Sitting of 25 November 1980

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

    Manpower
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what cuts in manpower have taken place in his Department since May 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My Department's authorised manpower level in May 1979 was 2,706 staff This has been reduced for this year to 2,580.
    Mr. Trippier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that that is good enough? How does it compare with reductions in other Ministries? Has he any plans for further reductions?
    Mr. Carlisle: The savings are broadly in line with those of the Civil Service as a whole. They are consistent with our aim to increase efficiency and to cut certain less essential duties. Further reductions will be made as part of the Government's announced intention to reduce the size of the Civil Service to 630,000 by 1984.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the education service in the county of Leicester is busily being ravaged and destroyed, and that when we complain blame immediately is put on the Department and those who remain on duty in the Department? Is that blame justified? If not, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to stop that destruction of a precious system in the county and city of Leicester?
    Mr. Carlisle: I always admire the hon. and learned Gentleman's ability to get in a question about Leicestershire during any question of a different nature on the Order Paper. The education system in Leicestershire is not being ravaged. It is not the fault of the Department of Education and Science. The question has little to do with the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier).
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Do the reductions to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred lead him to suppose that he must delay, in whole or in part, the operation of the Education Act 1980?
    Mr. Carlisle: Certainly not, Sir. Frankly, I do not understand the suggestions that have been made that we shall not proceed with the plan for parent-governors and
    304
    that the plan is being shelved indefinitely. Both those statements are untrue. The position with regard to parent-governors remains exactly as it was during the passage of the Act. The implementation of the other parts of the Act are as announced to the House.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will alter the procedure for the payment of mandatory award cheques payable to undergraduates in the light of the long delays being experienced by students.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The procedure for the payment of mandatory award cheques is a matter for the local education authority concerned: The awards regulations enable any payments due to be made at such time as the authority considers appropriate and also allow provisional payments to be made pending the final calculation of the grant.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that there is a rundown in the payment of grants and that severe hardship is occurring to many of the student body in universities such as Leeds university, where 550 students received their grants very late in the day? Is he further aware that that is enormous hardship for students when they first come to university, and that it seriously affects their studies? Is it the public expenditure cuts, bringing reduced staff in local government, that is the cause of the grants not being paid? Or is it the same business that happened with pensions, in that a delay will gain some advantage for the Government?
    Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. I have a document from Leeds university union about late payment. My Department is beginning discussions with local authorities about the delay. At least one third of those affected had their payments delayed by more than a fortnight. That is an intolerable position for students. It has nothing to do with the current position but has been happening for many years. If the hon. Gentleman turns to page 12 of the document he will see that all seven of the best paying authorities are Conservative-controlled authorities. I trust that, after we have seen local authorities, and possibly sent out a circular letter later this year, more local authorities will pay promptly on the first day of term than are doing so at present.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend look at the total system for grants, awards and parental contributions for students, especially those for adults over the age of 18, so that we can do away with parental contribution and have a system of loans—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a question on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister tell us a little more about these consultations with local authorities? It is unfair to say that the problem is the same as it has been in previous years. Local authorities are under more pressure at the moment and therefore many more students are in the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). It is not students who have applied late for their grant who are finding

    305
    difficulties but those students who put in their applications in time. Will the Minister say with what degree of urgency his Department will be tackling the problem?
    Dr. Boyson: If one is to engage in consultation, one does not announce beforehand what the result of the consultation is expected to be. We shall see the local authorities. We issued the information concerning the grants this year nine days earlier than was done by the previous Labour Government. The regulations were issued two months earlier than they were issued by the previous Labour Government. It has nothing to do with staff. There is not one reference to indicate that the degree of delay has increased over the last year. It has been a continuing problem, and the hon. Lady can rest assured that we shall tackle it.

