Lords Sitting of 6 July 1992

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

Lord Moore of Lower Marsh
The Right Honourable John Edward Michael Moore, having been created Baron Moore of Lower Marsh, of Lower Marsh in the London Borough of Lambeth, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Joseph.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The Right Honourable Nigel Lawson, having been created Baron Lawson of Blaby, of Newnham in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Swaythling and the Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

Airports: Passport Control System
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will re-designate passport control channels at airports in the United Kingdom as for British and Commonwealth citizens, other EC citizens and others, rather than as for EC citizens and others as at present.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. The system is designed to separate those who are entitled to enter without leave from those who are subject to immigration control. European Community nationals can enter without leave; Commonwealth citizens, other than British citizens, are subject to immigration control.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he not agree that at times some of our Commonwealth brethren consider that they are treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion? Would it not be possible to return to the status quo as it was in the 1960s?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Commonwealth citizens have been subject to immigration control since the 1960s, before we entered the Community. If we were to adjust the system in the way my noble friend suggests that would merely complicate further the issue of people entering the country.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble Earl take account of one matter? There is considerable disquiet that Commonwealth citizens who are members of ethnic minorities are not always treated with the same respect at ports of entry and airports as other citizens. Can the noble Earl do something to ensure that that does not happen?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, respect is a matter of judgment which is in the eye of the beholder. It would be difficult to consider that separately. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, cares to cast his mind back over the past few days he will recall that the word "customer" has been introduced. I believe that he will find that all customers of the immigration service are treated equally well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that however the immigration channels happen to be labelled in future an adequate system of passport control will be maintained after 1st January 1993, despite the wishes of some of our partners in Europe?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear on 20th May that we do not accept the interpretation which the Commission puts on the Treaty of Rome. The words are clear. The article provides for the creation of an area without frontiers in which free movement is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. That means for European Community nationals and not for third parties.

GATT Uruguay Round
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can now report any progress in the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, talks are continuing between the United States and the European Community to try to resolve their remaining differences. The Prime Minister is currently attending the G7 Summit in Munich, at which I am sure the Uruguay Round will be discussed.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since huge issues hang on this matter and since serious reform of the common agricultural policy is now, at long last, on offer, can the Minister say clearly what is holding up the settlement? Is it, as has been reported, because the EC Commission has failed to formulate its views on time or are the Americans asking too much? What are the British Government doing?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can do no better than quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who this weekend said that it was an imperative that settlement be made for political, economic and humanitarian reasons. I believe that we should acknowledge that the Commission has taken some hard decisions on agriculture and that others too need to compromise.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the CAP ostensibly has been reformed, there is one item within it which remains open to contention and which is a stumbling block to

983
the conclusion of the GATT? Will she confirm that that is the as yet unspecified special arrangements that have to be made in relation to French farmers?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we all appreciate that the French President is in a difficult position. I understand that President Mitterrand and President Bush had dinner together yesterday and the discussions are continuing on a very close basis. No one doubts the importance of the settlement.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the faults do not all lie on one side so far as concerns the Europeans and the Americans? Is she aware that the Americans continue to support their own agricultural industry and deny many members of the European Community the right to offer services, not least in relation to coastal shipping? What initiative does the United Kingdom presidency propose to take to break the present impasse?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said, during the UK presidency and at all other times the Government will support the Commission in endeavouring to break the impasse. We must look to the US to resist pressure to remove key sectors from the services agreement. This is not something on the table right at this moment.
Lord Jay: My Lords, however difficult the position of the presidents, is it worth while for all the heads of government and heads of state to meet together at vast expense if they cannot take decisions as well as talk?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, people have to meet to take decisions, and to meet at the highest level would seem to be most appropriate.

London Youth Service: Funding
3.7 p.m.
Lord Newall Lord Newall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether interim funding arrangements for London Youth Service headquarters organisations can be extended for a further period.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the present scheme of interim funding is due to end in March 1993 and there is no commitment to extend it. Nevertheless, the Government have indicated that they are willing to consider an extension, on a reduced and tapering basis, in partnership with the London Boroughs Grants Unit.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is somewhat satisfactory. Is she aware that some of the 30 headquarters organisations will have to close if more money is not made available? Does she agree that that would bring about the closure of more clubs and would have the detrimental effect of putting more young people on the streets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the uncertainty being experienced by those organisations.
984
However, it has to be said that when the interim arrangement was set up it was intended that it should be finite. It was understood that it would end in 1993. The discussions taking place at the moment and the work being done by the grants unit relate to permanent arrangements for funding into the future. The possibility of the department entering into a partnership with them is also being considered.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am chairman of the Attlee Foundation which provides a playground in the East End of London for able bodied and disabled young people? The help given by the London Youth Service is most excellent. Not only the Attlee Foundation but other clubs receive that help. Will the Government make certain of as much money as possible being permanently available for this organisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have set in place post-ILEA an arrangement to tide over all those organisations and support the excellent work that they do, as the noble Lord said. It is important that the funding arrangement for the future is put on a more firm footing. It will be for the London boroughs to decide, either as individual boroughs or in concert with the London Boroughs Grants Unit, how that arrangement should go forward.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept that these youth organisations, like many others, have suffered dramatically from the increase in youth unemployment as well as other effects of the recession? Can she give an assurance that their situation will not be allowed to deteriorate and that acknowledgment will be made of the very useful work that they have so successfully undertaken?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. There is certainly a great deal going on and it is an uncertain time for young people. A great deal is being done to support these organisations. In addition to the grants which are the subject of this Question, my department also funds the National Voluntary Youth Organisations as an umbrella organisation to support the voluntary sector. We also support the Regional Youth Work Unit which offers support to young people.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her original Answer. I am concerned at the speed of the wind-down of funding in the future. As chairman of a training and enterprise council for central London, I am aware of the important role played by those clubs in preparing young people who then become the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils in the youth training scheme. Will she reconsider and extend the funding beyond the date originally specified?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in response to my noble friend, a draft report is being prepared. It will be presented to Ministers very soon and we shall give it serious consideration.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has stated that there will be more funding from the DES.

985
However, it will not be as much as it has been over the past three years. Crime is high in London, particularly involving the 15 to 25 age group. Is it not vitally important to spend money sensibly on the youth service and to help the voluntary organisations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, the Department of Education and Science is no more. We are now the Department for Education. Secondly, the subject that the noble Baroness raises is very much a matter for the London boroughs and for the grants unit to consider. I have given no commitment during the course of the Question to extra funding beyond 1993. I have said that there is a draft report. I understand that it will come to Ministers shortly: we shall give it serious consideration.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are serious problems associated with the leisure activities of young people. Joy riding is not due entirely to a lack of leisure activities. Does my noble friend not agree, however, that clubs which provide good outside leisure activities, counselling and friendship go a long way towards dealing with juvenile crime, delinquency and joy riding, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not disagree with some of what my noble friend said. However, I believe that if we get the dimensions of education right—in addition to academic I refer to spiritual, moral, cultural and social dimensions—young people may be able to fall back on their own resources to make their recreation and become more fulfilled.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that will not help the present 16 to 18 year-olds with whom such clubs are concerned. They have already left school. However much the schools improve, those young people have missed such improvements. Does the noble Baroness agree that they need the attention of the Government now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. That is absolutely true. That is why we have supported those organisations post-ILEA for the past two years and the coming year. That is why we shall give serious consideration to the draft report which is about to come to us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the Question illustrates a difficulty in Greater London and reflects the same difficulty nationally, which is heightened by the recession? While charitable funds and trusts willingly support bodies which are funded from other sources for their core activities, money from such sources is not available for core funding those nationally needed bodies. The Government should look again at a policy which is slowly turning off the tap and strangling a small but valuable golden goose.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the rest of the country. Of course, the rest of the country's youth movements are funded through local authorities. It is money from the Government to local authorities that is used predominantly there. After the
986
abolition of ILEA the Government stepped in with an interim arrangement. We are now asking the London boroughs through the grants unit to come together and to take on the responsibility for determining priorities for youth in London.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London boroughs and the London Boroughs Grants Unit are under enormous pressure? There are special problems in London. Is she aware that the consequence of the Government's proposed policy will be that many voluntary organisations, which London boroughs will not be able to support since they will barely be able to maintain their own activities, will collapse through lack of funding? The result will surely be more juvenile crime and more problems for young people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the London boroughs are free to make their own determinations and to spend their money in a way which they determine at local level. On priorities for youth in London, such spending will be a matter for London boroughs just as it is for local authorities in the country. Some local authorities determine their priorities and make a better job of it than others.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the issue is very special? There was centralised funding in London. It is now intended, I believe rightly, that it should go to the boroughs. It is an important matter. For instance, the Association of London Youth Clubs is likely to have to close. In such an important matter, do not the Government, in the last resort, have a national responsibility, whether it is exercised through local authorities or centrally?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of the group of bodies that are funded, some will be specifically in London, some will be London boroughs and some will have a national connotation. We are not talking only about funding going back to individual boroughs but the London boroughs themselves together with a central grants unit considering funding. I have stated repeatedly in answer to the Question that there is a draft report. My department will consider it seriously when it is presented to us.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Baroness states that these are matters for local authorities, will she ask her right honourable friends to adjust standard spending assessments to make it easier for those responsibilities to be discharged?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, standard spending assessments are adjusted to the needs of individual authorities. They include the needs of young people.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
3.16 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will press for a realignment of currencies within the exchange rate mechanism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, no.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a most disappointing Answer? Is he further aware that far from expanding, as the Government pretend, the British economy is now teetering on the edge of a slump? Does he further agree that what is now needed is a cut in interest rates? They are now almost double real interest rates, which are nearly double what they were when we entered the ERM.
Finally, will he tell the Germans that this country is not prepared to finance their unification by mass unemployment in this country, by a lowering of the standard of living and by business failures?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord found my Answer disappointing, but I suspect that it was not unexpected. The noble Lord asks for a realignment. That is a polite way of asking for devaluation. That would send completely the wrong signals. It would undermine our anti-inflationary credibility and quite likely lead to a rise in interest rates due to the necessity to prevent a run on the pound. That could also lead to a rise in inflation to pay for the higher price of imports.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's admirable original Answer, is he aware that most of us will sympathise with him in the virtual impossibility of dealing with this immensely complicated and important issue on a Starred Question? If noble Lords are to deal with the matter surely we need to do so in a full House in a full debate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. I imagine that the usual channels will have noted it. I kept my original Answer simple to make it possible for the noble Lord opposite to understand exactly what I meant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, speaking as one who, as noble Lords know, would not wish to disturb the very cosy relationship between the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Party on this very important Question, will the Minister take note that, outside those cosy political circles, practically all those who have some dealing with ordinary commerce, employment and so on in this country believe that the Government's decision to remain stone pat on the issue, with a grossly overvalued pound, is causing enormous damage to the economy, is preventing a recovery from taking place and is making nonsense—inevitably—of every government forecast about recovery being round the corner?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not agree with him. Nor will he be surprised to hear me say that I do not agree that there is a cosy relationship between the two Front Benches and the Liberal Party on this issue. I do not know the view of the Front Bench of the noble
988
Lord's party because we have received conflicting reports from the Shadow Chancellor and the Shadow Chief Secretary.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has stressed, this is an important Question, and notwithstanding the Minister's abrupt reply, when is it likely that we shall discuss the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said earlier, I am sure that the usual channels will have noted my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, will my noble friend reply to my earlier question? How does he reconcile the questions with the fact that the Italian Government have put up their interest rates by 1 per cent. as from today?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not answer for the Italian Government. As noble Lords will know, since joining the exchange rate mechanism we have been able to bring down interest rates some nine times, while the German Government have had to put up interest rates four times.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a general as opposed to a unilateral realignment of exchange rates within the ERM will help not only this country but France in its present considerable political difficulties, most of which stem from high unemployment and widespread bankruptcies following the close pegging of the franc to the deutschmark? Does the Minister also agree that a realignment will help our exports to the United States which are currently being squeezed as a result of the high rate of sterling against the United States dollar?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the second part of the noble Lord's question. As regards the first part, it is possible for all members to agree realignment of all the currencies. I cannot speculate about whether or when such a procedure might be activated. However, as I said earlier, the United Kingdom Government have no intention of doing so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend see a distinction between the revaluation of the deutschmark and the devaluation of the other currencies in the ERM?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a slightly harder question to answer. It would amount to a realignment of all the other currencies and I dealt with that matter when answering the question which came from the Benches opposite.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the Government do not want to realign, they should be bolder in cutting interest rates because that would be an advantage in establishing credibility in the exchange rate markets?
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course we can cut interest rates without realigning or devaluing within the ERM. However, I want to make it clear that there is no question whatever of our making cuts in interest rates which are not fully consistent with our ERM commitment and our anti-inflation discipline.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any real distinction between the so-called "realignment" and devaluation of the pound sterling?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, "realignment" is merely a polite way of talking about devaluation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, given the Minister's answer, I do not wish to be accused of being remotely in cahoots with the Government Front Bench, even though I have argued consistently for maintaining sterling's value in the ERM for at least as long as the Government have done so. If the Government are so keen to maintain the value of sterling, why do they not have the courage to do what almost everyone in the field believes that they should have done ages ago; that is, to move to the narrower bands within the ERM? After all, with a 6 per cent. plus band sterling is fluctuating like mad as it is, which is of no great help either to British exporters or to traders generally.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was hoping to hear a lucid explanation of the policy of the noble Lord's party. I do not know whether that was such an explanation or the noble Lord's view. He asked whether and when we should move to the narrower band. My right honourable friend has made it clear that we shall move to the narrower band in due course but we cannot speculate when that might be. I repeat that we shall join the narrow band at the existing rate of 2.95 deutschmarks.
Lord Peston: My Lords, obviously I must help the Minister. My party has consistently taken the view that we should be in the ERM at the present parities within the narrow band. That is about as simply as I can put it. I can give the Minister several hours' worth of lecturing, and if we have the debate that has been referred to I shall take that time. Will the Minister accept that our position is abundantly clear and that, if anything, the Government's position is slightly queasy because of their refusal to move to the narrow bands?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have made the Government's position absolutely clear. I was trying to say earlier that the views of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Shadow Chief Secretary are not clear; both appear to have slightly different views. It appeared that the Shadow Chancellor was seeking a realignment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear that any realignment of the currencies that amounts to a devaluation of sterling will almost inevitably lead to an increase and not to a decrease in interest rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for asking that question. I could not agree with him more.

Business
3.25 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, certain Members of your Lordships' House who are keen students of Tompion may have noted that some of the devices around this House, both in the Chamber and outside, are indicating a most incorrect and inappropriate state of affairs with regard to time. The only accurate device is the digital device in this Chamber. Unfortunately, it refers only to the business that is being partaken of at that time. I assure your Lordships that I am addressing the matter with the House's authorities in order to restore a proper level of time as soon as possible.

Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 12, at beginning insert:
("(1) The amendments set out in Schedule (Consequential amendments) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendments to which I shall speak are technical and seek to give effect to the main policy, which I described on Second Reading, in a fairly complicated area. In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 15.
Amendment No. 1 introduces the consequential amendments to other legislation made necessary by the Bill by providing for the amendments set out in a new schedule to have effect. The new schedule is introduced into the Bill by Amendment No. 15.
The amendments made in the Bill to enactments other than the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 are few and modest. The proposed amendment in the new schedule to Section 90 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 is consequent upon the repeal of paragraph 34 of Schedule 2 to that Act by Schedule 2 to the Bill.
The amendments to the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 are merely consequential.
Amendment No. 12 relates to procedure in Northern Ireland only and preserves the existing position under Section 27(9). I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I do not wish to embarrass anyone, certainly not the noble and learned Lord. However, I wonder where we are from the point of view of our position as legislators in approving the wording and in the modes of passing Acts of Parliament. On Second Reading I ventured to say to your Lordships that I was rather surprised that we were having primary legislation going through all its stages to vary an Act and an order limited to magistrates' courts in order to make the carrying out and making of maintenance orders a matter which would not just cover England and Wales but would also enable them to be made on a reciprocal basis. I said that it seemed amazing to me that we had to have primary legislation going through all its stages in order to do that.
The noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy, explained that, had we had the time and had we thought of it when we were dealing with the Children Act, we might have dealt with it then by providing in that Act for this situation. I took it from him, as I am always prepared to take it from him, as a reasonable explanation. It is true that our considerations of the relevant provisions in the Children Act took place extremely late and one understands why a possible omission occurred.
We then considered the Bill on Second Reading, which was only a matter of weeks ago. In regard to this short Bill—although it has a long schedule—we are now faced with 15 amendments to a Bill presented to us on Second Reading only a few weeks ago. I wonder what is happening. Is it the fault of the parliamentary draftsman? Is something going wrong with departmental consideration of Bills? I believe that this Committee is entitled to know, but I hope that I ask the question with courtesy and moderation.
The Lord Chancellor: As I sought to explain on Second Reading, the necessity for the Bill arises from the detailed provisions which have been made in respect of maintenance orders in earlier Acts of Parliament. Those arrangements are quite detailed. Once the Bill was published and people had had a chance to consider it against the background of those details it became apparent that further improvements were possible. That is the reason for the amendments. As I say, they are technical but we are dealing with an extremely technical subject.
I believe that there is something to be said for having less detailed legislation on this subject in the first place, but Parliament has legislated on maintenance orders in quite a detailed fashion.
Lord Mishcon: I say no more, other than that it is somewhat surprising that the technical matters were not realised to be necessary when the Bill was drafted.
992
However, I have made my point, which the noble and learned Lord has answered. The Committee will now wish to get on with the 15 amendments before us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendment of the 1920 and 1972 Acts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert:
("1.—(1) Section 3 (power to make provisional orders of maintenance against persons resident in certain Commonwealth countries) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words "a summons had been duly served on that person and he" there shall be substituted "that person had been resident in England and Wales, had received reasonable notice of the date of the hearing of the application and".
(3) In subsection (3), for the words "duly served with a summons" there shall be substituted "resident in England and Wales, had received reasonable notice of the date of the hearing".
(4) In subsection (4), for the word "rescind" there shall be substituted "revoke".
(5) In subsection (5), for the words "rescind" and "rescinding" there shall be substituted "revoke" and "revoking" respectively.
(6) In subsection (6), for the words from "a summons" to the end there shall be substituted "the person against whom the order is sought to be made been resident in England and Wales and received reasonable notice of the date of the hearing of the application".
(7) After subsection (6), there shall be added—
"(7) Where subsection (1) of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (revocation, variation etc. of orders for periodical payment) applies in relation to an order made under this section which has been confirmed, that subsection shall have effect as if for the words "by order on complaint," there were substituted "on an application being made, by order".
(8) In this section "revoke" includes "discharge"." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment illustrates the kind of problem with which I have had to cope since the Bill was introduced. The Act, as amended by the Bill as it stands at present, would allow the court jurisdiction to make a provisional maintenance order against someone abroad as if he had been served with notice of the hearing and had been resident in England and Wales. On further consideration once the Bill was published, it became apparent that that requirement was not sufficient to establish the court's jurisdiction under the 1920 Act, as analogous with its jurisdiction in domestic maintenance cases. What is required is to confer jurisdiction under the 1920 Act as if the respondent had been resident in England and Wales and had not only been served with notice of the hearing but also had been given reasonable notice of the date. That is more properly in line with the position when both applicant and respondent are resident in England and Wales.
The amendment also makes minor modifications to terminology in Section 3 and provides for a parallel amendment to the 1920 Act as is made to the 1972 Act by virtue of Amendments Nos. 11 and 14, to which I shall speak separately.
Amendment No. 6 relates to procedure in Northern Ireland only and preserves the existing position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("(7) In subsection (6A), before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(za) as if in subsection (1) for the words "by order on complaint" there were substituted "on an application being made, by order"." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 13. These amendments all relate to variation and revocation proceedings. The amendments provide that all proceedings for the variation or revocation of maintenance orders to which the 1920 and 1972 Acts apply are to be handled by way of application and not by way of complaint.
These amendments are extremely technical but the basic legislation which we are seeking to amend is technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
(" . After section 4 there shall be inserted—
"Variation and revocation of maintenance orders.
4A.—(l) This section applies to—

(a) any maintenance order made by virtue of section 3 of this Act which has been confirmed as mentioned in that section; and

(b) any maintenance order which has been confirmed under section 4 of this Act.

(2) Where the respondent to an application for the variation or revocation of a maintenance order to which this section applies is residing in a part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom to which this Act extends, a magistrates' court in England and Wales shall have jurisdiction to hear the application (where it would not have such jurisdiction apart from this subsection) if that court would have had jurisdiction to hear it had the respondent been residing in England and Wales.
(3) Where the defendant to a complaint for the variation or revocation of a maintenance order to which this section applies is residing in a part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom to which this Act extends, a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall have jurisdiction to hear the complaint if that court would have had jurisdiction to hear it had the defendant been residing in Northern Ireland.
(4) Where—

(a) the respondent to an application for the variation or revocation of a maintenance order to which this section applies does not appear at the time and place appointed for the hearing of the application by a magistrates' court in England and Wales, and

(b) the court is satisfied that the respondent is residing in a part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom to which this Act extends,

the court may proceed to hear and determine the application at the time and place appointed for the hearing or for any adjourned hearing in like manner as if the respondent had appeared at that time and place.
(5) Subsection (4) shall apply to Northern Ireland with the following modifications—

(a) for the word "respondent" (in each place where it occurs) there shall be substituted "defendant",

994

(b) for the words "an application" and "the application" (in each place where they occur) there shall be substituted "a complaint" and "the complaint" respectively, and

(c) for the words "a magistrates' court in England and Wales" there shall he substituted "a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland".

(6) In this section "revocation" includes "discharge"." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. These two amendments are concerned with the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts to deal with applications for variation and revocation of maintenance orders to which the two Acts relate. That requires detailed provision along the lines of these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
(" . The provisions of section 7 (application of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) shall become subsection (1) of that section and the following subsection shall he added after that subsection—
"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power to make rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (magistrates' courts rules), for the purpose of giving effect to this Act such rules may make, in relation to any proceedings brought under or by virtue of this Act, any provision which—

(a) falls within subsection (2) of section 93 of the Children Act 1989, and

(b) may be made in relation to relevant proceedings under that section." ").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 5 extends the rule-making power under the 1920 Act to include power to make any provision which may also be made in relation to relevant proceedings under Section 93 of the Children Act. It thus provides the same rule-making power in the 1920 Act as will be provided in Section 18(1A) of the 1972 Act. I hope that that provision will help to avoid this kind of difficulty in future. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert:
(" "(d) the amendments of section 3(1), (3) and (6) and section 4 made by the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1992 shall be disregarded." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert:
(" . In section 5 (variation and revocation of maintenance order made in United Kingdom), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where subsection (1) of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (revocation, variation etc. of orders for periodical payment) applies in relation to a maintenance order to which this section applies, that subsection shall have effect as if for the words "by order on complaint," there were substituted "on an application being made, by order"." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (4), for the words "the court" there shall be substituted "a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment restricts the application of Section 7(4) to Northern Ireland. That subsection is required only in cases where the complaints procedure is to be preserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert:
(" . In section 9 (variation and revocation of maintenance order registered in United Kingdom court), in subsection (1ZA) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(za) as if in subsection (1) for the words "by order on complaint," there were substituted "on an application being made, by order";".").
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where the respondent to an application for the variation or revocation of—

(a) a maintenance order made by a magistrates' court in England and Wales, being an order to which section 5 of this Act applies; or

(b) a registered order which is registered in such a court,

is residing in a reciprocating country, a magistrates' court in England and Wales shall have jurisdiction to hear the application (where it would not have such jurisdiction apart from this subsection) if it would have had jurisdiction to hear it had the respondent been residing in England and Wales." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert:
(" . In section 21 (interpretation of Part I), in subsection (1) at the end there shall be added—
" "revoke" and "revocation" include discharge".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. These amendments modify the interpretation provisions so that the terms "revoke" and "revocation" encompass "discharge", which is the terminology used in the Children Act 1989 for the bringing to an end of a maintenance order for a child or children made under the Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert:
("(11) Payment of sums due under a registered order shall, while the order is registered in a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, be made in such manner and to such person as may be prescribed, and neither Article 36(1) of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 nor Article 85(1) to (7) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (which relate to the power of a magistrates' court to direct payments to be made to or through the collecting officer of the court or some other person) shall apply in relation to a registered order.").
Page 9, line 6, at end insert:
(" .—(1) Section 34 (variation and revocation of orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "Subject to" there shall be inserted "subsection (3A) below and".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where subsection (1) of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (revocation, variation etc. of orders for periodical payment) applies in relation to
996
a registered order, that subsection shall have effect as if for the words "by order on complaint," there were substituted "on an application being made, by order"."
Page 10, line 53, at end insert:
("and at the end there shall be added—
" "revoke" and "revocation" include discharge".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I should reveal that my interest in the Bill arises from the fact that 34 years ago I piloted the first Maintenance Orders Bill through another place. However, on this occasion I feel bound to commend the Government for once on the method used in complicated amendments to Schedule 1. They are all done by the textual method. Sometimes, because of complications, the draftsman prefers to use a non-textual method, and that is less satisfactory. I hope that it is not out of order for me to draw a comparison, however odious, between the method of drafting this Bill, which is so admirable, and the less satisfactory method we discussed last week on a Bill dealing with judicial pensions.
The Lord Chancellor: The authorship of the preceding Bill, and the precision with which it was drafted, is part of the explanation for the method required here. I accept with gratitude my noble friend's commendation of the method of drafting here employed. I cannot so readily accept his criticism of last week's Bill. The drafting method must depend to some extent upon the subject matter.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c. 22)
1. In section 90(3) (b) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (which lists the provisions of Schedule 2 to that Act that extend to Northern Ireland), for "paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 33 and 34(a)" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 33".
The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))
2.—(l) The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Article 100 (power of court to make attachment of earnings order), in paragraph (2), in the definition of "prescribed person" for "section 27(9)" there shall be substituted "section 28C(11)".
(3) In Article 101 (making of attachment of earnings order), in paragraph (3) (b) (ii) for "section 27(8)" there shall be substituted "section 28C(10)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with amendments.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Vienna Document 1992 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1992
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to confer privileges and immunities on observers, inspectors, evaluators and auxiliary personnel, in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Document 1992 of the Negotiations on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures.
The Vienna Document 1992 was adopted in Vienna on 4th March and was noted by CSCE Foreign Ministers at the opening session of the Helsinki follow-up meeting on 24th March. It builds on the earlier Vienna Document 1990 and the Stockholm Document of 1986, with which your Lordships will be familiar.
A necessary component in any arms control regime is the ability to monitor compliance with the regime's obligations. In the case of the Vienna Document 1992 that is done by means of observations, evaluations, and short-notice on-site challenge inspections, carried out by representatives of individual CSCE states. The document requires that certain persons (observers, evaluators and inspectors, together with accompanying auxiliary personnel) are granted during their mission privileges and immunities in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Such missions take place rarely in the UK. We are liable to receive up to three inspections and two evaluation visits a year. Observations are linked to the size of military exercises: the UK has hosted only one since 1986. This order is necessary for the United Kingdom to give effect in domestic law to these provisions on privileges and immunities. The order is being made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. We support this important order because we think that, operated effectively, it can reduce tension and the threat of conflict in Europe. The noble Baroness referred to the original Vienna Document. We understand that the general view is that that is a success. I understand that the document that we are now discussing includes all previous confidence and security-building measures and new ones which impose additional constraints upon the military exercises to which she also referred.
998
Developments in regions such as Nagorno Karabakh, and what was formerly Yugoslavia, underline the need for that policy. We welcome the order warmly as a measure crucial to the success of the CSCE's proposals for on-site challenge inspection, and further support the immunities and privileges needed by those who conduct them.
Perhaps I may put a few brief questions to the noble Baroness. I mentioned Nagorno Karabakh, where the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has carried out such outstanding work. Will the noble Baroness inform us what progress has been made by the CSCE towards a negotiated settlement of the cruel and unnecessary conflict in that region? Secondly, talks have recently taken place about possible further reductions in troop levels in Europe in the Conventional Forces (Europe) meeting. Will she tell us whether any significant progress was made there and whether the Government will make any proposals about that at the forthcoming Helsinki Summit? Furthermore, at that summit, are the Government proposing any further recommendations with respect to additional confidence measures?
I repeat that we support the order, and we shall support the Government in any constructive measures to strengthen the objectives to which I have referred.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for three things: first, for giving me prior warning of his questions; secondly, for the welcome he accorded this document; and, thirdly, for his kind remarks about my noble friend Lady Cox, which I absolutely endorse.
In answer to his three questions I deal first with Nagorno Karabakh. Following two CSCE missions to the region informal contacts have been established in Rome and representatives of the communities in Nagorno Karabakh have been invited to participate. The CSCE Minsk conference on Nagorno Karabakh will convene when the parties have agreed a date. With regard to reductions in troop levels (that is, CFE 1A) that is a complementary, politically-binding agreement to CFE putting an overall limit on manpower levels for forces in Europe. Talks in Vienna have agreed on the text for signature at the Helsinki CSCE summit to take effect simultaneously with the CFE treaty.
With regard to further measures at the summit, we expect that negotiations for further CSBMs will begin in the autumn in the new CSCE forum for security co-operation to be set up at the current Helsinki follow-up meeting. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1992
3.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committed.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the corresponding Scottish regulations. These regulations, which were considered in another place on 1st July, introduce planning application fees payable to local planning authorities by would-be developers, or owners or occupiers of land, in three different situations in England and Wales, and two different situations in Scotland.
The principle of charging is firmly established. The general level of fees will come before your Lordships later in the year when we next propose a general increase in fees. These regulations deal only with the fees payable for certain specific purposes. First, we are concerned to implement the remaining enforcement provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Draft regulations 3 and 4 deal with the fee we propose should accompany an application for the new certificate of lawful use or development which will replace the present "established use" certificate system on 27th July in England and Wales and on 25th September in Scotland. These regulations will enable planning authorities to charge a fee for the new service from those dates.
The new certification system will enable anyone wishing to do so to obtain from the local planning authority a decision whether an application is required for a proposed use or development or whether an existing use or development is lawful. The certificate will provide evidence that the land is immune from enforcement action and it will mean that what is specified in it is lawful. It will therefore be a more valuable document than is now available. So we see no reason why a charge should not be made as a contribution towards the planning authority's administrative cost of considering an application. It is consistent with the Government's policy on charging.
The fees tariff aims to strike a balance between offsetting some of the administrative cost of providing the service and not deterring people from applying. We shall be proposing increases from time to time as we move towards enabling authorities to recover their full costs of processing and deciding applications. Meantime, the fees will continue to correspond with those charged for ordinary planning applications.
There is a concessionary fee proposed when an application concerns a proposed use or development. The fee will then be half of an equivalent planning application fee. The concession recognises that there is now no fee for the system such applications replace, namely Section 64 of the 1990 Act, or in Scotland, Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
I turn now to regulations 5 and 7 of the draft English and Welsh regulations. If farmers intend to rely on the permitted development rights in the general development order, covering agricultural excavations and waste deposits, and floating fish tanks in inland waters, they will have to ask if the planning authority require to approve the details of it. The fee we propose for this service is £20, which matches that set for farm buildings and roads introduced last November.
Regulation 4(2) (b) of the draft Scottish regulations introduces for Scotland a fee of £20 from 25th August. This will cover the erection, or significant extension or alteration of, a farm or forestry building. The system is similar to that in effect in England and Wales.
I now turn to the matter of demolition. Section 13 of the 1991 Act brings the demolition of buildings within planning control for the first time. From 27th July the effect of a direction by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and amendments to the general development order, is that anyone who seeks the speculative demolition of a dwellinghouse, or a building adjoining a dwellinghouse, will have to ask the planning authority whether its prior approval is necessary. Regulation 5 provides that a fee of £20 will be payable for that service. In Scotland similar proposals are still being considered. Proposals for Scotland will be brought forward later this year.
These regulations implement the principle that those who benefit from local authority planning services should contribute to their administrative costs. It is now accepted as a fair principle. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th June be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Goschen.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to clear up a number of points arising from his interesting account of the regulations. First, can he confirm the impression which he created in my mind that these fees will go entirely to the local authorities and that they will not be taken over by central government? Secondly, can he say what is the total expected yield of the fees? What is the likely expected yield when the amendments which my noble friend forecasts are put into effect? Finally, as regards the regulation to which my noble friend referred last, am I right in understanding that when someone owns a house which is in a wholly decrepit condition—falling down, if you like—that person still has to make an application for planning permission to demolish the house and also pay for that planning permission? If so, can my noble friend indicate why someone who conscientiously decides to demolish a house rather than let it fall down should have to get that planning permission and pay for it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his questions. I can confirm that the revenue from these planning procedures goes to the planning authority. The level of revenue will depend on the level of applications. As the system is new it is difficult to predict what that will be. We shall review the operation of the system as we review the existing planning application fee system. As regards the specific case which my noble friend raised concerning the conscientious householder who proceeds to demolish his house, I shall write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992
3.57 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th June be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support: Boarder Premium
3.58 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1967) by inserting in Part III of Schedule 2: "8A Boarder Premium: The condition is that the claimant is a member of a family of which at least one member is a child or young person and that family has been placed by a local authority under the Housing Act 1985 Part III in temporary accommodation that does not provide all meals or self-contained facilities for preparing meals."; and by inserting in Part IV of Schedule 2: "(8) Boarder Premium (8) £10 in respect of a claimant who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 8 (A) and each other member of his family."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I observe with pleasure that it follows only a week after that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, concerning the family. This Motion concerns about 12,000 families (which is about 19,000 people) who are trying to live in extremely cramped quarters and without anywhere to cook for themselves. They are provided only with breakfast and otherwise they have to obtain their meals from outside; hence the need for my Motion.
I would like the House to consider the plight of those who have to live and feed their children on income support and without the small boarder premium which I am asking the House to petition for to the Government. They cannot provide all meals or self-contained cooking facilities in most of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am asking the House to urge the Government to make this small addition of £10 per week per person living in such accommodation. I shall come to justify it later, but I reckon that the total cost will be small (about £15 million) in relation to the total cost of income support.
This small amount of money should also be seen in the context of the incalculable benefits that will accrue to these poor parent families on income support both in terms of human development as the children grow up and in terms of welfare. When considering this matter, one must also take into account the fact that
1002
there will be no need, or less need, for the kind of subsequent rescue operations which have to be mounted when people eventually get out, if they ever do, of this kind of accommodation and go into society, having lived in squalor and dire poverty. It is also much more likely that if they can feed themselves they will subsequently be less dependent on the state —on both the social services and health services. That is my main reason for moving this Motion—apart from the fact that none of us can wish our fellow citizens to live in dire poverty and in conditions that actually create squalid undernourishment.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the miscalled "hotels". This accommodation is provided for the families for whom the local authorities have simply failed to provide housing. It is supposed to be temporary but can, I believe, last for as long as two-and-a-half years. It was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who I am glad to see will participate in this debate, in 1989 during the Committee stage of the Social Security Act. These are her words. She described bed-and-breakfast accommodation as:
"a scandal in our society and, what is more, an expensive scandal".—[Official Report, 29/6/89; col. 883.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, also spoke on that occasion—I am sorry that she is not here today—and said of these so-called "hotels":
"These are nowhere near what any of your Lordships think of as a hotel; they are dosshouses/hostels where people live several to a room".—[Official Report, 29/6/89; col. 886.]
Breakfast is usually provided. It may be the only nourishment that is provided for that day. If there is a kitchen stove, it will be at the bottom of the house and will have to be shared with all the other residents in that house. Therefore, anyone at the top of the house who wants a cooked meal other than breakfast has to go down to the basement and compete with all the other residents for the use of that one stove. She—presumably it is a she who usually does the cooking—will have to go down to the basement with her children because she cannot leave them at the top of the house. She will then try to cook a hot meal, which will almost invariably be a convenience meal, brought in from outside, which is of course very much more costly than any meal that she could contrive herself on the stove. Clearly it is impossible to cook economically on a stove at the bottom of a house. Not only does one have to take one's children down, but afterwards one then has to climb back up the stairs with the children and the hot food to the room where one can eat it. It is appallingly dangerous when one thinks that the hot food could fall on unruly children. There have been cases of severe burns. No one would like that situation to continue.
The alternative to trying to compete with one's fellow residents for the single stove on which one can cook convenience foods is to eat out. But that of course is impossible on income support. Indeed, it would be impossible to do that even on income support plus this small premium. I hardly need to labour the comparative costs of eating at home and eating out. All that I am asking for in this Motion is

