide pensions.

Some interesting work indicates that there is such a backlash in America and in some European countries. Occasionally similar arguments have been put forward in this country. They tend to ignore the fact that for most of our pensioners there was no opportunity to build up substantial pension rights.

It is a very big subject and one to which we shall have to return many times in the future, with its implications for our social policy. We thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for giving us the chance to debate it this evening.

8.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this is a very big subject. I join with the noble Lord in feeling some trepidation in speaking in this debate of veritable Nestors. My calculations seem to indicate that the ages of the noble Lord and myself added together only scarcely exceed that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.

This is a very important subject. The debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been a very useful contribution to the issue that an increasingly elderly population—which we have to accept there will be—might create problems or opportunities for both society and individuals.

I agree with virtually everyone who spoke that we should not see the more elderly as a burden on society. The contributions that this House makes to parliamentary life and parliamentary democracy are a proper example of the contributions that many people older than myself can make to society.

The noble Lord asked what departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend. He asked for a departmental committee to be set up to consider the problem. The noble Lord hoped to convince me of the need for that committee. I am glad that I received some support from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who seemed to consider that a departmental committee was the wrong way forward. The noble Baroness and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked for a Royal Commission, or some similar body to consider the issue. I would be fairly cynical about the idea of a Royal Commission. It might look as though the matter was being shelved. I have a sneaking suspicion that all of us, even myself, might be dead before the Royal Commission reported.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also suggested that a joint parliamentary committee, in particular drawing on the experience of this House, might be the way forward. That is not a matter for me to answer. It must be a matter for the authorities in both Houses as to whether they wish to take on board such a parliamentary committee.

I return to the subject of an interdepartmental ministerial committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will no doubt be aware that in 1989 three Members of another place, from all three parties—Andrew Bowden, George Foulkes and Archy Kirkwood—wrote to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister suggesting the setting up of an interdepartmental committee on ageing. I quote an extract from my right honourable friend's reply in 1989 since it sums up well the Government's current position. My right honourable friend said: I am still not convinced that such a group would provide the best mechanism to ensure that the needs of the elderly are met … I remain … sceptical of the value of what is in effect a standing "co-ordination" committee—whether of Ministers or officials. Such committees … have to be serviced by a secretariat; that would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and more paperwork. In short, I suspect that such a committee would create far more work than would justify its existence". Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked whether an inter-departmental ministerial committee should be set up to look at these aspects. I undertook to look again at the idea. Having considered the point, my ministerial colleagues and I still do not think that this will take the Government any further forward.

I stress what I stressed earlier—that we should not see the elderly as a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, also said that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Park that the elderly are an asset. We remain of the opinion that the needs of the elderly, which are common to people of all ages, cover the range of government activities. Consequently, official contacts are made daily between all departments. It is of course essential that Ministers and officials discuss specific issues that span departmental responsibilities. That happens on a number of issues affecting elderly people whenever it is sensible to do so. However, that does not necessarily mean that an inter-departmental ministerial committee would necessarily add anything.

I provide a couple of recent examples of inter-departmental consultation on policies which are designed to take account of growing numbers of elderly people.

Recently, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a decision on Community actions for the elderly, inlcuding a recommendation to designate 1993 as the European year of the elderly and solidarity between generations. The Commission has in view a three-year action programme aimed at helping to integrate elderly people into the economic and social life of the Community countries. Each member state will take action appropriate to its own circumstances, but will be assisted by an exchange of information at Community level.

The Government will be deciding this year on the activities and priorities that they wish to be included. This will inevitably involve interdepartmental contact and discussions between the Department of Health—which is taking the lead in this matter—the Department of Social Security (which I have the honour to represent), and the Department of Employment, as well as others, where appropriate. We hope to work closely with Age Concern, which as many noble Lords know, plays a very active role in community affairs to make the action programme a success.

Another example of recent pan-departmental co-operation arises in the area of community care which, as everyone will agree, affects the elderly as much as any other group in society. The House will be aware that the Government remain fully committed to carrying through the plans for community care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are fully committed to carrying through those plans. I agree with the noble Baroness that now is not the time to discuss them in detail. However, I give her that assurance. Obviously, because of those plans, officials in both the Department of Social Security (which I represent), the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have met to discuss the various issues involved and take forward the timetable of the introduction of various plans.