    Books (Expenditure)
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East on 24 June, if he will now begin to collect figures for the expenditure on books by each education authority.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: These figures are included in local authorities' consolidated returns of expenditure to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and taken into account in the calculation of block grant. They are also the source for the expenditure statistics published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, to which the hon. Member's attention has already been drawn.
    Mrs. Short: Does not the Minister think that it is time that he took some responsibility for monitoring the cuts that he has inflicted on the education service? Does not he think that it is a matter of public importance for him to be able to give this information, otherwise how does he expect to be able to improve the standards of education?
    Mr. Carlisle: We have a responsibility to monitor what is happening throughout the country. I accept that entirely. I do not think that it is right to expect the Department to collect figures of the type for which the hon. Lady is asking for each individual education authority, particularly when they are available from other sources.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Secretary of State understand that the capitation allowance for the replacement of books, among other things, is now becoming wholly inadequate, and that, unless it is increased, the standard of education in our comprehensive schools and in other sectors of education will begin to decline, and that it will not be the fault of the local authorities but will be his fault and the fault of his Government and Department?
    Mr. Carlisle: I realise that there is a degree of concern about the level of capitation in local authority areas. We assumed within the last year's relevant expenditure a slight increase in that expenditure. In practice, it has not worked out in that way, and local authorities continue to have the responsibility of the detailed division of the money with which they are provided, although I accept that the Government have total responsibility for the overall volume of that money, and I have never attempted to deny that.
    Mr. Kinnock: With regard to the monitoring of cuts, will the Secretary of State tell us when we can expect to have the statement arising from yesterday's mini Budget, which was promised in the Treasury document?
    Secondly, will the Secretary of State say whether he will permit or encourage—whichever is the more appropriate—the publication of Her Majesty's inspec—tors' report on the effect of cuts on the standards of provision in our schools? Will be accept or deny responsibility for holding that up? I shall be delighted if he can deny that responsibility.
    Thirdly, the inspectors have conducted an exercise in the validation of the block grant exercise inside the Department of Education and Science, in which they apparently relate rising standards in performance in education to rising standards in provision of resources. Will be encourage or permit that HMI report to be published?
    Mr. Carlisle: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions in reverse order. I should have thought that the one thing that clearly came out of the recently published report of the inspectorate into the ILEA is that there is very little relationship between the level of financial provision and the level of educational quality.
    I am not aware that I have personally held up the publication of any report. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. If it is appropriate that it should be published, I shall do so. If not, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the answer at this moment must be that I am not today in a position to make such a statement. The Government will now have to consult the local authority associations about the impact of the cuts announced yesterday on particular services. That consultation will have to take place before the rate support grant settlement next month.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding his Department's investigations into the possible change in the way students of higher education in the United Kingdom are financed.
    Mr. TeddyTaylor asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the substitution of student loans for grants.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now undertake not to introduce a scheme of loans to replace the system of maintenance grants for students.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend as yet has no firm proposals for change. My Department has established an internal group to consider the feasibility and merits of various systems for the support of students by means of loans, including combinations of loans and grants, and the group is expected to make its report before the end of the year. Any proposals arising would, of course, require much wider consultation.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very full and helpful reply. Does he agree not only that a combination of loans and grants would produce more responsible students, in the main—and all those seeking to undertake further and higher education—but that it

    307
    would also be likely that our institutions of further and higher education would produce courses that were relevant to the needs of this country?
    Dr. Boyson: I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). One advantage of loans—if we decide that this is a feasible method—relates to the work ethic in which my hon. Friend and I both believe. There is also the question of possible savings. There is, further, the likelihood that people going to university will then assess the end result of their degree and its use for the rest of their life, and whether there will be a return to society. I shall take into consideration all the points that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Taylor: I appreciate what the Minister said, but will be consider very carefully whether a full transfer from grants to loans might not create a major problem in facing young people with enormous repayments at a time when their obligations are extremely high for house purchase and marriage? If the Minister is looking for more money, will be look at the financing of student unions, as it appears that some of the cash brought in by them is used in a quite shameful way?
    Dr. Boyson: I think that there is a later question about student unions, which cost £23 million. We are looking at the question with an unbiased mind in order to see whether it is feasible to introduce such a system. After all, the Government claim to be radical and to be looking at the whole funding and organisation of higher education. I take my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that the Government are considering in any way a total loan system. It is a question whether in some way there is some means of doing it, particularly bearing in mind that £115 million is being spent on discretionary grants in this country, as people cannot get them these days from many local authorities, and that there is £97 million by way of parental contribution, which is the biggest cause of a generation gap in this country.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree with the National Union of Students and the Association of University Teachers that any system of loans involves a costly bureaucracy and discourages working class children from going to college? Will be stop wasting Government time and money in looking at a loans scheme, stop causing alarm and despondency among intending students, and rule it out now, once and for all?
    Dr. Boyson: That was a very robust contribution. There is already a bureaucracy to sort out the grants and the parental contribution. It is not done from outer space. Staff are already employed by local authorities for the purpose.
    Since, over the last four years, the percentage of children of working class parents, as a percentage of the intake to university, has dropped by 4 per cent., nobody can say that the present system is encouraging working class children to go to university.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is all the difference in the world between a possible loan scheme for first degree students and a loan scheme for post graduates? When he is considering the matter, will be recognise that many of us would be profoundly unhappy about any loan scheme for first degree students.
    Dr. Boyson: I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). We are also looking at the postgraduate aspect. As I have already said, if we decide at the end of this year that it is a feasible and desirable method, we shall conduct wide consultations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be heavily involved within them.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that he did not sound terribly unbiased when he was answering the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? [Interruption.] It is nice to know that he has become unbiased. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take into consideration the very lukewarm paragraph that the Select Committee produced on loans, and also the fact that all the Conservative Members on the Select Committee, whatever views they might have had at the beginning of our considerations, had no massive enthusiasm for loans by the end of them?
    Mr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am unbiased. Years ago, at the time of the Black Paper movement, we carried one another's books around the country. If advice is sought, not only from the report of the Select Committee but from its members, I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who were members of that Committee will give it. I shall go to Sweden next week to look at the situation there in a completely unbiased way.
    Mr. Brinton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is aware of the paragraph that has been quoted from the Select Committee's recent report? I should not describe it as "lukewarm". Does he recall that it requests that urgent consideration be given to the possibility of student loans? Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), was it not the unanimous view of all parties that the Government should investigate that possibility? In addition, will the Government give particular consideration to using the clearing banks for student loans?
    Dr. Boyson: I welcome that unbiased comment from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alton: When the Minister considers this subject, will be bear in mind that every student repays his or her grant through the income tax system? Will be also bear in mind that when many graduates finish their courses at universities and polytechnics they are unable to get a job? How can they be expected to repay student loans or grants from their dole money?
    Dr. Boyson: I doubt whether every student who has undertaken a long course of higher education will fully repay his grant through the tax system. However, I shall leave that to others to look at. Unlike the American system of repayment, most European systems of repayment have clauses that state that people need not repay their grants until they are earning 50 per cent. more than the average wage. That meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Parris: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good way of experimenting with the introduction of a loan scheme might be to offer loans to those who are not eligible, as of right, for grants?
    Dr. Boyson: That is an excellent suggestion. My hon. Friend has studied this subject with great interest.