1003
a modest increase in the amount of money that is available to these poor people of £10 per week per head —not £10 per day.
I feel that I hardly need to substantiate what I have said further, but from the number of occasions on which we have raised this matter previously—this is the first time that I have raised it—it is clear that the Government must have some objections to this idea, and I feel that I should try to answer them. In passing, perhaps I may say that whenever this matter has been raised, which is about four or five times since the old eating-out allowance was abolished in April 1989, it has always been raised on a non-party basis and support for the idea of something like this premium—although not exactly in this form—has always come from all parts of the House.
The first objection from the Government is how the cost can accurately be calculated. I can answer that quite simply. The eating-out allowance was roughly £10 per head when it was abolished. In May 1989, shortly after it was abolished, the national total of homeless households—households, not people—numbered just under 12,000, with 11,460 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Very recently, in March 1992, the Department of the Environment's Homelessness Tables indicated that out of a total of homeless households 12,050 were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is a very slight rise. The numbers involved are therefore very much the same in 1992 as in 1989. That means that there have been something like 12,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation over those three years. It is a very reasonable calculation to say that those families represent 29,000 people—that is, an average of two-and-a-half people in each family unit. At £10 per head per week, the premium would therefore cost £15 million per annum, and we reckon that that is the maximum. I invite the Government to agree those figures. If they are challenged, perhaps the Minister can kindly point out where I have gone wrong.
I maintain that the boarder premium would be easy and simple to administer, but the Government apparently fear that it would be complicated. I cannot see what the complications could be. To my mind, the scheme would entail adding only one single extra entry to the income support form and providing only one single additional facility to the income support computer program. Surely that is not complicated?
There are then the questions of whether the new premium would be too costly and whether the cost can be accurately calculated. I have already dealt with the calculation of the cost and, as I have said, it would be tiny by comparison with the cost of income support as a whole. Surely nobody could possibly say that it would be too costly to give £10 per week per person to those who are suffering from malnutrition. I must proceed to assert, on evidence, that there is malnutrition among both adults and children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, replied to a Question on the boarder premium from the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, who
1004
most unfortunately cannot be here today, on 13th February this year. That is the last occasion on which this issue has been raised. He said:
"there is no evidence that income support levels are not adequate to provide people with a satisfactory diet".—[Official Report, 13/2/92; col. 842.]
I must refute that statement because there is clear evidence. I wish to quote from a joint report of 1989 by the Health Visitors Association and the General Services Committee of the BMA entitled Homeless Families and their Health. The report noted that in 1989, which was before the Minister's assertion that there was no evidence of malnutrition—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that this is quite important. I did not say that there was no evidence of malnutrition. What I said —and I was very careful to say it in these words—was that there was no evidence that people could not maintain an adequate diet on income support. It might be that people do not necessarily maintain an adequate diet on income support. But I was saying that there was no evidence that it was not possible. That is something very different from asserting that there is no malnutrition.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I must say —and I appeal to the House—that I find that to be a distinction without a difference. If the noble Lord would like to substantiate that when he comes to reply I have no doubt that the House will be happy to hear from him.
The report stated:
"Both adults and children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are malnourished. There is a high incidence of weight loss in adults and of low birth weight in babies".
Is that or is that not hard evidence? I very much hope that the Minister will not attempt to describe that as anecdotal evidence as he did on a previous occasion not so long ago when I adduced evidence. I would say that it is authoritative and cannot be gainsaid.
The evident hardship and malnourishment of those on income support in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and without this premium is something that no government, surely, can live with happily. I therefore invite noble Lords on all sides of the House to join me in pressing the Motion and asking the Government to agree to it.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to amend the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1967) by inserting in Part III of Schedule 2: "8A Boarder Premium: The condition is that the claimant is a member of a family of which at least one member is a child or young person and that family has been placed by a local authority under the Housing Act 1985 Part III in temporary accommodation that does not provide all meals or self-contained facilities for preparing meals."; and by inserting in Part IV of Schedule 2: "(8) Boarder Premium (8) £10 in respect of a claimant who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 8 (A) and each other member of his family."—(Lord Henderson of Brompton.)
4.12 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for doing the House a service by bringing this issue before us. I hope that your Lordships will in due course make a decision. In his modest and dispassionate speech the noble Lord said that it was hardly necessary for him to state the case. However, having heard the facts contained in his presentation and, indeed, the Minister's intervention, I am glad that he did state the case. I can do little more than underline some parts of it.
In all parts of the House over several years we have spelt out the misery of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people. Ministers and noble Lords on all sides have accepted that it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way of dealing with homeless people. In my view it is a humiliating and degrading way of dealing with people who, through no fault of their own, are homeless. On 27th July I am addressing a conference in London on families at risk. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is certainly one of the risks to which families are exposed. I shall spell out what I mean.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As he is not present perhaps I may quote from his speech of 11th July 1990. He said:
"I would go so far as to say that to push a family with children into bed and breakfast accommodation is about the worst disaster that can befall them. Let us look at the position from the mother's point of view. She is accustomed and intends to cook, cater and provide for her children. During the period of enforced inactivity she is in effect being deskilled. She is losing those attributes of which she may justifiably be most proud".
He concluded:
"We risk breaking up those families by a degree of imposed poverty".—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 100.]
There are several ways in which families are put at risk by bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has dealt with one of them —malnutrition. There is much evidence that many mothers go without adequate food in order to protect the standard of feeding of their families. Secondly, there is a great risk of disease. In most bed-and-breakfast accommodation there is no refrigeration. Mothers can buy only small amounts of food. The accommodation may be far from clean. The buildings are often unsatisfactory. Sometimes food deteriorates and ants, cockroaches and mice leave telltale traces. There is also the danger of burning. I saw a statement by a family GP in Safe as Houses, which was published by the Child Accident Prevention Trust in 1991. He said:
"I have seen many children with burns and scalds, some severe, which are directly due to the overcrowding and lack of facilities in the hotels. I feel angry every time I see one of these children, knowing it need never have happened".
There are other dangers too. There is the risk of family break-up. Although most of the families are single-parent families, it is not so in all cases. How can family life be sustained in a bed-and-breakfast hotel where people are often required to be out during large parts of the day and privacy is almost impossible? Sometimes there may be just a single mother who is
1006
unable to give the love, care and affection that her children need from her. Loving family life is impossible under these circumstances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the position has not improved in recent years. Prior to April 1989 people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation received an allowance in their weekly benefit to compensate for inadequate cooking facilities. Until then the Government thought that that was a proper way to spend public funds, but then decided that it was not. They were wrong. The loss of this allowance in April 1989 has had devastating consequences. Families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the time of the changes lost an average of £10 per child per week. People living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are now expected to budget as they would in their own homes. But circumstances in one's own home are different from circumstances of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I quote from the Bayswater Hotel Homelessness Project of 1990, which states:
"The main thing is the kitchen. In your home you can go there whenever you feel like it, and don't have to worry about the baby getting burned or falling down the stairs. You don't have to keep going up and down"—
sometimes four or five storeys—
"with your pots and pans, which is really dangerous".
In many of these homes the kitchen is shared between 10 and 20 families. It is sometimes closed during certain parts of the day and cannot be used by the mother at all.
Before 1989 families could buy take-away food, because they had that extra money, and take it home. They could eat out in cafes or snack bars. In other words, they had the money to use their judgment; but they can no longer afford the luxury of doing so.
One has to say that the Government have had ample time to remedy this wretched situation. In the debate on the Social Security Bill in June 1990 the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"However, I must stress that the Government firmly believe that the solutions to the problems facing those families lie fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities and not in changes to the benefit system. The Government's prime objective is to get people out of manifestly unsuitable and expensive bed-and-breakfast hotels by increasing the supply of permanent accommodation".
He added that certain funds were being made available for the purpose and that that was,
"specifically to increase the availability of permanent accommodation for those living in bed and breakfast accommodation and will provide about 15,000 extra lettings over two years".—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 100.]
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, gave some figures for the present number of families—and, indeed, of individuals—living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They show that the number has increased in the past two years since the Minister made that statement. I may have slightly different figures, but they show that in April 1989 there were 6,984 households living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London alone. The difference can perhaps be explained because my figures apply to London, whereas the noble Lord's figures represent the position across the country.
Today, if my figures are correct, there are more than 7,000 households living in such conditions—not

1007
just under 7,000, but more. Since the Minister gave assurances that action would be taken to ensure that new houses would be provided or other suitable accommodation so that people would not have to remain in bed-and-breakfast hotels, the situation has not got better; indeed, it has become worse. I very much hope that when the Minister replies he will either say that the position has deteriorated and to what extent or, if we are misled and the information is better, give us the figures and their sources.
From the point of view of the organisations involved, the situation is worsening. To me it is a little like the recession which has contributed very much to the situation with which we are dealing today—promises, promises. Indeed, there have been enough promises to get through even a general election! No doubt the Minister will give us the up-to-date position. However, if the situation is worse than when this Chamber took a decision after nine o'clock one evening—not the best time to have a vote, but we are now debating the Motion in the cool light of day—I hope that unless he receives a satisfactory answer the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will press the matter.
I believe that the situation is such that we must find a way to help these families. It is really no good the Minister saying that the country cannot afford the small extra sum of money needed to enable mothers to look after their children when they are living in poverty and when they are homeless. I hope that the Minister will respond to pressures from all sides of the House to deal with what has become a really great tragedy. It is not only a great tragedy for people; it is a tragedy that we should allow the situation to continue. I trust that the Minister will give us some assurances on the matter.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it would, I am sure, be a matter of general agreement in the House that it is the duty of governments to ensure that none of the citizens of their country suffers from those extremes of poverty which if described on the printed page would lead to immediate revulsion at the thought that human beings were expected to live like that. If still confronted with the conditions exposed in Dickens' novels we are certain that we would do something about it. Our predecessors felt this and as a result we have the welfare state that we have, of which most of us, of all parties, are basically very proud.
But many of us, and I speak inter alia from that feeling in the Christian Churches which is a major part of their work in the world and which is particularly represented by the body, Church Action on Poverty, on which I serve, are very worried about what is happening at the lower edges of our society today. When one is confronted by such a situation the best strategy may well be not to tackle the total question head on but to tackle the edges of the problem where there is the greatest misery because of largely unintended special circumstances.
In such matters the harm is usually obvious and the cost of curing it is small. Such, for instance, is the
1008
problem of the 17 or 18 year-olds which my noble friend Lord Russell and myself, along with other noble Lords, continue to bring to the Government's attention. Such also is the problem brought before your Lordships this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The whole of the bed-and-breakfast scheme is a crying scandal and should not be tolerated. It is a matter for wholesale reform; but the improvement of some of the fringe conditions is an appropriate goal for the kind of fringe reform which the noble Lord is tackling this afternoon.
I shall not spell out the case histories; there are enough of them and I believe that the facts are not at issue. I merely say that this is a minor reform which will make the difference between terrible (and dangerous) misery on the one hand and, on the other, merely tolerable misery—if there can be such a thing —for a large number of families.
When I had two parishes in Kew recently we ran a scheme which actually had the same effect as would that which has been proposed. We ran a scheme in a hall whereby the families from the hotels in the parishes could come and make their own meals and get away from the bed-and-breakfast hotels for the middle of the day. Something like that should happen practically everywhere, but we cannot leave it just to private charity; it falls firmly into the area of dealing with extreme misery which, as I said a moment ago, is acknowledged by all to be within the responsibilities of government as a whole.
The cost of putting the matter right is small. I do not believe that the difficulties of implementing such reform are large. Indeed, I have just come hotfoot today from a conference held by the Benefits Agency where it outlined and boasted of—I think with justification—its growing competence in dealing with claimants and claims. I am quite sure that it can be managed and that it can be afforded. I think I probably detected from the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that one of the suggestions put forward was that this was really a matter for nutritional education and information. But that is not to live in the real world of families existing in such conditions.
I beg your Lordships to accept the Motion. I hope that the Government will accept it. They will do themselves no harm; indeed, they will do themselves much good. The proposal will not cost money and will do a great deal of good for many of the people that they have to govern. If the Government do not accept the Motion I hope that your Lordships will press the matter to a Division.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have listened, and indeed I shall listen, very carefully to the case for and the case against the noble Lord's Motion. I fully accept that I have very little expertise on the subject. I fear also that I shall not be in total agreement with my two noble kinsmen who are to sum up the debate. Therefore, I shall listen with great care to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, whose opinion on the matter I and I am sure your Lordships greatly respect.