I now wish to deal with some of the more general issues raised during the debate. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this is a wide subject and I do not intend to cover all the issues. However, it is right that I should deal with some of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to state the Government's position on cold weather payments. On 7th February my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that payments would be increased from £5 to £6 for every period of cold weather occurring after 1st February 1991. He also announced that the whole of the United Kingdom would be deemed to have triggered the periods 1st to 7th February 1991 and 8th to 14th February 1991. Our primary concern has been to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society keep their heating on during the cold spell which has hit the whole country. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People has also announced that he will continue to monitor the present cold spell and the operation of the scheme once the winter is over.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, then turned to the number of people who benefit from cold weather payments. He rightly said that the payments are available only to those who are in receipt of income support. It is worth noting the reduction in the number of pensioners in receipt of income support. Now barely one seventh of all pensioners are in receipt of income support compared with 12 years ago, when one fifth of all pensioners were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The position is that the payments are available to those pensioners now in receipt of income support and whose capital is less than £1,000. Last year that figure was raised from £500. It is estimated that 1.25 million pensioners are eligible for cold weather payments; that is 78 per cent. of the pensioner-income support caseload.

I wish to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about excess winter morbidity. There has been a steady decrease in winter morbidity during the past 35 years. From 1951 to 1955 it was 68 per cent. but from 1986 to 1939 it was 24 per cent. Medically speaking the causes of the increase in morbidity—mortality—are extremely complex. In order to increase our understanding the Department of Health has asked the Medical Research Council to investigate winter morbidity. The project will look at seasonal variations in relation to a number of factors, including diet, smoking and so forth. The project began in January 1990 and will take two years. I do not necessarily accept the international comparisons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. One must remember the different climates in different countries. The mere fact that other countries are much colder need not necessarily lead them to have a higher morbidity rate in the winter, because the traditions of a colder climate can lead to their being better able to deal with such conditions.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, the countries were chosen in order to provide a grouping of winter and summer temperatures above and below our own. They were taken over a period of years long enough to smooth out variations of temperature from year to year.

Lord Henley

My Lords, the noble Lord has not quite grasped the point that I was making. Our climate is different from that of many Continental countries. While their climate is more extreme, ours is milder and wetter. I was expressing cynicism about whether, however careful one is, one can obtain a true comparison between the figures. No doubt it is a matter for research, and the Department of Health is investigating morbidity in winter.

I turn to the subject of employment and the elderly raised by various noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lady Park. It is often referred to as ageism in employment. For some time Ministers in the Department of Employment have urged employers to abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment. Only last month my noble friend Lord Ullswater launched the Institute of Personnel Management's new statement on age and employment. It is designed to help employers to avoid such arbitrary criteria. We believe that, in general, retirement ages must be agreed between employer and employee according to their individual needs, priorities and circumstances. Obviously the position of the Government as employer is important and we believe that we are setting a good example. In 1990 the last centrally imposed age limit on recruitment to service by grades was abolished.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the limits may have been abolished, but what has been the practical effect? From experience one knows only too well that such changes can be made, but internal forces leave the practices of yesteryear to continue for a long time. Has there been any evidence of recruiting older people and, if so, to what extent?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness off the cuff from the Dispatch Box. It is a matter of attitude. The Government are hoping to set a good example and it is hoped that others will follow. One also hopes that the publicity of a debate such as this, with contributions from the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, will have an effect on employers throughout the country.

We are all agreed that what is needed is a fundamental re-evaluation of the role of the elderly in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has chaired meetings of the all-party group on ageing at which many important aspects of the topic were covered. I am pleased to say that he invited my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to attend a meeting. My right honourable friend discussed a number of issues with the group and he found its first annual report of great interest. The group has already considered the useful role of older people in the labour market of the 1990s when then and into the next century there will be fewer people available for work.

A key factor for the next century will be the extent to which employers are prepared to recognise the contribution which older workers can make to their firms and indirectly to the economy as a whole. Again, such an attitudinal response will pay dividends only if it is accompanied by positive, practical measure such as ensuring sufficiently flexible working conditions.

I hope that I have been able to show that the Government are fully aware of the role that they must play in bringing about this transformation. Indeed, we have sought to change institutions and policies in line with the needs and aspirations of those we serve. I suspect that the noble Lord and I might agree on the methods by which we may seek to do that, in that the noble Lord seeks a ministerial committee, and I hope that he will agree that we have the same long-term interests at heart.

House adjourned at one minute before nine o'clock.