    309
    Institutions such as Cranfield make great use of a loan system, not only for British students but for students from all over the world.

    Manchester (Sixth Form Provision)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received proposals for the reorganisation of sixth form provision in the city of Manchester.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): No, Sir, but my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that two alternative schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education, including provision for 16- to 19-year-olds, have been prepared by the Manchester education committee. The city council has agreed that consultation on these schemes should take place locally.
    Mr. Silvester: Will my hon. Friend reassure me that when such a scheme reaches the Secretary of State—as it undoubtedly will—he will discuss it strictly in terms of its effect on the good schools in Manchester, and not in the context of a national debate on the desirability of sixth form and tertiary colleges?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I shall not anticipate the outcome of those consultations. The programme between now and the early part of 1981 is that the education committee in Manchester will report to the city council. Thereafter any proposals or consultations will be brought forward. It would be improper for me to comment on schemes that are now the subject of widespread discussion. I accept that there might be objections to the proposals. However, it is not unnatural for any local authority to assess and appraise the precise provision for 16- to 19-year-olds.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister take into account the principle of sixth form colleges as well as the Manchester scheme? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the concept of sixth form colleges is a good one, because children can then go to an institution that is not a school, and that enables them to develop their skills? The children are in a college atmosphere rather than a school atmosphere, and that is appropriate for children at that age.
    Mr. Macfarlane: England and Wales has the better part of 100 sixth form colleges and about 15 tertiary colleges. Each case presented to my right hon. and learned Friend is assessed on its merits. That criterion will be used as and when objections are received.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that Manchester city council is aware of the problem of falling rolls and that, as a result, every means of consultation is being pursued? Is he further aware that 65,000 leaflets were issued in Manchester, and that only last week eight public meetings were called? Unfortunately, only 1,300 people attended those meetings. A group of objectors to the changes met the Minister last September and were invited to present alternative schemes for 11- to 18-year-olds. The objectors have now withdrawn their proposals and as a result Manchester city council seems to be proceeding in a proper manner and to be facing the problems
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been making a statement rather than asking a question. I ask right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House to put briefer questions, because we are proceeding very slowly.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Manchester city council is carrying out no more than its obligation as regards local consultation and local government.

    School Meals
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to the number of local education authorities which have decided to change from the accepted school meal to snacks of various kinds; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Informal inquiries suggest that a majority of local education authorities now offer "cash cafeteria" school meals for secondary pupils in addition to or instead of the traditional school meal.
    Mr. Flannery: Has the Minister seen the early-day motion that has been signed by 64 of my hon. Friends? I hope that the list of signatories will double shortly, and that some of the Minister's hon. Friends will also sign it. Does the Minister want to create a tiny niche for himself in the history of modern education as the person who presided over the liquidation of the school meals service? That is now on the agenda. Is he aware that throughout the country, education authorities, particularly in Labour-controlled constituencies, fear that the death of the school meals service was planned by a reactionary and anti-education Government?
    Mr. Macfarlane: Exaggeration is one of the hon. Gentleman's more endearing qualities. I shall reply to his questions in strict rotation. I have not seen the early-day motion, although I am aware that one has been prepared. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate. What he told the House was completely inaccurate. If he wishes to criticise the role of the cash cafeteria system he should bear in mind chat we have had such a system for many years and that it has worked extremely effectively. The city of Sheffield began its pilot scheme as long ago as 1971. The scheme has been most effective. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated greatly when he said that the school meals service was failing. He will mislead and undermine those of his constituents, and others, who have the misfortune to read his words. His remarks are far from the truth. Some £400 million has been provided in the form of subsidies over the past few years. If Labour Members are concerned about the educational content in our schools they should ensure that that £400 million is diverted into education.
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend provide time and facilities so that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) can go to those countries in which Socialist Governments have long supported a system in which much less money is spent on school meals and much more money is spent on the content of education`' If the hon. Gentleman were to take a leaf out of the continental book, he would learn that Socialism does not necessarily mean that one has to have the same meat and two veg meals that we now have.
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is right. It is perfectly possible to provide a balanced, nutritious and cheap meal in a cash cafeteria. The meal does not need to be hot to be nutritious. One benefit of a section contained in the Education Act enacted during the last Session is that it will ensure that local education authorities will become more resourceful about providing meals for the young.
    Mr. Armstrong: Can the Minister give the House any idea of the size of the catastrophic drop in the number of children receiving adequate meals at lunch time through the school meals service? Secondly, is he aware that one of the worst consequences of his policy is that now children entitled to free meals are being openly identified and labelled, with all the consequent social implications?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The figures, which are the subject of a question later on the Order Paper, certainly do not bear out that analysis at present. Those figures will be available some time in the early part of January, but at present there is nothing to indicate that there has been any dramatic shift in the figures over the past few years.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Do not the statistics provided show that in many schools, particularly secondary schools, the pupils prefer a snack standard of meal rather than the cooked meal that is provided by the kitchen, which is totally unsatisfactory in many instances?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That certainly seems to be the pattern that we have found. Local authorities in England and Wales are maintaining the traditional two-course meal for children of primary age. So far as secondary school children are concerned, Opposition Members need not protest, because if they went to the schools in their constituencies they would know that the cash cafeteria operation has been in being for many years—including Bedwellty.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Minister has made an extraordinary underestimate for one who is supposed to be knowledgeable and in charge of these matters. In the absence of the conventional survey conducted by the DES, which the Department has now stopped, is he aware that the National Union of Public Employees' survey indicates that in LEAs throughout the country there have been drops in take-up of school meals of any kind of between 17 per cent. and 63 per cent. over the seven months of operation of the Education Act 1980, that in Lincolnshire and Dorset parts of the school meals service have been exterminated, and that in other areas the service is under severe threat? What is his response to that?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The service has not been exterminated. So far as my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned, the survey has not been terminated, and therefore the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks do not apply.