1009
I wish to make a general point on the way in which the Government and sometimes Brussels make such regulations. I accept that due to ever-changing and new technology it is necessary to pass enabling Bills and those Bills need regulations in order for the Government to govern. I accept with gratitude the work done by your Lordships' committee which inspects regulations to ensure that they are within the scope of the particular Acts. However, what worries me greatly nearly every day is that for all practical purposes there is no method of amending the regulations. Although 90 per cent. of them may well be sensible and practicable, on many occasions the odd small part is neither sensible nor practicable. It therefore brings the whole regulation into disrepute.
I have in mind regulations that affect my patch, if I am allowed to use such an expression, such as those emanating from the food and environment legislation which involved pesticides, provisions on food and the various regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The noble Lord's Motion today suggests a redrafting of the regulation on income support. I suspect that my noble kinsman Lord Henley will say that it contravenes the custom of the House. Therefore, I ask him whether he will draw the problem of how to bring more sensible arrangements into regulations to the attention of whoever has the intellect to solve it.
I see that my noble kinsman is writing this down. My suggestion probably does not contravene the custom of the House. But for all practical purposes it is more or less impossible to redraft the regulation, as we may well realise today. Some of the regulations are misguided and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggests that this one is. Others severely handicap the few of us who now try to produce wealth and avoid unemployment in productive industry and agriculture.
4.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I have to say that I do not like the proposal: it seems to me that it does not reach the root of the problem. As has been said, we are well aware that the real problem is the supply of rented housing. Although there has been progress since the Housing Act 1988 and considerable efforts are being made to release accommodation over shops and so on, we still have an enormous way to go. We know that such housing would answer the problem.
Secondly, I do not like the proposal because it does not solve the problem of balanced and nutritious diets. With £10 extra a week for takeaway food it is not likely to he possible to provide people with proper nutritional back up. It will save people from starvation: it will not give them a nutritious diet.
Thirdly, I do not like the proposal because £10 a week per person, with four in a family, is £2,000 a year. That could, where suitable, be used to install a refrigerator, a cooker or power supply and cover fire regulations in one swoop and enable people to do what is best—cook for themselves. As we have already learnt, that is the most nutritious way.
Fourthly, I do not like the proposal because central provision of meals, as the noble Lord, Lord
1010
Beaumont, illustrated, would he a fine way forward, similar to the luncheon clubs for the elderly, providing a decent meal and better use of money.
However, although I do not like the suggestion, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will be pleased to know that I fully support it. I do so because although there are other options, there are not enough in place to solve the desperate problem. We know it is desperate and inhuman, and in our heart of hearts each of us is ashamed of it.
The Church produced the fine report, Faith in the City which called attention to the problem and pressed hard for remedies. Clearly, we wish to encourage everything to be done to remove the root cause of the problem, the basic misery of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, through the provision of housing. While the system remains, it is often the most vulnerable members of society who end up in the worst bed-and-breakfast accommodation. One's heart goes out to them.
One report states that only £1.12 per person is left for lunch and supper each day. Even if one cooks for oneself, it is impossible on that to maintain a proper diet. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, not because I like the proposal but because it is vital and necessary, in a Christian and human society, to meet the needs of those who have been caught in this trap.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, brings before us an urgent and important matter. Anyone who has to read the statutory instrument which we are debating would agree that it is mind-bogglingly complicated. We have created a welfare state which is extremely complex to administer and which eventually ends up not caring for those whom it was intended to look after.
We have also constructed a welfare state which, by building in false economies, has become more expensive in both the short and the long run than we wish. The whole false economy of bed-and-breakfast accommodation illustrates this perfectly. If the amount of money which local authorities spend on bed and breakfast were spent properly, it would provide decent housing for many people. If the Government had allowed all the money earned from selling council houses to be used to build decent housing and if they had stopped making excuse after excuse, the lives of many people would have been helped.
However, it is worse than that. If the Government were to spend the interest earned on that money and saved in their coffers, it would have paid for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, several times over. Let us not be told that we cannot afford it. By spending more money, we might eventually save money. Not only would we save it, we might improve lives. The most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, concerned the quality of life of children. If we do not take care of the possibility of malnutrition at an early stage in children, there are

1011
sufficient studies to demonstrate that they will be deprived for life and will be left behind in the future struggle to earn a decent income.
If we do not wish to consign even more people to a life-time cycle of deprivation, we should now think of better ways of dealing with the problem. Obviously, if people had decent housing they could rely on the unpaid labour of the woman to provide a decent meal for all of them. What we have now is that the unpaid labour continues but lack of facilities means that the woman in charge cannot provide decent meals.
It must be said that whenever formulae are calculated on how much money should be given, they are never generous. Let us not imagine that what is on offer right now is in any sense generous. It never is. I too prefer a proposal that would be more sensible and generous, but I know that it is not possible. If this proposal were accepted or, the proposal being rejected, if the Government would look properly and thoroughly into how to tackle the housing crisis, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for having brought the matter to our attention.
4.40 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am most happy to support my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton in his Motion which arises from the abolition of the former eating-out allowance in April 1989. The national total of homeless households was then 31,510, of whom 11,460 were living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The national total of homeless households has reached nearly 62,000, of whom 12,050 are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Those figures are published in the Department of the Environment's Homeless Tables for March 1992.
The number of households living in other forms of temporary accommodation has risen by 30,000. This shows that local authorities have made a genuine attempt to limit their use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by developing alternative forms of temporary accommodation. The problem for families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, especially those with toddlers, is that the hotels used usually lack sufficient cooking and refrigeration facilities or have no cooking facilities in rooms. How can a mother feed her children, herself or her husband satisfactorily under these conditions? If there is a kitchen, it appears that it is usually in the basement. How can a mother be expected to carry heavy pots of hot food upstairs with small children clinging to her skirts? That is the kind of problem that leads to accidents.
If no refrigeration is available food will not keep. That will also lead to greater expenditure. It is reported that families often have to vacate their rooms between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Where are people supposed to go between those hours? If it is pouring with rain, I imagine they will have to go into a cafe, or somewhere else, thereby adding to their expenses through having to buy something in order to stay there. How can one feed small children
1012
satisfactorily under these conditions without adding considerably to one's expenditure? Such people would be more comfortable staying in their room, however cramped, as one assumes they would at least be dry.
A joint report by the Health Visitors Association and General Services Committee of the BMA entitled Homeless Families and their Health published in 1989 states:
"Both adults and children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are malnourished".
A report published by the London Food Commission, Maternity Alliance, SHAC and Shelter entitled Prescription for Poor Health published in 1988 states:
"The lack of money was also an important restriction on diet".
The report published before April 1989 also found that those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had a poorer diet than a comparable study of people with low incomes in the general population, suggesting that bed-and-breakfast accommodation accentuates financial problems. This report, which was published before April 1989, showed that even with the eating-out allowance it proved difficult, if not impossible, to have a properly balanced diet. How much more difficult is it to have a properly balanced diet without sufficient money to keep the family properly nourished? It is important for pregnant women and babies to have a proper diet. I trust that the Government will examine the situation more closely and accept this Motion.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for moving this Motion which seeks to amend the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 by inserting in Part III of Schedule 2 the words of the Motion.
The present position has been clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by other noble Lords. I hope the House will forgive me if I, in part, reproduce much of what has been said by other noble Lords. This Motion would not be necessary if we did not have the expensive and distressing policy of accommodating homeless families in so-called hotels which are commonly known as bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That accommodation is privately run for profit—I might add for substantial profit. To me it is amazing that both Her Majesty's Government and local authorities have for more than 20 years approved of this policy which is so expensive and non-productive.
However, the policy has been running for many years and it is not a party political issue. All sides of your Lordships' House and both parties in another place have been responsible for placing homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. At the same time I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, Sir George Young, for so manfully grappling with the present housing problems. We hope he will be able to see the end of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families. Therefore this Motion should not be regarded as something permanent.
If I understood my noble friend the Minister aright, he said that families can live on income support.

1013
However, we are discussing a situation where families live on income support in impossible conditions. I agree with the Minister but I do not think he has taken into account the impossible conditions which have been described by many other noble Lords under which families on income support have to live.
Other noble Lords have referred to the health of the children of such families. I have talked to health visitors who have told me that children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are below normal weight and are not as healthy as children who do not live in such accommodation. The children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have to be attended to more frequently by health visitors. However, health visitors feel a sense of helplessness and hopelessness because whatever service they give —and health visitors give a high service—they cannot help the children.
Mothers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation share kitchens under almost impossible conditions. I enjoy cooking and I realise that to produce the cheapest possible hot-pot requires leaving it in an oven or on top of a cooker for an hour and a half to two hours. At least that is how I make a hot-pot. In bed-and-breakfast accommodation five people may be using the same kitchen and the same cooker. How can they all produce a good, cheap dish? As that is an absolute impossibility, parents have to buy food outside. Good food bought outside the home is expensive. When I go to Marks & Spencer's or Sainsbury's I am absolutely appalled at the cost of the dishes they sell. Consequently, mothers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation will buy food at a fish-and-chip shop because that is the cheapest alternative. People say that fish-and-chips constitute a healthy meal but to eat fish-and-chips every day is not good for one's health. That is not a good practice in terms of the health of children.
An enormous amount of money is spent on providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation but we are getting no return for that. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not cost-effective. It is running the country into debit and the health service is suffering as a consequence.
I should have hoped that it would be possible for children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to receive free school dinners. The children of families on income support can receive free school dinners. However, children do not like to be singled out from other children in this way. When we were discussing the education legislation some years ago I moved an amendment which sought not to abolish free school dinners. I am still sad and sorry that I lost that amendment because, if it had been accepted, all children would have benefited, and the homeless children we are discussing would not refuse school dinners because they do not wish to be singled out and made to feel different from other children.
Under Part III of the Children Act 1989 a responsibility is laid on local authority social services departments to meet the needs of children in their area. What is a social services department to do when children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation cannot
1014
be properly fed (and health visitors report that that is so) and properly looked after? What will happen if the local authority takes the children into care? It will be vastly expensive, quite apart from the fact that it is quite wrong for the children. If the local authority social services department does not take the children into care it is infringing the Children Act 1989. There is a dilemma in relation to the legislation.
The resolution would be in line with the Children Act, which states that the welfare of the child is paramount. However, how can the welfare of the child be paramount if the child is living in such conditions and not getting enough food to eat?
The Children Act 1989 also lays down that parents have a responsibility for their children, and rightly so. But living under the conditions which obtain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, how can the parents have responsibility for their children? How can they give those children what they need? Once again, the Children Act 1989 is in conflict with the regulations. I suggest that the matter should be dealt with.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the Motion which he has brought before your Lordships' House. If he divides the House, which I hope he will not have to do because I hope that the response of my noble friend the Minister will be in line with what we are seeking, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness on a matter of this kind. I read in a well-informed article in The Times the other day that when the noble Baroness disagrees with the Government the Government lose. I hope that the Government will adjust their attitude in the light of her speech and therefore make sure that they are on the winning side.
The philosopher Wittgenstein remarked, of what one cannot speak, of that one should be silent. I could speak about this subject for ever, having been associated with the homeless for many years, as the House has often heard. However, I shall refrain from doing so and speak for only two or three minutes.
I see this as a critical moment in the social history of this country, and more particularly in the history of the Conservative Party. It may be that as a Conservative defector of over 50 years I am not quite as well qualified to speak on the matter as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I shall bring him into the argument. When I was personal assistant to Lord Beveridge—who would have been horrified by what we are opposing today—drawing up a plan for subsistence, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was leading the progressive Young Conservatives. I think that at heart the noble and learned Lord is probably still a progressive young Conservative, even though he sometimes conceals the fact. That was the Conservatism of the immediate post-war period. Then we had the Conservatism of great men like Lord Stockton, Lord Butler, the noble Lord, Lord Home, and others.

1015
Then in the 1980s the Conservative Party, to put it crudely, became possessed of a different kind of spirit. I shall not refer to it by its usual name because that would seem offensive to a remarkable person who has recently joined us. The 1989 Act was the culmination of that heretical Conservatism which had taken over that famous party. Now we are told that the Conservative Party is a caring party. We were told during the election that Mr. Major is a man of the people, which I am sure he is, and that his aim was a classless society, and all the rest of it, and that he had known unemployment. To put it crudely and simply, I hope that today the Government will prove that they are a different party from the party of the 1980s.
4.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, one of the problems with being in this position on the list of speakers is that everybody has said what one was going to say. In most cases I would sit down at this stage and say that everything has been said, but today the subject is so important that I am afraid that your Lordships will have to put up with me.
I should also like to say how heartily I endorse the opening words of the right reverend Prelate. If only bed-and-breakfast accommodation was unnecessary we would not have to go through all this.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has moved a very reasonable Motion calling on Her Majesty's Government to provide boarder premiums for all members of families with children placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities.
Once again we have a situation in which it is clear that the actions of one department of government are having an adverse effect on another department and that those effects have not been considered. Parents are constantly being exhorted by the, Department of Health to provide wholesome, nourishing food, prepared in a clean environment, for their children. In this instance we find local authorities, which really have very little alternative, placing families in accommodation which I am sure would horrify Members of your Lordships' House. Families with children and infants are expected to cope with their day-to-day living in overcrowded and often filthy conditions, with a bare minimum of facilities for cooking and washing up. We have all heard the horror stories.
The Government, through the Department of Social Security, have done absolutely nothing to assist parents who find themselves in those unfortunate conditions to make proper provision for their children. The result is a sharp decline in the children's health. Gastroenteric infections are common because the raw materials for meals cannot be stored in hygienic cupboards or refrigerated when necessary. Imagine trying to keep milk, meat or fish fresh for more than a few hours in the weather conditions which have prevailed in the past month. Imagine trying to prepare food and to cook it properly in the same room where you sleep and wash yourself and your clothes, as well as crockery and pans, in an inadequate wash-basin, in a room crammed with your
1016
belongings and with unhappy children trying to play around your feet. I should not like to do it for a day, let alone for weeks and months.
How does a woman in that kind of temporary accommodation ensure that her family has a balanced diet? As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, so graphically described, that woman cannot prepare meat and two vegetables on a single gas ring, or on a cooker in the basement which must be shared with a dozen or more families, when she has only the most basic utensils. She is forced to rely on takeaway meals, which are expensive and often of dubious nutritional value.
It is a well-established fact that a poor diet leads to ill health. Even if the family escapes gastroenteric infections, the lack of a balanced diet causes a multitude of conditions from skin complaints, respiratory diseases and bone diseases to general malaise. Who knows what the long-term effects of that albeit temporary period of malnourishment will have on the future health of those children and their parents? I include the parents because often they will go without food themselves in order to ensure that their children eat.
It would not surprise me in the very least if I were to hear the Minister in his response to the Motion trot out the well-known arguments that the premium would be too complex to administer, that it would prove too costly and that it is the local authorities' responsibility to ensure that families who are unintentionally homeless are not placed in unsuitable accommodation. I know, and it has been said before, that in the Minister's opinion
"there is no evidence that income support levels are not adequate to provide people with a satisfactory diet".—[Official Report, 13/2/92; col. 842.]
Income support levels may be satisfactory in normal circumstances, but the temporary accommodation about which we are speaking today is exceptional, and exceptional circumstances need exceptional measures.
There have been several reports on the effect homelessness has upon health, although most that I have encountered were written before the 1989 income support regulations came into force: in other words, while there were still supplementary benefit additions for those forced to eat out by their circumstances. There is the BMA report Deprivation and III Health written in 1987, a report on Housing and Health published by the British Medical Journal in 1991 and a joint BMA and Health Visitors' Association report, Health and the Homeless Family, published in 1989. If the Minister has not read them I recommend that he does. He might just change his mind.
All the reports stress the high incidence of gastroenteritis, skin disorders and chest infections in that section of the population. In addition, we know that homeless women are much more likely than other women to have problems during pregnancy, and between a quarter and one third of their babies will be of low birth weight compared with one in 10 of the general population.
It seems unlikely that the Government will have a sudden change of heart over their housing policy. This measure, as other noble Lords have pointed out, will not be too complex to administer and should at least

1017
help to provide those unintentionally homeless families with children who have been placed in temporary accommodation by their local authority with the means to obtain something towards a balanced diet. It might even save the National Health Service some money. I commend it to the House and particularly to the Minister.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive my extreme incompetence in not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I knew perfectly well last week that the action in which I was involved in 1989 on behalf of the Government would he the subject of discussion today. But I confess that I had not appreciated that there would be a list of speakers. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.
It seems to me that the wheel has turned full circle. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned, in 1989 the Government asked your Lordships to approve a measure which, among other things, would remove the eating-out supplement in the board and lodging allowances. As I said, I responded to the two debates, both in Committee and at Report stage, on that year's Social Security Bill. At that time noble Lords sought to put this measure back on the statute book and were ultimately denied the opportunity by a Division in this House. During my sojourn in Northern Ireland I believe that your Lordships subsequently tried to persuade the Government to change their housing policy with regard to emergency housing by outlawing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I may just be wrong about that, but that is the inference from what I have heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, now returns to the charge, effectively asking the House to reverse its decision of 1989 and allow an extra allowance, a boarder premium, for those unfortunate people on benefit who, having one or more dependent children, are living in temporary accommodation which does not provide all meals or self-contained facilities for providing those meals.
There is no doubt that there is a philosophical divide between the supporters of the noble Lord's Motion and the Government on this issue, which I agree is a very real problem for those people in that particular and deplorable circumstance. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was one of the many speakers—in fact I believe he was the first—to spell it out. But it is only fair to the House to say that I continue to believe that it would be invidious to have different rates of board and lodging allowance depending on where one lives, especially as there is no suggestion that levels are inadequate if cooking and storage facilities are available in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I also believe that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is the least desirable form of emergency housing. That is why DoE sectors continue to say, as they have done for some years, that they should be used only as a last resort. Bringing unlet house accommodation into temporary use, for example, or using any other accommodation which could well be cheaper would be far better but is not an option everywhere. One of the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about using
1018
the capital receipts from the sale of council properties is that the large capital receipts which we know exist are rarely in those areas in which the accommodation that we all want to see needs to be built. The Government are therefore still unable to outlaw its use, as noble Lords tried to persuade the Government to do in more recent times.
Obviously the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, provides an option; namely, that of giving extra money in these particular circumstances. But as we all know, the Government turned down that option in 1989 and presumably will seek to turn it down again. Therefore I believe that there is only one solution. Given that the integrity of the social security forms will be breached by this proposal and given that, for the moment at least, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is to stay as a long stop, I do not believe that the suggestion today of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is the right one.
I return to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said —or almost said—that this is a housing problem that the Government still have not solved. Subsequent speakers in the debate agreed with him. The numbers are still much the same as they were three years ago, as the figures of both the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Ennals, show, even though they appear to be on a different basis. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, as we heard, has the objective of doing away with bed-and-breakfast hotels for such accommodation. That is all very well but there will still be a period in which they are needed as a long stop. Therefore, I should like to see a circular sent from my right honourable friend to local authorities to say not merely that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be used only as a last resort (as the current circular says) but that bed-and-breakfast accommodation in which children are concerned and which does not provide either all meals or such cooking and food storage facilities as the new circular will specify should not be used after a certain date.
Clearly there are currently not enough bed-and-breakfast hotels with such cooking and storage facilities. Therefore the operators have a choice: either to bring the accommodation up to a suitable standard or go out of business—or that part of their business which is temporary housing for those people. Local authorities will be forced to use other accommodation. No noble Lord who has spoken today will object to that. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lady Faithfull will see that that is a solution which reaches the core of the problem rather than, as it were, glossing over the subject. But I continue to say that a very real problem exists.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will recognise two weaknesses in the argument that he put forward. On 11th June 1990 his noble friend Lord Henley said that it was unreasonable to expect that bed-and-breakfast accommodation would have cooking facilities. He said:
"How many commercial hotels are there that have a cooker in every room? If such a situation existed, the