    Inner London Education Authority
    Mr. Squireasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the results of the Government inquiry into the future of the Inner London Education Authority will be published.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Government's review of the arrangements for education in inner London is still in progress. I shall make a statement when it is complete.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent inspectors' report, as published, showed that ILEA, in spite of enjoying perhaps the best pupil-teacher ratio on average in the country, none the less had very disturbing educational results? Will be take steps in the immediate future to produce a system in which ILEA is more politically, educationally and financially accountable than it is now?
    Mr. Carlisle: Clearly the local inspectors' report, which we published, shows that there is considerable room for improvement in certain parts of the educational system in London. I think I can add no more than what I said at the time of its publication, which was that it shows clearly that the standard of educational achievement is not solely dependent either on the degree of financial provision or on the pupil-teacher ratio.
    Mr. Tilley: Does not the Minister accept, first, that Her Majesty's inspectors' report shows, apart from odd sentences picked out by the hostile press, that ILEA's standard of education is very high indeed in the areas of nursery, primary and further education and in adult education? Does he not realise that it is time that he removed the sword of Damocles that he holds over this education authority of threats of action—the grounds for which he seems unable to substantiate—and allowed ILEA to get on with its job of educating the children of London without threats from the present Government about what may or may not be done?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am happy to repeat the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated the day after the report was published. When asked a similar sort of question in the House, she said:
    "To do justice to a number of the teachers in the Inner London Education Authority, the report was complimentary about the standards in nursery schools and primary schools…in a number of the older comprehensive schools."—[Official Report, 13 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 617.]
    That is so. But to accept that should not mean that one does not also recognise that the inspectors were critical of other parts of the system in the secondary schools. I hope that ILEA will learn the necessary message from that report.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. and Learned Friend agree that the inspectors' report on ILEA is a damning indictment of the quality of secondary education available in inner London—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and that the findings as regards secondary education largely vindicate the findings of the Committee which sat under my chairmanship earlier this year? If the quality of education is to improve in inner London, will be ensure that there is greater involvement both of parents and of local councillors at local level, which is not available under present arrangements?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend that the report was clearly critical of certain parts of secondary school provision in London and showed that the inspectors believed that the teachers were not getting the best out of the pupils in those schools and were underestimating the pupils' abilities. To that extent, the report was critical of the secondary education. As to the rest of my hon. Friend's question, I ask him to await the statement which I shall make once our review has been completed.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that, speaking as the parent of a child in a secondary school run by ILEA, I am totally satisfied with the quality of the education and with the quality of the consultation available to parents? What account does he take of the massive hostility that was aroused in ILEA to these mad proposals?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for his own assessment of the education being received by his own children, and I do not wish to comment on it. All that I can say is that it is stupid to blinker one's eyes and

    313
    not accept that the report was very critical of certain aspects of secondary education whilst being complimentary about certain other aspects of ILEA's performance.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular advising local authorities to exploit the situation of falling rolls to reduce class sizes.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that falling rolls are being used as an excuse in many areas by Conservative-controlled authorities for cuts and closures which are really a result of the Government's policies of cutting finance to local authorities, and that once schools are closed, as they are being closed—or are the subject of proposals for closure, as in Sefton, in my constituecy—there is no way back, even though rolls might increase in the future? Will be say quite categorically that the 3 per cent. cut in local authority expenditure that was announced yesterday by the Chancellor will not result in unnecessary school closures as a result of cuts in provision for the education service?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that any school closures that have to come under section 12 of the new Education Act will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend, and there will be no unnecessary closures. I also add that in Sefton there has been a continuing decrease in the pupil-teacher ratio. In 1974 it was 21·7 pupils per teacher. This year it is 19·7—presumably the lowest ever in that area. Nationally, at 18·6, the figure for the pupil-teacher ratio throughout England on 1 January this year was the lowest in our history.
    Mr. Greenway: May I welcome the Secretary of State's approval for the new Church of England high school in Ealing? Does he agree with men that even in an area of falling school rolls there can be a shortage of Church school places and that it makes sense to transfer a school which is about to become redundant to voluntary school use?
    Dr. Boyson: As my hon. Friend knows, we as a party are committed to parental choice of school, whether single-sex or mixed, or Church or county, according to their desire. That is what has happened in Ealing as a response to parental demand.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not true that the Twyford school in Ealing was not redundant, even in spite of falling rolls? Where have the Government found £1·4 million to permit the Church of England to buy a school which was a thriving, successful going concern?
    On the matter of falling rolls, the hon. Gentleman is as concerned as I am about the position with which we are left. Why is it, therefore, that if we get a fall in school rolls of 13 per cent., he is willing to let teacher numbers fall by 12 per cent., with a concomitant danger that we shall have a rise in pupil-teacher ratios? If it is true that we have spare resources, why is he not conscious of the fact that 12 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren and 29 per cent. of primary schoolchildren are still in classes of more than 30 pupils?
    Dr. Boyson: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on which the
    314
    hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) commented, if my information is right—I am doing this from memory—the school concerned was only about 40 per cent. subscribed from parents. A school that is only 40 per cent. subscribed is not meeting the demands of the public. There was a demand for a full Church of England school within that area.
    On the question of the pupil-teacher ratio, it is not just a question of the ratio; it is also the calibre of teachers in schools that matters. With falling school rolls, we are now improving the calibre of the intake to the teaching profession.