1019
establishment would not be bed and breakfast accommodation but would in fact be a block of flats or bedsits".—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 101.]
So that could not possibly be an answer that the department would want from local authorities. In a constructive way the Minister had stressed that:
"the Government firmly believe that the solutions to the problems facing those families lie fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities and not in changes to the benefit system".—[Official Report, 11/6/90; col. 100.]
He went on to say that it really was a housing problem.
Two years have passed and the problem is greater than it was then. Does the noble Lord suggest that we should carry on for two, three or four years with the same problem remaining unresolved? It is a problem of money. If we believed that the Government intended to give housing opportunities to local authorities, maybe his argument would carry more weight. Will he comment on that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall comment, but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Henley will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for destroying my argument for him. That said, the problem is that some of the bed-and-breakfast hostels—not all but some of them—have inadequate cooking and food storage facilities. Knowing that, it would be quite practicable for the Government to issue a circular outlawing the use of those particular bed-and-breakfast hostels. I cannot see any harm in that. Whether the Government will do it is a different matter and one for my noble friend Lord Henley.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for introducing this Motion and producing an excellent debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his courage in contributing to the debate. I remember very vividly in 1989 when the noble Lord came to the Dispatch Box with the words of his noble friend Lady Blatch in his ears: "I believe that there is a dilemma for the Minister". The noble Lord began, "Yes, there is indeed a dilemma for the Minister". I am very pleased to find that the noble Lord still thinks about it. I listened to him with very great interest and am very glad he spoke. There are a dozen other speakers and we have a British jury drawn from every quarter of the House. The verdict of all other speakers is unanimous.
I believe that we are today addressing the second worst thing in the social security system. I am sure that my noble kinsman will not ask me to explain which is the first. I believe that the first priority of the social security system is to ensure that everyone has enough to eat. People living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation do not have enough to eat. That is the central point of the Motion.
I expect my noble kinsman will say that there is no evidence that people cannot manage on income support. I shall not argue that point with him. I do not believe that it is right, but that is not the point of today's debate. It is whether people can manage on income support without cooking facilities. That is an altogether different question. There are three ways in
1020
which my noble kinsman may argue that such people can manage adequately on income support without their own cooking facilities. If he has thought of a fourth, I shall be interested to hear it. He could argue that people may rely on communal kitchens. I listened with interest and total agreement to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about that. Those kitchens are under severe pressure. We have cases of 39 families relying on 12 gas rings. Alternatively, 35 families rely on one cooker and one fridge. Those are not practical ratios.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others referred to the fact that such facilities are several floors away. I have a letter from a GP who practised recently in Bayswater. He is not the same GP who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. His letter states:
"I have seen quite horrifying scalds".
One of the main causes is,
"from saucepans of hot food carried up from often several floors away, where the kitchens are in the basement of the tall narrow B&B hotels. You can imagine the mother trailing upstairs with hot food in one hand; an infant held in the other arm and the toddler trailing along behind. These sorts of situations are just asking for trouble and, sure enough, there is plenty of it".
That is the voice of experience. I therefore do not believe that relying on the communal kitchens is adequate, especially since they are often closed from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m., and in some cases for longer.
The second possibility is eating out. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, made a key point in 1989. Since she is not present she has kindly given me permission to repeat the point she made: that when one eats out one pays VAT on every mouthful so that the cost is immediately increased by 17.5 per cent. If my noble kinsman states that income support is adequate in those circumstances, then he is stating that it is 17.5 per cent. too high in normal circumstances. If he were to say that, I would not believe him, but his right honourable friend the Chief Secretary possibly might do so. My noble kinsman would be rather unwise to say that.
I have seen families in McDonald's in Kilburn sitting for an hour over one plate of chips. I do not believe that that is an adequate diet particularly, as has been said, if it has to be repeated many times over.
The same problem about cost applies to take-aways. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about costs. It has also been pointed out that in much bed-and-breakfast accommodation there is no table so that families have to eat on the bed. Mothers also have to change the baby's nappies on the bed. It is therefore not surprising that gastroenteritis is a common problem in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Perhaps I may consider some of the arguments which may be put forward by the other side. I am sure that my noble kinsman will mention cost. Even in a public spending round as tight as I know that this round must be, £15 million is not a large amount to enable such people to have enough to eat. This is not Ethiopia. We are supposed to be a rich country. We are at least not yet a desperately poor one. I believe that we are rich enough not to allow malnutrition.
We also need to consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about cost-effectiveness. To

1021
continue as we are is not a cost-free option. Such conditions, in particular the shortage of food, create strains. Those strains have costs. In November 1990, 8 per cent. of all admissions to St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, were people from bed-and breakfast-hotels. That rate of admission is two or three times the rate for the local population. There may be an element of coincidence but I would be surprised if it were 100 per cent. coincidence. Statistically that would be a great improbability. Hospital admissions have costs. Gastroenteritis has costs. Low birth weight has costs; incubators are expensive pieces of equipment. Toxaemia in pregnancy has costs.
I know that when the public spending round takes place Ministers try to play beggar my neighbour. But it is not wise and is not in the public interest to shift spending into a demand-led budget like the health service prescribing budget. Costs may not be noticed in that budget but they can be considerable. Some figures in the today's Independent are a preview of the White Paper, The Health of the Nation. I understand that that will be published on Wednesday. Those figures indicate that the cost of treating anxiety and depression is £4.6 billion. Mental health patients represent 23 per cent. of hospital in-patient costs. The Government wish to seek a reduction of 25 per cent. in the suicide rate. If we agree to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it could contribute to that objective.
Will my noble kinsman undertake to consult his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health about the possible financial saving resulting from giving people an adequate diet? I know that my noble kinsman will say that I always look for false economies. I shall listen. If he puts forward a contrary costing, I shall listen to that too. I know perfectly well that I may have costed the matter wrongly but I am not yet convinced that the Government have costed it at all. I wish that they would do so.
My noble kinsman may put forward the argument of perverse incentive with regard to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. He has used it before. It is a curious argument. Recently my wife and I have been engaged in trying to prevent Brent Council from closing a women's refuge and putting all the women into bed-and-breakfast. We have so far been unsuccessful. My wife spoke to some of the women involved after the last council meeting. They were answering the argument that conditions in the refuge could be improved. They said, "Compared with bed-and-breakfast accommodation the refuge is a real palace". If my noble kinsman refers to a perverse incentive, he should remember that story. Even if he takes the argument seriously, he should remember the laws on intentional homelessness, which exist and have considerable teeth.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, my noble kinsman may fall back on what I think of as the Godot strategy—waiting for bed-and-breakfast accommodation to go away. It is rather a long time about it. Certainly it will not happen within the next year.
It would be easier to listen to a ministerial defence along those lines if Ministers showed more sympathy to the practical alternatives to bed-and-breakfast
1022
which exist at present. As my noble kinsman may have guessed, I have in mind Lawrie Park Hostel which was set up under the cold weather programme and is due to close in six days' time. That hostel offers three square meals a day. It is open all day and, most important in terms of cost-effectiveness, it has a remarkably good record in resettling those who go there off the streets. Often they leave to take up courses or jobs; or sometimes go back to their parents and into regular settled accommodation.
That hostel is cost effective. The Minister is resisting pressure to keep it open. If my noble kinsman were able to announce a change of front on the issue tonight I should take the strategy of waiting for the end of bed-and-breakfast a little more seriously than I am able to do now. Meanwhile, we have malnutrition and that calls for action—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may point out that I did not enunciate what he called the Godot strategy. I was trying to force an end, not wait for an end, to bed-and-breakfast.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Lord forecast precisely the amount of homelessness that there will be in 18 months' time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course I cannot, nor can I forecast the precise amount of bed-andbreakfast accommodation that there will be in 18 months' time.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who so movingly introduced his Motion tonight. I assure the House that we shall give it our full support. Indeed, all noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Motion, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He was unhappy about the possibility that the House might wish to reverse a decision made in 1989. Many of us believe that that decision was wrong. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, what he does when he is wrong. I hope that tonight we have the courage and the compassion to change our minds.
There are 12,000 families, perhaps 29,000 people, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and quote from a document published in 1989 as a result of research carried out by the British Medical Association and the Health Visitors' Association. The research related to homeless families and their health. It states:
"Bed and breakfast accommodation is often overcrowded, insanitary and lacking in basic amenities. Infectious diseases are common and easily spread. Diarrhoea and vomiting are common because of poor water supply and shared sanitation. Infestation with scabies, lice, fleas, bedbugs and mice is common. Both adults and children in bed and breakfast accommodation are malnourished. There is a high incidence of weight loss in adults and of low birthweight in babies. Most hotels lack adequate cooking and refrigeration facilities and some have none. Families often have to vacate the accommodation between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. These factors add to the difficulty of maintaining proper nutrition".
The study states that in consequence women have twice as many problems during pregnancy and that

1023
children suffer poor physical and mental health, disturbed sleep, toileting difficulties, frequent infections and non-accidental injury.
The Minister intervened during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and suggested that for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation malnutrition was a matter of mismanagement. I do not doubt that that may add to the situation, but I do not believe that anyone in the House tonight can doubt that malnutrition is due primarily to acute poverty which in some modest degree this Motion will help to alleviate.
The Minister said previously—and he was right—that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is no place for families. Perhaps he will say that again tonight. He may call on local authorities to do better; we all want that. But homeless families are not in bed-and-breakfast accommodation because local authorities are malevolent or even negligent. They are there because bed-and-breakfast accommodation is better —only just—than sleeping in a car or having one's children taken into care. Families in bed-andbreakfast accommodation are at the intersection of two crises—the local authorities' lack of housing to rent and their own lack of income to buy. They have a housing crisis.
Only a few years ago when I was a local authority housing chairman, one letting in 10 in my local authority would go to a homeless family. The figure is now more than one in two. In 1980 there were 60,000 homeless families and in 1986 100,000. Now there are 145,000 homeless families. With reference to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, all the evidence shows that the rate of homelessness will increase and will continue to put pressure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Family breakdown, mortgage repossession and couples unable to rent or to buy are the deeper causes of homelessness. But that homelessness has risen at just the point when the local authorities' ability to meet it has been reduced. There are fewer council houses to rent and few if any houses are being built. As the Audit Commission has told us, during the 1980s more than one million houses in the socially-rented sector were lost to renting. Building land lies idle, building workers are unemployed and millions of pounds in capital receipts lie sterile in banks while families rot in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The Government may talk of empty properties. In local authorities the figure is 2 per cent., double that in the private sector and five times that in government stock. Local government may talk about the initiative to help the homeless; it is one that we have all welcomed from his honourable friend in the other place. Of course that applies only to London and more than half the number of homeless families are outside London. Collectively we have constructed homelessness where we could have constructed homes. In the absence of those homes, highly vulnerable families had to go into bed-and-breakfast accommodation if they and the children were not to become rough sleepers.
1024
In addition to constructing homelessness we added trauma to injury when in 1989 we decided to reduce the income support on which families coped in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. When we cut that allowance, homeless families lost overnight £10 per week per child which could have been spent on food. During the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill my noble friend Lord Carter cited the case of a family which found that its income support had dropped from £105 to £63 and which then faced a further reduction of £17 amenity charges. Its income was halved and as food was in the left-over category that was cut.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, so movingly reminded us, cafe food and bought meals cost more than home-cooked food. We know that to be true every time we go on holiday. Yet families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have little choice. Food cannot be cooked or stored in the bedroom. If it is the accommodation becomes a bedsit rather than bed and breakfast, as my noble friend Lord Ennals reminded us. If families try to cook they face unprotected fires, kettles and gas rings on the floor which lead to the burns, scalds, and fire hazards mentioned by many noble Lords. There may be a kitchen down several flights of stairs which is shared by 10, 12, or even 15 families.
I shall quote from the Bayswater Homelessness Project.
"Ms. H: a single parent living in B&B in Shepherd's Bush with her baby and toddler. Ms. H moved to the hotel with her two children last Christmas. Her room, which contains all of her possessions, is tiny. The kettle is balanced on a rickety chest of drawers crowded with bottles of cleaning fluid, shampoo and children's medicine. There are electric wires trailing across the floor.
When she goes down to the kitchen to cook, she faces a dilemma. Should she leave the toddler locked in the room, with all the hazards this involves? Or should she try and juggle the baby, toddler and hot pans up three flights of stairs from the kitchen?
To avoid these risks Ms. H buys sterilised baby food which can be eaten cold. This leaves little money in her weekly budget for herself and the toddler. They live mostly on chips".
As DoE research reminded us, 90 per cent. of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have no adequate cooking facilities. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, reminded us, women are the most vulnerable, particularly pregnant women and women of ethnic minorities who cannot continue their traditional cooking methods. One woman in four in bed-and-breakfast accommodation occasionally goes without food; one child in 10 regularly does so. I am sure we all agree that that is intolerable. And if it is intolerable, we should not tolerate it this evening.
The Minister agrees that families should not have to endure such conditions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Desai have all said that decent housing is required. Wherever we may wish to place responsibility for that, it it is a long-term solution.
Meanwhile, we can at least help vulnerable families to buy their way out of malnutrition. That is why this Motion argues for a boarder premium which