    School Meals
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures available for the number of children taking school meals and those receiving free school meals; what were the equivalent figures for a year and two years ago; what steps he is taking to increase the take-up of school meals and those receiving free school meals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Macfarlane: For October 1979, the figures for England were 4·9 million, including 0·9 million free meals. For October 1978, the figures were 5 million, including 1 million free meals; and for October 1977, 4·9 million, including 0·9 million free meals. Figures for October 1980 are not yet available. Arrangements for the provision of school meals and the charges to be made for them are now for individual authorities to determine.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is a little shy about producing the up-to-date figures? Does he agree that the figures for Staffordshire with which I provided him showed a 30 per cent. fall in the example taken over the county as a whole and about a 60 per cent. fall in working class areas in the take-up of school meals? Does not this amount to the destruction of the school meals service by the Government? Does he accept that the school meals service provides an essential welfare provision for millions of children?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an interesting welfare point. The bone of contention between hon. Members on both sides of the House is whether this is an integral part of the education service. This is not a question of the Government being shy but of it being an administrative procedure. The survey covers the period until October. Those figures in the normal way, repeating the precedent of previous years, will be produced some time in January.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: May I extend to those angry Opposition Members an invitation to come to Dorset where the school meals service has been changed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not invitation time. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend bring an Opposition Member with him to see an example of a cafeteria service which has resulted in the quality of the school meal being maintained and the take-up being multiplied by four?
    Mr. Macfarlane: An invitation to Dorset is always a pleasing prospect, especially in the winter. I note my hon. Friend's invitation. There will probably be some argument as to which of us accepts it. We are aware of what has been

    315
    going on in Dorset as a result of the legislation that we passed last session which, as I said earlier, has given greater flexibility in the provision of school meals.
    Dr. David Clark: In the absence of his own figures, does the Minister realise that he does neither himself nor his colleagues any good by being dismissive of the excellent NUPE survey on school meals, which has shown a sharp fall in the take-up of school meals, especially when prices have been increased? Is the hon. Gentleman willing to reiterate the Government's commitment to retain the school meals service? If so, what advice would he offer to authorities, such as Dorset, Lincolnshire and Bromley—all Tory-controlled—which are threatening the existence of the school meals service?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by saying that no figures were available. I repeat, we have figures available up to 1979. The current survey is continuing. Those figures will be published as soon as they are available. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks do not apply. We shall analyse and assess the figures in the early part of 1981.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the average class size in the maintained schools has fallen over the past 10 years in proportion to the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio over the same period.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Between January 1970 and 1980 pupil-teacher ratios and average class sizes both fell by about 17 per cent. in maintained primary schools and by about 6 per cent. in maintained secondary schools.
    Mr. Thornton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that too much importance is placed on pupil-teacher ratios and that, within reason, the numbers of children in classes are not the sole determining factor in the quality of their education?
    Mr. Carlisle: I share my hon. Friend's view that the quality of education depends on matters other than the pupil-teacher ratio and the amount of financial provision.
    Mr. Newens: Does not the minimum size for sixth form classes mean that where the numbers of pupils fall below that level the classes can no longer be taken because teachers cannot be provided for them? Thus, when secondary languages and other subjects are cut out of sixth form curricula, are we not seeing a reduction in the quality of education?
    Mr. Carlisle: If sixth forms get too small we have to look at ways of combining classes. We have always accepted that.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that quality of education is not determined by the numbers of pupils in classes or by the use of resources in the education system, how does he propose to improve the quality of education?
    Mr. Carlisle: I said that it was not solely dependent on those matters. I remind the hon. Lady that the pupil-teacher ratio at January 1980 was the lowest that it has ever been in this country. All the indications are that the figures for January 1981 will be much the same. That also applies to average class sizes. The hon. Member for Bedwellty
    316
    (Mr. Kinnock) talks of a great campaign to restore the provision to the 1978–79 level. Will be also remind the country that the pupil-teacher ratio in 1978 was worse than it is today?