1025
recognises that food costs much more for those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation than for those who are not.
I am sure that we shall not hear from the Minister any talk of perverse incentives because no family, even for a boarder premium, would willingly move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation if a permanent home were available. I hope that the Minister will not say that the scheme would be cumbersome to administer or costly to implement. The structure is straightforward. The cost may be £10 million to £15 million to the DSS but on transfer payments, the cost would be many times higher to social services and to the health authorities and many many times higher to the families in debt, distress and suffering from malnutrition.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the Motion on the grounds that it is out of order, as was suggested by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley, much as I may be tempted to on some occasions. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will accept that it is not out of order. However, I shall pass on to the appropriate authorities the comments made by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley as regards the inability to amend statutory instruments.
I fully understand the sentiment that has given rise to the debate this evening. On the Government Benches we accept—I am sure we all accept—that life is not easy for a family in temporary accommodation. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Government have taken the many steps they have to assist families in those circumstances is that we are well aware of the risk to the continuation of the family unit itself when living conditions are unstable. Our anxiety as regards this matter is well demonstrated by the £6 billion which we have planned to channel to housing associations over the next three years, providing over 150,000 new homes for rent and low cost purchase by 1995–96. I think that is the nub of the issue here.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also wishes to help these families and has proposed an amendment to the regulations which would certainly give some of them a very considerable increase in income. However, even leaving aside certain intrinsic defects in the proposal on which I will enlarge in a moment, there is the question of cost, which could be considerable.
I make no apology for mentioning cost. The cost to the taxpayer, the national insurance contributor, of the entire social security system is extremely high: some £70 billion per annum. That is a massive burden on the taxpayer. If one takes those in work and paying for the benefits, it amounts to some £10 per day for every man or woman who is working and paying taxes and national insurance contributions. The House should bear in mind the cost of Motions tabled for the consideration of your Lordships.
Obviously I shall pass on the comments made by my noble kinsman about costs to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in order to see whether she believes that savings would be made were
1026
this Motion accepted. However, the cost of £15 million bandied about by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis and the noble Baroness then reduced it to £10 million—are not realistic. They do not take into account any incentive or disincentive or whether there may be growth in the use of such a premium. I suggest that the figure could be £35 million, particularly when one bears in mind the difficulties of limiting the provision to the group as set out in the Motion. The Motion would tend to perpetuate the distress it seeks to relieve. The Government wish to deal with the root cause of the problem: namely, as the right reverend Prelate and others have said, the availability of accommodation.
One other observation I think I should make at the outset is that the primary responsibility for providing homeless families with suitable accommodation lies with local authorities, which are required to do so by the 1985 Housing Act. Here again, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would tend to be counterproductive since the need is for the authorities to offer suitable accommodation and not for central government to provide an incentive for them to offer any old accommodation, whether it is suitable or not.
The basic difficulty is that the amendment seeks in part to return to the complexity—and I do not apologise for using the words again—and perverse incentives characteristic of some parts of the pre-1988 social security system. The reformed income related benefits system has been built on a set of strong principles. Income support is both more straightforward, which means that claimants can much more easily understand its workings, and also more equitable. Allowances are now based unambiguously on age and family status, with flat rate premiums added to help those groups, such as families, who clearly have additional needs. In addition, lone parents—and I suspect that there may be many in temporary accommodation—are also entitled to a lone parent premium in addition to the family premiums.
A boarders premium would reintroduce a number of complexities, and it is here that some of the problems inherent in the proposal begin to appear. In the first place there is the question of whether and when there is any significant qualitative difference between boarding accommodation and other accommodation. Any definition of the target group for such a premium is likely to be either complex or unfair, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said.
Boarding fades into rental and there is no clear dividing line between the two. As previous experience showed, it is very hard to justify the payment of a premium to some families while denying it to others housed in what is not obviously different rented accommodation.
Of course, the amendment before us offers a definition: families classified as homeless under Part III of the 1985 Housing Act. I am by no means convinced that the Government could defend the arbitrary group that that would represent for income support. It might, for example, include homeless families placed in short-term leased accommodation

1027
which may be of a far higher standard than ordinary bed-and-breakfast establishments. The provision of a boarders premium for this group but not for others in identical accommodation obtained under their own steam is just not acceptable.
There is also the problem of properly defining, to quote from the Motion,
"self-contained facilities for preparing meals".
I do not wish to labour the point, but noble Lords will recognise the difficulty for claimants, and the income support adjudication officers, in deciding what that means in practice or what constitutes boarding. The section, as some noble Lords will be aware, of the old instruction manual dealing with orders contained 90 paragraphs, innumerable sub-paragraphs and reference to further material in particular circumstances. We do not intend to return to that absurd position. It is more appropriate to look at the central policy implications of such a move.
The changes made in 1989 which put boarders on the same footing as those in rented accommodation were part of a programme of simplification, but they were also an answer to what was an increasingly serious problem. Higher payments to people in this kind of accommodation encouraged people to seek it in preference to other types of accommodation. Equally, as many will remember, landlords were encouraged to provide more temporary and unsatisfactory housing and less of the more usual self-contained rental accommodation.
The Department of Social Security was greatly worried at the time about the misuse of public funds, both actual and potential, and of collusion between landlords in bidding up rents and sharing the proceeds or in offering what was described as boarding when by most standards what was available was simple rental. I should remind the House that before 1989 the department was frequently in the courts on these matters.
The 1989 changes put boarders on the same footing as tenants of other rented accommodation. A boarders premium would signal a return to the iniquities of the old system and would be unfair to those living in similar rented accommodation. Certainly I cannot think that claimants would be encouraged to move to more appropriate housing if they were to lose, for example, £50 a week for a family of five as envisaged by the Motion; and at £2,600 a year per family the incentive for landlords to pack in as many families as they could, with or without collusion, would be considerable.
I suggest that the policy arguments against classifying benefit on the basis of accommodation type are very strong and must weigh heavy on the mind of any government considering providing help to families by that method. Boarders now receive normal rates of income support and housing benefit to cover rent. That standardisation of the benefit arrangements has important advantages. Homeless families know, for instance, that when they are found permanent accommodation their income support payments will not be reduced.
1028
It is an important part of government policy to help families in those difficult circumstances. As I suggested at the outset, this is a housing matter and we have taken a number of positive steps to help. In addition to the £6 billion to the housing associations that I have already mentioned, the Housing Corporation has a budget in 1993–94 of over £2 billion and housing associations are expected to make at least half of their new lets and their re-lets available to local authority nominees, a large proportion of which will go to the statutorily homeless.
In addition, the two-year special homelessness programme (1990–92) which targeted households in London and the South East was very successful. It looks likely to have produced, not the 15,000 units suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but some 17,000 units to benefit homeless families who would otherwise be in temporary accommodation.
We shall be looking for evidence that local authorities, whose function it is to provide suitable housing for homeless families, are applying the lessons of that programme in their own housing strategies.
Much was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and all other speakers of the inadequacy of the bed-and-breakfast arrangements. The Government agree. That is why again in August 1991 we strengthened the guidance on discharging their homeless duties issued to local authorities. The noble Lord might be aware that the advice contained in that guidance is that at all times care must be taken to ensure that the temporary accommodation meets acceptable standards. Hotels are not suitable as long-term residential accommodation for families. Where the use of such accommodation is unavoidable, authorities should ensure that it meets the statutory regulations on standards for houses in multiple occupation. As regards cooking facilities, the code advises that wherever possible authorities should try to ensure that bed-and-breakfast hotels and hostels in which families may have to spend protracted periods of time provide adequate access to cooking facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also asked about the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We accept that local authorities continue to make use of that form of accommodation where it is necessary. But as at 31st March this year there were some 61,920 households in temporary accommodation. That is an increase on a year ago, but at the same time the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation fell. We shall continue to stress that those homeless families—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister give the figure for the fall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the fall is relatively small: from 12,240 to about 12,000. Noble Lords may laugh but—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I just asked a question.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's colleagues certainly laughed. While the numbers in temporary accommodation were increasing (I have mentioned an increase of 24 per cent.) the number in

1029
bed-and-breakfast decreased, albeit by a small amount. The percentage in bed-and-breakfast accommodation was decreasing substantially.
I shall continue with the advice that we offer local authorities. We stress that they should use bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a last resort only. There are alternatives; for example, rented accommodation in the private sector. We also advise that contracts excluding breakfast should be negotiated where the standard of meals provided is unacceptable. I should stress that that guidance was issued in August 1991. The Department of the Environment will be monitoring the effect of that new guidance. We shall continue to see what effect it has on the attitudes of local authorities.
I turn now to the DSS. Despite what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, we have not been idle with regard to the co-ordinated government effort. We have made real improvements in the help available for families. In 1992–93 over £600 million extra per year in real terms will have been made available through income-related benefits to families with children, compared with the position before the 1988 reforms. As recently as last April only, all income support rates were increased by some 2.9 per cent. over RPI. Further, there is no clawback from the benefit rates to reflect the reduced community charge liability following the 1991 Budget. That is significant help by anyone's standards.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I accept that income support rates have increased for all families. I was trying to say—perhaps I did not make it clear —that those people are an exception. They find themselves in exceptional circumstances where they cannot cook proper meals and so they need extra money to pay for them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Countess was listening to me. I was suggesting that all income support rates were going up. I was then going on to repeat what I said earlier about the adequacy of income support levels. There is no evidence that income support levels are inadequate. I accept that for many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation it is difficult to eat well on income support rates, but to say that the rates of income support are themselves the cause of malnutrition is going too far. There is no evidence of that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I did not say that the rates of income support were the cause of malnutrition. I said that the rates of income support without cooking facilities were the cause of malnutrition.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am saying that in any circumstances it is always possible to survive on the rates of income support. Those rates are adequate. I accept that it is difficult for some people, and that is the point that I am trying to make. I know that my noble kinsman does not agree with me. I do not accept his assertions that the mere proof that some people are not eating well is evidence that malnutrition is the result of the levels of income support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we should make this matter clear on the record. Is my noble kinsman saying definitely that it is possible to eat adequately in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without cooking facilities when living on income support?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have been trying to make it quite clear that local authorities should not use bed and breakfast accommodation except in the last resort. They should certainly not use such accommodation if there are no cooking facilities whatever and there are children. If there are cooking facilities certainly the provision will be adequate. There will be difficulties for those where the cooking facilities are inadequate. I accept that. But the provision will not necessarily be the cause of malnutrition, as certain noble Lords have said.
I understand and share many of the concerns which have been expressed. But that does not alter the fact that the proposal before us has serious difficulties associated with it and, still worse, constitutes a step backwards to the less acceptable system which existed before 1988.
Having reformed the income related benefits scheme by applying a set of clear and sensible principles, the Government believe that it would be a mistake, indeed a delusion, to imagine that difficulties will always be overcome simply by grafting on ever more provisions and special exemptions to the social security system. It is far better to address the root of the problem which is the course on which we are embarked.
Our efforts to improve the position of people in temporary accommodation are beginning to pay dividends. Local authorities are reducing their dependence on bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a form of temporary accommodation for homeless people. Indeed, perhaps I may conclude by quoting the figures for homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London. The number has fallen by 18 per cent. compared with the same time last year. In England as a whole the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have dropped in each of the last two quarters.
It would be a mistake to divert scarce resources into benefits whose effect would be to reverse this trend and return to the discredited arrangements of the past. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will consider hard before he presses this Motion to a Division. If he does press it, I must advise the House in no uncertain terms to reject it.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sure that the House would not wish me to go through all the speeches. I thank all those who have taken part for what they have said. They have all supported me. I have no doubt that they will have heard with some dismay the Minister's reply. He is batting on a sticky wicket. That is what it seems to all of us. He was finding some difficulty in replying.
In the debate on the Social Security Bill which took place three years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whose contribution this afternoon I

1031
very much welcomed, was then in the Minister's place. About bed and breakfast he said that all Members of the Committee, including himself, wanted,
"to get people out of bed and breakfast accommodation and ensure that others never have to move into such accommodation. There is no question about that whatsoever". —[Official Report, 29/6/89; col. 891.]
Three years later the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is the same as it was when the noble Lord said that. No improvement has taken place. Until it occurs such a temporary measure is necessary and those conditions have to be endured. For those reasons I must press the Motion.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Attlee, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Barnett, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Broadbridge, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Judd, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Lawrence, L.

Chester, Bp.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cobbold, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

De L'Isle, V.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mais, L.

Desai, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mar, C. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Faithfull, B.

Meston, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Galpern, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Norfolk, D.

Gridley, L.

Peston, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Haig, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hertford, M.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hollick, L.

Shannon, E.

1032

Shaughnessy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Varley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wharton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wise, L.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Cadman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Pennock, L.

Denham, L.

Prentice, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prior, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Erne, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fisher, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Savile, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strange, B.

Hemphill, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Suffield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thatcher, B.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waddington, L.

Layton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Leigh, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wynford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Runaways: Report
6.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the report Runaways: Exploding the Myths published by National Children's Home, the Metropolitan Police and the Police Foundation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by declaring an interest in that I am a trustee of the Police Foundation. However, the trustees have no collective view on this piece of work. It has been carried out on behalf of the National Children's Home, the Metropolitan Police and the Police Foundation, and was prepared by Caroline Abrahams and Roddy Mungall.
If many people had been asked to give their assessment of the runaway problem in the last year or so I suspect that they would have accepted to some degree at least the picture that was provided by one leading national newspaper, which stated:
"Many runaways continue to be attracted by the bright lights of Piccadilly Circus, but meet instead a world of squalor and degradation. Those who haven't got the bottle to go thieving to feed themselves end up doing tricks with the perverts who come here in search of young boys".
The survey which we are discussing this evening demonstrates that, although just such a situation exists, it represents only a tiny fraction of the entire runaway problem. The difficulty has been that stories of the kind that I have just referred to have tended to divert attention from the need to make a cool analysis of what is clearly a far more complex situation. I refer in particular to why large numbers of young people decide to run away and why many of them do it repeatedly.
First, we have to be clear about the extent of the difficulties with which we are now confronted. The report is based on a survey of five contrasting police forces—Strathclyde, Thames Valley, Northumbria, Devon and Cornwall, and the Metropolitan Police. It was conducted with the co-operation of the local authority social service and social work departments in those five areas.
A computerised database was established containing around 17,000 police missing persons reports. It became clear at an early stage that no satisfactory national statistics existed for measuring the number of runaways because each of the 51 police forces in Great Britain maintained its own records and had developed its own statistical methods. The Metropolitan Police's juvenile index incorporates a missing young person's register. It obtains that information from forms which are completed in London and some, but certainly not the majority, of its information comes from other police forces in this country.
However, on the basis of the research that has been carried out, it is possible to make some calculations of the number of runaways in any year. It has been estimated that probably somewhere around 43,000 young people ran away in England and Scotland in 1990. Some did so more than once. Indeed, some did so on a substantial number of occasions. Just over half of the runaways were boys. The majority were in the
1034
14 to 16 year-old age group. In just about three in every four cases the runaways stayed away for up to 48 hours. But the fact that they were away for such comparatively short periods did not, in some cases at least, minimise the seriousness of the situation from which they were running away.
What was highly significant was that a high proportion of the runaways came from residential establishments. Although considerably less than 1 per cent. of children in this country are in such establishments, 30 per cent. of the runaways came from residential children's homes. Indeed, nearly six out of every 10 runaway incidents from residential care came from about 40 establishments. In one case, a home with 72 places recorded no fewer than 565 such incidents, and another with 56 places had 512 incidents, involving 67 children.
That brings me to the first question that I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is to reply to the debate. Given the fact that this part of the problem that we are debating seems to be concentrated in a minority of establishments, what action does the Department of Health intend to take to deal with this situation? Perhaps I may give just one illustration of the sort of problem that can arise. A year or so ago I was in the area of one police force —not one of those which has been involved in this research programme. I was told by the detective chief superintendent and by a number of other officers of that force that one of the most difficult situations that had arisen in that year had been caused by runaways from a local authority children's home. There as a result of court orders, they had decamped regularly, sometimes committing a series of criminal offences, from stealing cars to burglary, before they were recaptured. In some cases the police had the children in custody before those involved in the management of the residential children's establishment were even aware that they had left.
It is not my object today to be highly critical of those who work in residential children's homes. There has been far too much scapegoating of social workers in the past few years. Those who work in a residential setting are often untrained, underpaid and woefully under-resourced. But there is no point in underestimating the degree of concern about this situation among many senior police officers. Some, but by no means all, fear that the problem is getting out of hand. There is a further difficulty. If residential children's homes are not effectively managed and adequately resourced, there is a danger that children who run away and become sucked thereby into criminal activities will, because of the chronic lack of secure places, find themselves in prison; and we know from an answer which I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, only last week that the number of secure places in these establishments has fallen from 353 in 1980 to 288 on 1st January this year.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this element of the situation but we have to face the fact that 25 per cent. of the reported runaways in London had previous criminal convictions. That was true of nearly half of those running away from care. Of course not all the children involved in these episodes are in

1035
care. Some run away because they have had a row with their mother or father, sometimes because they have arrived home too late, or because their parents do not particularly like their boyfriends or girlfriends and sometimes because they have done badly in examinations at school. Often in cases of this kind they run away to the home of a grandparent or other relative. Often too the difficulty can soon be resolved and is no more than a brief interlude in a child's life. But on other occasions the act of running away can indicate a far more disturbing situation, such as sexual abuse; or it can be that their conduct has come to the attention of the police and they run away in order to avoid a court case.
In any event, the scale of the problem is now sufficiently serious for us to press the Government to explain what action they propose to take to deal with this situation. First, it is clear that there has to be a co-ordinated response by all the agencies involved if we are to safeguard the interests of these children effectively. There is of course regular contact between the police and social services agencies in respect of many child protection cases. However, it is abundantly clear that this does not always include the problem of runaways. There has to be established some framework of joint discussion. In particular, as the authors of the report suggest, there should at least be an interview with the returned runaway, and in some of the more difficult cases, more than one interview.
Secondly, there has to be a clear picture in each police force area of where children are running away from. If it is from one or two children's homes, that has to be established and the problem vigorously addressed. Thirdly, some group or a clearly defined agency should be given responsibility for dealing with this situation in every police force area. At present some police officers find it difficult to find anyone in a local authority social services department to take over the problem of the returned runaway.
Next there is the question of the National Missing Persons Register. I should be grateful for anything the noble Earl can say about that aspect of the problem. I am aware of the situation regarding PNC2 and I am also aware that the authors of the report consider that it is not in many respects satisfactory for all the problems that they have defined. But I should be grateful if the noble Earl would set out as fully as possible what the Home Office has in mind to do to deal with the situation and the timescale of the project as a whole.
Lastly, it seems to me that if we are to improve radically the co-ordination of our response to this problem there will have to be some form of inter-departmental collaboration, probably leading to the issue of a circular from the Home Office and the Department of Health spelling out the details of a new approach. This inevitably will require consultation between the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, ACPO, the Social Services Inspectorate and no doubt the directors of social services. I believe that this is now necessary. The authors of the report have disclosed the existence of a significant social problem far more
1036
complex and substantial than we believed we were experiencing. I hope that when the noble Earl replies to the debate he will be able to tell us whether the Government will now respond as swiftly as possible to the disturbing diagnosis which is spelt out in the report.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the National Children's Home, of which I am vice-chairman and treasurer, that the report should have been produced on the basis of such excellent co-operation with the police by the Young Runaways Project which the NCH established in 1986 to examine the problem of young people running away from home. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the authors of the report and in commending the example that has been set by the Police Foundation and the police forces concerned in co-operating with a voluntary agency to tackle a problem of this kind.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, what is greatly satisfying about the report is that it starts to get the problem into focus. Running away is not necessarily a great dramatic act. The report shows that the reasons vary from abuse in the home, which, thankfully, does not occur as frequently as one would have thought, to, on the other hand, pure bravado; from taking a day off to homesickness. But what each episode of running away tells parents and the staff of the homes is that something is wrong with regard to the young people concerned. The noble Lord pointed out that the report explodes some myths: that most children do not run away to London—the figure is less than 1 per cent. —that most do not wander around city centres; that most do not commit crimes; and that girls are as likely to run away as boys. The report confirms that these young people are more often running from than running to and, as the noble Lord said, predominantly they are running from residential care—from community homes, CHEs, assessment centres and treatment units.
It is astonishing—at least I found it to be so—to read in the report that 30 per cent. of youngsters who run away, run from residential care establishments which account for significantly less than 1 per cent. of the relevant population of that age, and that each runner runs on average four or five times. There is no doubting the fact that that is one more problem of residential care establishments. The House has often debated the problems of such establishments in the past in the context of child abuse and homelessness. Noble Lords will recall that 40 per cent. of the young homeless are youngsters who have come out of residential care.
It is timely that we should be discussing the matter again, not only in the light of the report which is the subject of tonight's debate but also in the light of the very welcome Howe Report on residential staffs. That report reminds us that working in residential care establishments is one of the most trying and thankless tasks in the whole field of social work. Staff who do such work deserve our recognition and gratitude.

1037
As the noble Lord said, we should not be entirely surprised that residential care establishments should account for such a very high proportion of runners. Many such youngsters are in residential care because they are runners—because they have been running away regularly from their homes or foster homes and there is nowhere else for them to go.
In her report Lady Howe emphasises that a massive reduction in the number of children in residential care has been accompanied by an increase in the average age—over one-third of youngsters in residential establishments are now over 16—and has concentrated into the residential sector youngsters with the most difficult problems; for example, disturbed children, older teenagers and children from ethnic minorities. Moreover, as the noble Lord reminded us, many of those young people are offenders. Indeed, four-fifths of the youngsters in residential care establishments are there by court order and many of them, when they run, are running away from an impending court appearance. Therefore, we are not looking just at young people who are running away; we are looking at young people many of whom we have hidden away. We are looking at young people who are in danger of becoming throwaways in our society.
The report before the House does not give a single, simple, conclusive answer on the characteristics of the institutions from which youngsters run most frequently. However, it puts its finger on some community homes (which it does not name) with educational facilities where there are obviously some appalling problems. From one of them, in the year in question, each resident ran on average eight times; from another, each resident ran on average nine times in the course of the year. The report shows that large establishments do not necessarily produce multiple reported incidents. It also shows that establishments in isolated rural areas do not necessarily lead to a great deal of running. However, what does emerge, and emerges very strongly, is the correlation between running and the distance from one's own home.
The situation is becoming worse as more and more such establishments close. There is, and will be, a continuing need to provide care and control at the appropriate level. As Lady Howe says, the reduction in the number of places intensifies the role of residential care establishments as places of last resort —containers and warehouses and places to which young people are sent after many of them have already had multiple placements. It is the end of the care line for many young people.
The danger is that it will be taken for granted that young people who are sent to such places will run, whereas if youngsters run from home it produces an emotional shock and can lead to some redress. The danger is that if such young people run from residential care establishments it will be greeted with a shrug of the shoulders. That is why the report is so timely and so valuable a contribution to the general discussion of the future of residential care.
The size of residential homes is not in itself an infallible indicator of inadequacy. But there are very strong arguments for developing residential care on the basis of normalisation. That policy is being
1038
pursued by the NCH, which has closed a number of big homes in favour of opening smaller ones. Such homes have often been closed faster than was planned because of the fall in placements by local authorities due to shortages of funds.
Therefore, if we are to prevent running, what needs to be done has to be seen as part of a total approach to improve residential care. Here the report before the House and the Howe Report provide much helpful advice. First, the report emphasises that the regime in residential homes must be centred on the child, on the young person. We must accept that there is a need sometimes for separation and for a degree of containment, but that, it is to be hoped, must be seen as being temporary. The aim of having youngsters in such places must be to prepare them for return to their own homes or placement in foster care or in independent living. That means taking their rights seriously. Certainly boundaries have to be set and enforced but the reasons have to be clear.
Secondly, as both reports emphasise, there is the need for effective complaints and advocacy services. That is the Howe Report's first recommendation and is absolutely crucial. Thirdly, there is the need to see running as a performance indicator; in other words, agencies and local authorities should see this as a measure of some inadequacy and regularly monitor the situation. Finally, there must be an established procedure for dealing with runaway incidents, covering notification to the police and the police response and also the response to runners in terms of bringing them back, integrating them into the home and listening to them.
For its part the NCH has produced a leaflet entitled "Is it Worth It?" addressed to young people who might be tempted to consider running away. It warns them about what can happen to runaways. It has also produced a leaflet addressed to parents and foster parents with practical advice on the danger signals to watch out for and how to handle the situation if their children do run. The NCH has also prepared detailed guidelines for all its projects. They cover measures to limit runaway potential; the keeping of records and the monitoring of running; and contact with the police and action on return, including the use of sanctions and counselling. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned in debates on residential homes, the NCH has introduced a comprehensive and independent complaints and representations procedure which can be used by all users of homes—that is, by both youngsters and those who place them in the care of the NCH.
As the noble Lord said, in producing the report the police and the NCH have set a very good example of working together, which is not always characteristic of work in the area of child care either at the level of government departments or at the level of local child protection committees. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the response to the report will be set firmly in the context of a co-ordinated approach to residential care by all the government departments involved.
Much more investigative work needs to be done. The noble Lord has reminded us of the endemic nature

1039
of the problem of runners in some homes. Perhaps the Young Runaways Project and the Police Foundation could look in depth at some of the issues if confidentiality can be preserved. As was suggested, we need a national database on missing persons and runaways which is accessible to approved agencies outside the police service.
In conclusion, I believe that it is important that we should build on the foundation of trust and confidence which has been established between the police service and the NCH which produced the excellent report that I commend to your Lordships.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for bringing this valuable report before your Lordships' House. There seem to be two aspects to the findings of the report and its recommendations. First, what is to be done here and now? Secondly, how do we prevent, so far as possible and practicable, situations arising where children run away? That is, how do we provide a preventive service?
I support the establishment of a national register. I understand from the report that it would gather the names and addresses, if possible, of the children reported to the police as missing. That is an important aspect. It should be done so that we know and can carry out research on the exact number of children involved, where they came from and the reasons for their absconding. To some extent the report covers that, but we need more detail.
Further, the report recommends that there should be nationally agreed procedures. I also agree with that. Surely we could set up a preventive structure which would deal with problems at source. The Children Act 1989 set out to improve child care services under local authority social service departments. Residential accommodation has been touched on well by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the Howe Report made recommendations to improve local authority residential establishments. It made recommendations about the training of residential child care staff.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who drew attention to the fact that at the moment social workers do not have the best reputation. Many hundreds of them do outstanding work in the field, but I am afraid that their good work is overlaid by the cases of cruelty in children's homes and child abuse which receive publicity.
I have deep sympathy with social service departments. Winston Churchill once said:
"Give us the tools, and we will finish the job".
The Department of Health has been generous in giving resources to local authorities, child care and voluntary organisations. However, the local authority social service departments in this country have suffered cuts due to local authority expenditure and their allocations of resources have been cut. Therefore, it will be difficult for them to give extra services, extra work and extra thought to expanding even further their child care services. Furthermore,
1040
next year local authority social service departments will implement community care which, again, will take both resources and, in particular, personnel.
As regards personnel, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for telling them of a personal experience. A girl ran away from home and her father suspected that she had come to London. He and I came to London one Saturday night and asked the Marlborough Street police station for a list of discotheques in that street and the Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street area. From nine o'clock until two o'clock in the morning we visited every discotheque. I am not good at dancing, particularly discotheque dances, but I danced with every young person that I could and asked whether they knew where to find my friend Susie. I should add that that was not her real name. They were entrancing and co-operative but, as I said, that took me from nine o'clock until two o'clock in the morning, dancing all the time. The police were not best pleased because they thought that they had to watch over me. I did not find the girl, but next day I received a telephone message from a strange voice: "If you meet the train arriving at 4.40 p.m. at Oxford station, Susie will be on it". I went to the station and she was on the train.
This story tells us two things: first, that many of the children who abscond or run away want to be found. If they are given some method by which they can be found, they come back. The second, important, point is the time involved in interviewing parents. I do not suggest that every social worker should visit all the discotheques, but the work takes time. There is also the time involved afterwards in counselling, bringing together the parents and the children or the social services and the child. I believe that the social services have so many responsibilities that they have insufficient time to carry out the job that is required to be done.
Many children wish to go somewhere for help but they do not know where. We could suggest that they go to the social service departments but those departments have neither the time nor the resources in the present circumstances. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that efforts should be made to draw together all the child care voluntary organisations such as the National Children's Home, Barnardos, the Church of England Children's Society, the Save the Children Fund and the British Council of Churches. We have in this House two representatives of the first organisation—the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I believe that if the organisations formed a consortium and worked out a network throughout the country, letting it be known to young people where they could go for help and advice (and in some cases where they could be temporarily housed in a hostel while their problems were discussed and worked out) we could go some, though perhaps not all the way towards helping these youngsters. Young people who run away need and wish to be helped. Given the method, they will use it. But at the moment, if I ask a runaway, "Why didn't you go to someone for help?", I regret to say that children such as those at King's Cross say to me, "Where should I have gone?"

1041
I appeal to my noble friend to consider having a consortium set up by the voluntary organisations to cover the whole country. There is the problem of finance and such a consortium would need core funding from the Government; otherwise, I know that a number of the voluntary organisations would subscribe out of their own funds. Therefore, I accept the recommendations of the report but want something more constructive to be done to set up a network to give help to young people so that they know where to go in the area in which they live.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for initiating this short debate on this vast and complicated matter. One of the organisations that has been heavily involved in this problem is the Children's Society. It was the Children's Society that opened the first safe house for runaways in the United Kingdom in 1985. The society did that to provide emergency shelter and counselling for children on the streets and also to mediate between the young person, parents and local authorities. Since that date, the Children's Society has been involved at that personal and direct level with more than 2,000 young people. The society is now concerned about this national problem of runaways.
An experience that might be helpful to us in the United Kingdom is that of the United States of America where the problem of runaways is vast. There are well over I million runaways and missing children there. There was much publicity about this problem in the United States back in the 1970s, and Congress passed the 1974 Runaway Youth Act which was later broadened in 1977 to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program to acknowledge the critical factor of homelessness. Shelters were set up and food and clothing were provided. A national runaway switchboard was also established. The Youth Development Board, which administers support to runaways and other youth projects and collects statistical information, estimated that as far back as 1975 there were well over 1 million young people who had run away from home.
In 1982 Congress passed the Missing Children's Act and in 1984 the Missing Children's Assistance Act to ensure that funding was directed in the best possible fashion. Organisations such as the Children's Society want a national register to be established soon. That national register has already been mentioned several times in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will remember that he replied to a Starred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in this House on 6th November 1989 and said:
"We are discussing with the Metropolitan Police the resource implications of establishing a national missing persons bureau as a matter of priority".—[Official Report, 6/11/89; col. 427.]
I hope the noble Earl can tell us that that bureau will soon be established as it would offer great encouragement to all organisations working in this field. However, the Children's Society and other organisations would want to underline the fact that the register itself is not enough. What they want is a
1042
bureau which can act as a reference point to oversee this development, to interpret the trends and to discuss and consider the policy issues. I believe that is extremely important.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said about the problems in children's homes and the reasons why people run away as those comments have already been made. I wish to illustrate how the system is abused by referring to a particular case. There seems to be an increasing incidence of copycat runaways among young people. It often seems that the DSS is not able to deal with this phenomenon adequately. I know of a true, current case of a girl (whom I shall call Jane) who left home on the day of her 16th birthday. The first her parents knew about this was when they received a telephone call from their daughter's school —she was still at school—to say that their daughter had entered the headmistress's study and told her she was now going to live with her boyfriend's mother.
The same day Jane, with her boyfriend's mother, went to a social security office where she made a statement to the effect that she was at risk. She applied for income support and rent allowance. Three weeks after her 16th birthday her application was granted and she moved into a bedsit. She is currently receiving £33.50 per week income support, and her rent of £34 per week is paid in full. She lives about a mile away from her parents' home. A serious question arises from this case. Jane receives free school meals, free travel to school, expenses towards textbooks and interview, expenses. All of those expenses must be repaid if she does not complete her A-level course.
Jane's case is rather unusual because she is still in education. She has only been able to obtain these expenses through playing the system. I am worried that a young girl of 16 can go to a DSS office and say she is at risk while in her home there is another daughter of 13 and a foster child of three, and yet the DSS has done nothing whatsoever to approach the parents. In addition, the DSS has not allocated a social worker to Jane. If she was at risk of abuse, she should have received counselling from a social worker.
Jane is now living in bedsit accommodation without any supervision at all. Her parents, seeking to obtain information from the DSS, were told they had a choice. They were told if they challenged Jane's statement that she was at risk, an inquiry would be held, Jane's money would be stopped and she would end up on the streets. I wonder what noble Lords would do in those circumstances. Jane's parents now face a huge dilemma. However, Jane herself is considered a heroine and is acclaimed by young people all around her as someone who has played the system and has broken free from her parents at the age of 16 when all that was wrong was a dispute about whether she should be allowed to stay out all night. Jane has been allowed to proceed down this line at a cost of something over £3,000 a year from DSS funds. This has all happened because there has been no attempt to mediate or to check her story.
A bureau could pick up this sort of thing if statistical trends in an area were considered. It could pick up the fact that a string of people, possibly Jane's associates, were doing exactly the same thing. That is