  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 November.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Cyprus House of Representatives. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
  Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the welcome announcement yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a reduction in next year's rate support grant, there is great concern that that will lead to unjustified rate increases? Will my right hon. Friend remind county and district councillors of their duty to cut staff before services and to examine rigorously the functions which those authorities perform?
  The Prime Minister: It is vital that local authorities reduce the costs of their operations by the 3 per cent. economy announced by my right hon. and learned friend yesterday. After all, many companies in the private sector are having to economise to a far greater extent than 3 per cent. They cannot afford to have increased rates put upon them and they would bitterly resent it if they were. Local authorities are now reducing their staffs. The reports for the last quarter showed the biggest decrease that we have ever had. They must continue to look at the efficiency of their operations and to see whether a considerable number of them can be performed more efficiently by the private sector.
  Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on behalf of the Government can only add to the terrible and shameful figures of unemployment announced today? What were the calculations on increased unemployment as a whole contemplated by the Government when they accepted these measures at a Cabinet meeting last week?
  The Prime Minister: The measures were necessary to try to liberate resources for the private sector. In view of the vastly increased borrowing, which was mounting up, it was not possible to contemplate reducing the interest rate unless we made it clear that we were determined to reduce the borrowing for the next financial year. We hope that the reduction in interest rates will give new confidence to private industry, and to farming, arid will enable them steadily to expand and plan to increase stocks and investment.
  Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? What was the figure for increased unemployment involved in these measures as a whole which the Cabinet had before it? Was it not in the range of about 100,000? Is not that a proper reckoning of the extra unemployment which the Government intend to force on these already appalling totals? Is it not the case that every time the Cabinet meets in Downing Street it adds to the unemployment totals?
  The Prime Minister: Unemployment has been occurring far more in the private sector than in the public sector. It was therefore vital to try to get interest rates down in order to give confidence to the private sector, because that is where the new businesses will start and where new jobs will occur.
  Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Lady will not answer our questions on unemployment properly, will she ensure that every month when the unemployment figures are announced it is done by the Secretary of State for Employment in the House, so that we shall be able to get answers to our questions?
  The Prime Minister: No. They will continue to be announced as they have been announced for a long time and as they were announced when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment. He knows the distress of increased unemployment. After all, during the period when he was Secretary of State, unemployment rise by 100 per cent.
  Mr. Foot: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that we shall go on fighting for proper statements on these matters so that the House can deal with unemployment? We shall demand a debate on the the subject every month. Does she understand that the difference between her Government and the Labour Government is that we fought to bring the figures down and she means to put the figures up?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentlemen will demand whatever debates he chooses and will use his own days for whatever debates he chooses. Perhaps I was unduly kind to him, because unemployment during his period as Secretary of State for Employment rose by more than 100 per cent.
  Sir Paul Bryan: My right hon. Friend will have heard after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday the recommendation of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the MLR should go down by 4 per cent. and the public sector borrowing requirement should go up to £18 billion. Will she comment on the effect of those joint measures on future unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that that recommendation was one of the rashest statements that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has ever made. It lost him and his party all credibility.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Secretary of State for Industry meant when he said in his weekend speech that the Government had lost the first year? Have we any guarantee that the Government will not lose the second year as well? Now that output is below the level achieved during the three-day week, has she not succeeded in putting the country on a two-and-a-half-day week?
  The Prime Minister: The statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday made clear that we are determined to take firm action to continue to bring the rate of inflation down and therefore to provide the only sound basis for expansion. With regard to the reduction in the level of output in manufacturing industry, it was also going down over a large period of the previous Government's term of office. It is not unknown for the level of employment in the
  318
  service industries to increase while that in manufacturing goes down, often because of better technology and reduced overmanning.

  Chancellor Schmidt
  Mr. McNamaraasked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about her discussions with the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic.
  The Prime Minister: I held talks with Chancellor Schmidt in Bonn on 16 and 17 of November. Our talks covered many international political and economic issues and questions relating to the European Community. They took place in a friendly atmosphere, and a wide range of agreement was established.
  Mr. McNamara: In view of the tragedy in Italy, whence the right hon. Lady has just returned, may I express the sympathy of the House and the hope that the Government will do everything that they can to help?
  In the Prime Minister's discussions with Chancellor Schmidt, did she talk about energy prices for industry and particularly the differential between energy prices for British industry and the prices for German and Italian industry—which amounts to £10 per ton of heavy fuel oil—and its effect on the competitiveness of various countries in the EEC?
  The Prime Minister: We were all gravely distressed to hear of the earthquake in Italy which has turned out to be even more tragic than we had first thought. We have been in contact with the Italian authorities who asked yesterday afternoon for a planeload of blankets and tents. A plane left yesterday with 5,000 blankets and 216 six-man tents. Another will go tomorrow if need be. We shall do everything that we can to help the Italian Government and people over this difficult period.
  On energy prices, we await the full CBI report with the keenest possible interest. It can be misleading to quote average prices. I did not discuss the matter with Chancellor Schmidt, but I should point out that the biggest factor in electricity prices is the price of coal. If that goes up electricity prices will follow.
  Mr. Farr: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the West German Chancellor the EEC embargo on the export of grain to Russia? If so, did she express her displeasure at recent exports of about · million tons to Russia which were negotiated by West German companies?
  The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have consistently backed the request of the United States that we should not export surpluses from the EEC cheaply to Russia. We stand wholly by that attitude.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister accept from one who went in an official capacity after the earthquake at Friuli that the best aid is given within 72 hours? What are we doing about vaccines and medicines, which are urgently required? In particular, are the Government pressing the Commission to act under the system of chapter 59 payments for aid to disaster areas? We gather from Brussels that the funds are short.
  The Prime Minister: We were in touch with the Italian Government to offer vaccines and medicines from the moment we heard of the earthquake. We were told that

  319
  they are not required at the moment. If the Italian Government require them, they will come back with a request. No such request having yet been received for these materials, we stand ready to provide them. The Community is aso considering aid under its powers to see whether there is anything that it can offer. If necessary, it will make transfers out of the existing budget.