1043
a serious matter. I realise that that matter is not directly connected to the report that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has drawn our attention to, but it is an issue that is relevant to it. If young people can find a way of playing the system, that will result in an increased number of runaways. That is a serious matter that is not easily addressed, but the situation could be helped if a national register and a bureau were established to interpret the figures. Then perhaps pressure could be brought to bear to initiate social action in cases of this kind.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the immediately impressive thing about this report is its weight and its authority. It is a combined report of the National Children's Home, the Metropolitan Police and the Police Foundation. It was compiled over a period of three full years and it examined 17,000 cases of young people reported missing in five carefully selected areas from Cornwall to Strathclyde. Its research methodology is meticulous.
It would be difficult to refute the report's findings; and it would be difficult to refuse its careful and practical recommendations. Like all good pieces of research, the report tells us something new. Its title, Exploding the Myths indicates its importance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, until I read the report, I would have said that most runaways made for London and the bright lights of the big city; that far more boys ran away than girls; and that far more children ran away from home than ran away from residential care. I would have thought that most runaways never went back. However, I would have been wrong on every count.
It is good to have the facts; but we need to ask why we have the myths in the first place. The answer is not far to seek. Newspapers and television programmes have highlighted the salacious and the sensational at the expense of the dreary, sad and unremarkable plight of unregarded youth in corners thrown.
The newspapers have told us with lipsmacking horror of the runaway boy who ends up a prey to perverts outside a West End amusement arcade. They tell us little about the runaways who stayed in their own localities and went back a day or two after they left; yet this report shows conclusively that one category outnumbers the other by 99 to one. The real problem is not in Piccadilly, but on the park benches of the provinces. The real heroes are not the fearless investigative reporters of the tabloids, but the social workers, the child care officers, and perhaps above all the caring and compassionate police officers in every police force in this land. How seldom we congratulate and thank the police for the work they do. Let us do so now. I hope that the media will give full and detailed attention to the report and its recommendations and give full credit where it is massively overdue.
Perhaps one of the report's most striking discoveries is that so many children run away, and run away repeatedly, from residential care institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave us the figures. One must not jump to facile conclusions, and condemn
1044
residential care. Most carers do magnificent work and children in care are, by definition, in a less stable and predictable environment than those who are not. However, the logic of the report is relentless. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, told us that runaway incidents from just 40 care establishments accounted for 34 per cent. of all runaway incidents in the whole study, and 58 per cent. of all runaway incidents from care. Surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure a proper investigation of at least those 40 establishments, and not least the one with just over 70 places which had 565 runaway incidents in the year involving 64 of those young people.
Mr. Tom White, the director of the NCH, is reported as saying:
"Large numbers ran away from the care of Frank Beck",
who, your Lordships will recall, was recently given five life sentences for abuse of children at homes in Leicestershire over many years. Mr. White continued:
"but the local authority missed an opportunity to look at what was behind it".
The report offers another opportunity. I hope that the Government will insist, this time, that it is taken.
Mr. White has also called for the Home Office to develop procedures for dealing with runaways to be incorporated into the forthcoming national missing persons' register. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, stressed that point. The report highlights how far behind the United States we are in the United Kingdom in that respect, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester reminded us of that fact. It is only now that the scale of the problem of the young runaways is being recognised. We have as yet no adequate mechanism to determine the scale and nature of the problem. The report before us, for example, estimates that around 43,000 young people under 17 run away every year in England and Scotland, generating over 100,000 runaway incidents. That, however, is an estimate, a projection from the study figures in five areas. It is really no more than our best bet in respect of those figures at the moment.
The Children's Society is working daily at the very coalface of this situation. That is why it particularly welcomes the proposal to establish a national database on missing persons as part of the new Police National Computer II. However, the society stresses —and its staff are experts—the importance of establishing also a bureau which will oversee that development and act as a resource point in policy matters. That bureau would be required to collate the raw data from the register so that we could see the regional variations, the proportions absconding from residential care, the local authorities with the highest absconding rates, and we could monitor the trends and changes so that policy can be built on facts, scientifically established, and not on the misty marshes of myth.
One simple reform could happen almost overnight. The Home Office could issue instructions to standardise all missing persons' reporting forms and allow all police to access the PNC II system in order to enter data. There are, of course, perils, in that suggestion. We must bear in mind the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The missing persons register would have to be safeguarded from intrusion by

1045
paedophile groups and other undesirables. However, it should not be beyond the wit of man to meet those requirements. The result would be to safeguard thousands of children who are currently at risk.
The report makes it clear that something must be done. It stresses that the police and many voluntary bodies are willing to do something. It is surely up to the Government now to lead the way. Alas, based on antecedent form, that hope looks likely to be a vain one.
As long ago as April 1979 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation that member states should make arrangements, including the appointment of a national office to serve as a centre for the exchange of information about missing persons at both national and international level. The Crime Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers recommended setting up a national system for recording information about missing persons, particularly children, early in 1989. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in reply to a Question in your Lordships' House on 6th November 1989 (col. 427 of Hansard refers) those words which have already been spoken by the right reverend Prelate and which, sadly, I must repeat:
"We are discussing with the Metropolitan Police the resource implications of establishing a national missing persons bureau as a matter of priority".
That was on 6th November 1989.
Next year the Government will be required to respond to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Kingdom ratified the convention on 16th December 1991, with some reservations. Something will clearly have to be done about it very soon. I hope that when he replies the noble Earl will be able to tell the House why, after 13 years, there is no implementation of the Committee of Ministers' recommendation; why the Association of Chief Police Officers' recommendation is still under consideration some three years after it was submitted; and how the Government intend to respond to the United Nations convention.
How can it possibly take so long? The technical and legal problems which must exist are not insoluble. If they were, the Government would have said so. No vast consultations are needed. If they were, they have not been started. The resource implications are not so vast that they required more than a decade to decide them. Can the noble Earl please explain the delay? Of one thing he may be certain: we on this side of the House will not accuse the Government in this matter of any hideous rashness or any precipitate imprudence.
The report's recommendations are simple, sensible, practical, cheap and few in number. But the implications, if we take them seriously, strike deep in every case. If we take, for example, the proposal that returning runaways should be offered interviews with appropriate professionals, which seems a simple recommendation, the question arises as to which professionals are appropriate and what particular training those professionals need. They will need all the counselling skills normal in their profession, plus a knowledge of child psychology, social administration and detailed knowledge of the local situation.
1046
I should like to plead very seriously for one other element in their preparation, and one which perhaps is not often thought of. Let them be trained in their imaginations, in sympathetic understanding of what it feels like to be a runaway. The best way to do that is by serious study of some of the great works of literature which explore the subject. The education department at my old university, the University of York, used to offer a course on The Child in Literature to all would-be teachers and social administrators, to their immense benefit. Similarly, counsellors of runaway children could understand more about the subject from the first 13 chapters of Dickens' David Copperfield than from a wilderness of case studies and statistics.
I have one final question to which I hope the noble Earl will respond. If the Government care so deeply about the nation's children, why is there no children's charter? There is a parent's charter, a patient's charter, a passenger's charter and even a taxpayer's charter for the "customers" of the Inland Revenue. Why is there no charter for the weakest and most vulnerable citizens of our society, on whom, however, the whole future of that society depends? In the phrase made famous by Private Eye: I think we should be told.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the research which was published recently by the National Children's Home Young Runaways Project. It is an important document. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and those of other noble Lords have covered a very sensitive area—the area of families and children. It asks: why do children run away, what will happen to them, how will they be found, what has caused them to run away, how will their state of mind which made them run away be improved and how are the conditions which induced them to run away he improved?
This has been a sensitive debate. One is never disappointed in your Lordships' debates and I enjoyed the story of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. It had a pertinent ending. My imagination was put into overdrive when my noble friend said that she had danced in discotheques until two o'clock in the morning. I do not blame the young men. The only surprising thing is that the police thought it appropriate to keep an eye on her. One always finds surprises, even in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, analysed the report in some detail and I am grateful for that. I shall not go over that ground again. Noble Lords made a number of proposals.
I should like first to speak about the police contribution in dealing with runaways. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, in hoping that this report will extend the trust and confidence which exist between the police and the National Children's Home. It is very important and everything

1047
depends upon trust being secured between not only those bodies but also the other agencies which become involved, whether they are statutory or voluntary.
The police are invariably the first people to whom the relatives of a missing person turn, whether or not the disappearance has anything to do with suspected criminal activity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that we should thank the police for what they do constantly, not only in this area but in so many areas of life, which we take for granted. They do not hit the headlines but nevertheless many people depend most closely upon them.
The police have done well in tracing young runaways. The statistics quoted in the National Children's Home report show that. Seventy-seven per cent. of runaways are found by the police within 48 hours and only 2 per cent. are still missing after 14 days. That is quite a staggering statistic. It also shows the importance which the police accord to reports of children missing from home. We all know the immense energy and effort which they put into investigating the disappearance of a child whom they think is at risk of being harmed.
The police have a lot of experience with young runaways and know a great deal about them. They are also aware of the simple fact that they do not know everything. I am very glad that the police forces took part in the research which led to the National Children's Home project and report. The police know well that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, children leave home for many different reasons. They may leave because they are bored with home life, there are family rows, their parents are too strict, they dislike the institution in which they are or, as the noble Lord said, they want to go to the bright lights; or they leave just because they want to be independent.
The distress which that causes to the family is immense. The child has not returned home. Where is he or she? Has the child been run over, kidnapped or killed, or has the child just run away and, if so, where to and why? What is the matter with the home that we, the loving parents, have created which makes our child want to run away?
The first and immediate reaction is that of needing to get the child back and to talk. That is quite right. But, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, some people who run away know how to play the system. But getting the child back is not necessarily the end of the problem, nor does it necessarily solve it. The child's return frequently sets off a whole new cascade of problems. If the relationships between the parent and child were difficult before, they may be even worse now. The actual absconding by the child is like crossing the Rubicon. It is a deed that has been done and cannot be undone. It is one thing to think of running away and even to threaten it; it is another actually to do it. If either party, parent or child, thought that there were difficulties before, they now know that there are.
When the child returns, he or she may return unwillingly or sheepishly. The parent may react in hurt or anger. More rows can start, rows which go far
1048
beyond those who are immediately involved; namely, the mother, the father and the child. People in the family begin to take sides as to who is at fault in this unhappy saga. So the return of the child can, but obviously does not always, create a whole new set of problems which are different from those which the original absconding created.
Children who return to residential homes may not go back to the same kind of family traumas, but for them too there will be problems. There will also be questions for those in charge of the home. If a child is in a home for protection and support, what is he or she indicating by running away—especially if the child goes back to his parents who do not want him or were considered unfit to care for him? The police therefore are often dealing with muddled or traumatised youngsters. In some instances they can do little to persuade the children to return home. Sometimes there may be good reasons why the police should not communicate the whereabouts of the child to those who quite understandably want to know where their child is. A child may have run away from home because, for example, he or she has been consistently beaten or abused. If the child knows that it will be beaten or abused again on its return, it may well be desirable and totally understandable that the parents should not know where the child is.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to the necessity of standardising the reporting of missing persons. That is something we are discussing with the police. They want it and I hope that we can introduce something along those lines very shortly.
The National Children's Home report refers to a gulf which apparently exists in the police service between the uniformed officers who are required to deal with missing persons' reports and the specialist teams who are responsible for child protection matters. It argues that the lines of communication between the two often mean that there is inadequate follow-up once the runaways appear at home. The argument goes: they have returned; therefore the case is closed. No one finds out why the child ran away in the first place. The cause may still be there. So what happens? The child runs away again and the police have to find the child and return him or her yet again.
I have some sympathy with the arguments of the National Children's Home in that respect. We may be doing too little for children who face problems which are too difficult for them, though they are not actually being ill treated. If they are being ill treated, the law can apply. Under the emergency powers which the police have under the Children Act, an officer can take into his protection any child whom he believes to be at risk of significant harm. Having done so, he must ensure that the case is inquired into by an officer who has been specifically designated for that purpose. In practice this means that where the police are genuinely concerned about the welfare of a child, they are required by statute to ensure that the necessary questions are asked and that the appropriate authorities are told. The difficult cases are where, for example, a child runs away from home and stays with his friend for two days. On the face of it, that may not

1049
seem an unreasonable thing to do. But underlying it there may be reasons of a more sinister nature which caused him to do it.
Another criticism of the report is the lack of reliable national data. This makes it very difficult for anyone to know the extent of the problem with which they are faced. Officials from the Department of Health recently met representatives from the National Children's Home in order to discuss the possibility of research into the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred: why some residential establishments have a far higher incidence of running away than others. It is an important point and we hope that the meeting will uncover some of the reasons why people run away.
However, the loudest call of all is for the establishment of a national missing persons' bureau. The noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Murray of Epping Forest, my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, joined in that call. People worry about people who intrude into their homes and steal. They are quite rightly worried. The anxieties of people subjected to that treatment are terrible. However, the anxieties of people whose children run away or who lose their children probably last for the remainder of their lives. They somehow go far deeper and are far more personal.
I am bound to say that in my view a missing persons' register could be of enormous benefit and significance in trying to deal with the problem. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, enjoyed quoting my words; they are entitled to do that. But the reason that I believe that such a register is important is that a person can abscond from one force area and end up in another and there is often no automatic means of communication between the two other than by chance. A person may be found dead in one area but it may not be known that he is registered as having gone missing in another area.
I have no hesitation in saying that our resources in terms of a missing persons register are inadequate at present. We intend to rectify that as soon as we can by having a missing persons facility on the new Police National Computer (PNC 2, as it is called). The report says that even that will not improve significantly our existing arrangements. I am bound to say that I find that a little pessimistic. The register on the Police National Computer will operate primarily as a matching facility. It will match, for example, the physical details of a person whom the police have found with the details of those who are recorded on the system as missing.
We have already reached agreement with the Data Protection Registrar—to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred—that records can be maintained on the system even after a person has returned home. This information may well be of use to the police in tracing a child who goes missing again and in revealing wider patterns of runaway behaviour. But I have to tell your Lordships that for technical reasons we are regrettably still some way off
1050
introducing the register on the Police National Computer. It is unlikely to be done before 1995. I am afraid that the computer is simply oversubscribed. The physical process, if I may use the intolerable word, of inputting information into the new Police National Computer is colossal. Important though it is—and I recognise that it is very important—the missing persons' application has had to give way to other priorities which the police service has indicated to us as being of more importance.
Decisions over priorities are always uncomfortable, and I find it particularly so in this case. But the police will be the users of the computer, and it is only right that we should take account of their requirements. However, it is intended that a national register—which will be based on the existing missing persons' register in New Scotland Yard but will be extended to cover all forces—will be available within the next year. In the meantime, Home Office officials have opened discussions with the police in order to determine what improvements can be made to the existing procedures before the new national database is available for use. We hope to come up with some proposals for this interim period very shortly.
I know that the delay in providing a national database has caused considerable disappointment. Frankly, it is a disappointment in which I share. But it will at least give us an opportunity to digest some of the recommendations which have been put to us both by the National Children's Home and by others about the kind of information which they would wish to see included on the register. I hope that that will ensure that we make the best possible use of the facility when it eventually becomes available.
I have a nasty feeling—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—that the problems that we see of missing people are merely a fraction of the totality. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the report uncovered a significant social problem of greater dimension than we envisaged. I agree with him. We hear of people who have gone missing, but we do not know them all, nor, I suspect, do we even know the majority. We do not know the causes. We cannot possibly evaluate, even if we can imagine, the sorrows, the anguish, the mental turmoil, the distress and the disruption for ever of the solace of people's lives which is caused by children running away.
Nor do we know, I suspect, more than a fraction of the evil and of the criminality which attach to this whole area and the reasons for them. My noble friend Lady Faithfull stated that she would like to see a consortium of voluntary organisations to help people in their local areas. That is an interesting suggestion that I shall ensure is considered. We shall continue to do our best in government to draw back the carpet and disclose and discover what is underneath. It will not be easy. It will not be a short-term exercise. It will be demanding on resources, but we shall do our best. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Faithfull praised the social workers. They need praise. If more needs to be done in that area, of course more social workers will have o be found and trained; and social workers do not grow on trees. We all want more people and I do not underestimate the number of people who are

1051
required, nor the resources, if it is to be done properly. It is a very substantial commitment and one that we shall have to tackle as best we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given us some pointers along the road. He suggests that there should be active discussion between the social services, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Directors of Social Service and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. I agree with him. I shall do my best to ensure that such a meeting takes place as soon as possible.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to a missing persons' bureau as opposed to the register. We have always intended to set up a small additional bureau which would provide specialist help in the case of difficult searches. We have not so far planned a multi-functional bureau which might, for example, initiate research and could undertake some publicity. But that is clearly a matter that could be addressed by the meeting between the Government, police, social services and voluntary organisations which we shall be arranging. I shall ensure that that possibility is discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that there should be a co-ordinated response involving the police and the social services. It will be the task of officials, together with the police, social services and others who have a legitimate interest, to decide exactly what is lacking in our existing response and how it can be bettered. He suggested a joint Home Office/ Department of Health circular. Such a circular might well result from those departmental discussions.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the management problems in residential homes. A range of action is being undertaken. The framework for the provision of residential care is provided by the Children Act 1989 to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred.
The Utting Report into the action being taken to improve standards of care in children's homes is under consideration. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has ordered a national inquiry into the selection of staff in children's homes and the support and guidance which is available to them after their appointment. The inquiry will report in the autumn. A wide range of other action is being
1052
undertaken, including the funding of residential child-care training through the training support programme. Development work is being undertaken, as is the preparation of practice guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to the Howe Report. The inquiry into residential staff and their pay and conditions of service reported last month. Its 30 recommendations were directed mainly at local authorities. The Government have undertaken to consider sympathetically the recommendations which were directed at the local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to the Frank Beck residential care question. The Government fully recognise the serious anxieties about children's homes. We are acting upon them. As I said, the Secretary of State for Health has ordered a national inquiry into the selection of staff for children's homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to secure accommodation; it is an important point. The Department of Health has set up a national steering group to look at the implications for local authorities of the new juvenile remand provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. The work of the group is well advanced. An interim assessment has already been made of the likely additional secure resources required. That is being used as a basis for more detailed discussions with groups of local authorities in order to identify how the additional secure provision might best be made.
Your Lordships have pointed to a number of important facets. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having asked the Question. I have no doubt that this is an exceedingly important area of family life. That which we know happens I believe to be only a fraction of what actually happens. It is incumbent upon all of us—indeed, upon government—to do our best to try to help those who are in such an unfortunate and distressed state.
I am grateful to your Lordships for providing the opportunity of discussing this difficult and indeed mysterious subject this evening.

Woodrange Park Cemetery Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.