  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend has great support throughout the country for the firm and realistic policies which she has pursued and which were portrayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. Is she aware that great damage has been done to the proposals as a whole by the inclusion of an increase in the national insurance contributions? Is she aware that the same revenue could have been raised by indirect taxation, bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's firm commitment to restore incentives to work and to solve the "Why work?" problem.
  The Prime Minister: A very considerable increase in indirect taxation would have been required to raise that amount of money. As my hon. Friend knows, the national insurance scheme is not a mere transfer of income. It is an insurance scheme and one's right to benefits from it depends on the contributions made throughout life. It is important to maintain that link. We are in the difficulty, faced by all Governments, that we have to provide not only for rising benefits, but for rising numbers, particularly among retirement pensioners. There is only one way to provide for those who do not work and that is by contributions from those who do.
  Mr. Molyneaux: In the course of a busy day, will the Prime Minister inquire into the circumstances in which authorisation was given and facilities provided for a television interview with a convicted prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons?
  The Prime Minister: I have no intention of holding an inquiry although I should like to make clear that I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste at seeing convicted murderers on television. It was thought that the Government have absolutely nothing to hide about the
  320
  Maze prison or about their attitude to those on hunger strike. There can be no such thing as a political prisoner. It was thought that this was one possible way of counteracting the IRA propaganda campaign.
  Several hon. Members
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We were one minute late starting Prime Minister's questions. I shall therefore allow one further minute.
  Dr. McDonald: Is the Prime Minister aware that the cut in the standard rate of income tax by 3p in the pound will cost £6 billion in lost revenue by the end of the next financial year? Is she not ashamed of the fact that the old, the sick, the poor and the unemployed pay for those cuts in income tax, which go mainly to benefit the rich, through cuts in welfare spending?
  The Prime Minister: Welfare spending, like all other spending, has to be financed by those who are in work. We do no good by demanding more benefits and denying the means to pay for them. The full value of the pension in terms of what it will buy will be preserved. Last year, we added to the provision for pensions because the amount that had been provided was not sufficient. This year, we provided more than was warranted by the price increase. The undertaking is to compensate fully for price increases over the life time of a Parliament.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Cheat.
  The Prime Minister: That means either making up the shortfall or taking into account the over-provision next time.

  Prime Minister (Engagements)
    BILL PRESENTED
      SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
      Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Reg Prentice and Mrs. Lynda Chalker, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with certain contributions payable under the Social Security Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That the matter of Housing in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 November]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. van Straubenzee].
  Question again proposed.

  Housing
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): In his statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear the central need to maintain the Government's economic strategy and to control public expenditure in that context. The House will know that I took over a housing programme in rapid decline. Perhaps the most significant and regrettable part of that background has been the switch within the public provision of housing away from capital investment in housing itself towards the indiscriminate subsidy of public sector tenants that accentuated the decline in housing provision. Finally, across the whole range of departmental housing policy, there have been five years of either total neglect, as in planning policy, or, worse, positive obstruction, as in land supply or in the deterioration of the private rented sector.
  There are undoubtedly substantial areas of deprivation, although the housing priorities of today are very different from those of a decade or so ago. Against this background, my priorities are fourfold: first, to make the best available use of the resources available; secondly, to concentrate help on the areas of greatest need; thirdly, to remove planning, land supply and other constraints wherever possible; and, fourthly, to encourage people themselves to make the greatest possible contribution to their own housing provision.
  The House knows that recent years have seen substantial reductions in the provision of public housing programmes. From 1974 onwards there has been a year-by-year decline in net captial expenditure in England. The £4·202 billion spent in 1974–75 has been reduced to £1·551 billion for 1980–81. That is a reduction over those years of £2·651 billion in real terms. The breakdown of that amount of over £2½ billion is that £2 billion of the reduction occurred in the last four years of the previous Government and £604 million in the first two years of this Government.
  Mr. Jack Straw: On that point—
  Mr. Heseltine: The House will remember that, in administering this programme within the cash limit of
  322
  £2·186 billion for local authority gross capital spend, I have had to apply a moratorium on new commitments this year.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I say at once that there are no cuts in the cash limit, but I have no choice other than to strive to remain within it. I therefore issued, on 22 October, a circular to local authorities because there was a serious risk that the housing capital expenditure of local authorities in England would exceed the cash limit by £180 million, or 8 per cent. In that circular I asked local authorities to provide estimates of the expenditure to which they were already committed in October for the year as a whole. Meanwhile, I asked them not to undertake any new commitments except to meet their statutory obligations.
  The replies of local authorities showed that authorities as a whole were already committed to expenditure right up to the level of the cash limit. One hundred and five authorities considered that they were committed to expenditure in excess of their permitted level to the tune of £76 million. A further £55 million overall must be counted against the cash limit for spending that has been carried forward from 1979–80 under the tolerance arrangements operating at the time. So the maximum theoretical overspend could be £131 million. On the other side of the picture, 262 authorities considered that their commitments were below their permitted levels of expenditure, in total, by £124 million.
  It would seem from those figures that the cash limit had already been fully taken up and that the need for the action that I took had been proved up to the hilt. The right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) must not have been following the figures. It is evident that even if there is no further spend this year, on the lines of the figures that I have given, the cash limit is fully taken up. That justifies totally the action that I took in imposing the moratorium.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: If the cash limit is fully taken up, does that Mean that the moratorium will be extended to the end of the financial year?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am just about to explain my proposals on this very issue. I am well aware that it is exceedingly difficult for authorities to judge the likely outturn of their annual expenditure even in the autumn. A great deal must depend on the weather and the speed with which buildings are completed and bills are submitted for payment. But the Government, like the local authorities, have to make the best judgment that they can in the circumstances.
  It is clear that if the Government were now to lift the moratorium on those authorities that are currently underspending—that is, frankly, what we would like to do—there would be a substantial risk of exceeding the cash limit. We are not prepared to take that risk. There is no option, therefore, but to continue the standstill on new commitments for the time being. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] I shall, however, be inviting the local authority associations to join with me in keeping the closest watch on the situation. Certainly, we shall look at the position again very shortly.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: If the Secretary of State's calculations turn out to be wrong and everybody else's calculations turn out to be right, and,

  323
  thanks to the moratorium, there is a substantial underspend in this years's capital allocation, will local authorities be able to carry it over into next year?
  Mr. Heseltine: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's justified concern about the matter, but if he will let me finish this passage of my speech I think that the Government's proposals will be clear to him and to the House.
  As soon as I am reasonably satisfied that the cash limit will not be breached, I shall lift the moratorium on those that seem likely to underspend. I am determined that those that are underspending this year will not lose out because of those that end up with an overspend. Therefore, whatever the results of our further assessment next month, I can say that those that overspend this year will have their overspending deducted from their allocation for next year.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may find that I shall answer several of the questions—
  Mr. Faulds: No.
  Mr. Heseltine: Even the hon. Gentleman does not know what questions I shall not answer before I have even had a chance to try.
  Mr. Faulds: My question is relevant.
  Mr. Heseltine: Those that underspend this year because of the moratorium will receive additional allocations next year, and the balance between authorities will therefore be restored.
  If, despite all the steps that I have taken, there is an overspend on this year's cash limit, it will be deducted from next year's. Conversely, if as a result of those steps the cash limit this year is underspent, the amount of the underspend will be added to next year's cash limit.
  Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for at last yielding.
  In the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, would not it be simpler and more rational if he asked the Attorney-General to make the provision of homes for the homeless a criminal offence?
  Mr. Heseltine: The provision of homes for the homeless would not be a criminal offence in any housing policy for which I had responsibility.
  Mr. Faulds: That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands—
  Mr. Faulds: Not at all.
  Mr. Heseltine:—the nature of—
  Mr. Faulds: Come to Smethwick.
  Mr. Heseltine:—the £2 billion-a-year programme that we are currently administering in the provision of capital spending in local authority housing.
  Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): I think that the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced are fully justified and equitable, particularly because of the extravagance of certain local authorities, but is there no
  324
  scope within the package for any exceptions to be made for the large number of people who have improvement grants in the pipeline?
  Mr. Heseltine: I well understand the concern about this aspect of the capital programmes of local authorities, but I cannot administer each local authority's housing programme in the way that would be implied by my hon. Friend. I very much regret that I have not been able to make an exception of the kind for which he asked. I understand that there are such difficulties, and there are others that have been drawn to my attention, but the overriding national priority to stick within the cash limits, subject only to one exception, to which I shall come, must take precedence.
  As important as the scale of expenditure is the use to which it is put. I am particularly pleased that there has been a significant shift of emphasis from the provision of general housing to meeting the specialist needs of the elderly and the physically handicapped. Despite the declining level of spend, the absolute number of starts in the first half of 1980 is very similar to the annual rate for 1978. The Government have further helped these people by enabling them to have much easier access to improvement grants and home insulation grants, and at higher levels; by grant-aiding substantial repairs to pre-1919 houses, of which one-third are occupied by elderly people; by increasing rent rebates and allowances; and by improving the space standards in sheltered housing and hostels. Moreover, we have exempted from the moratorium expenditure on providing essential adaptations to housing in both the public and private sectors occupied by physically disabled people.
  The housing associations play a major role in adding to the local authority provision of housing.
  Mr. Anderson: They used to.
  Mr. Heseltine: This year, the Housing Corporation was given a cash allocation of £420 million for housing association schemes that the corporation would fund. In addition, local authorities had discretion, as they have long had, to fund housing association schemes on their own account. In real terms, the £420 million was some 11 per cent. below the corporation's actual expenditure during 1979–80—a much smaller proportional reduction than was imposed on local authorities. The allocation of £420 million has not been cut back at all. But, as is the case with local authorities, expenditure during the year has run faster than we or the Housing Corporation expected.
  One of the chief reasons for this is the considerable backlog of schemes that built up during the years of rapid expansion of housing associations following the passing of the 1974 Housing Act. This means that there is still a great deal of housing association work to be fitted into the corporation's normal expenditure programme. Against this background, and in view of the prospective overspend, we asked the corporation in September to reduce its level of approvals for the time being until its cash flow was brought back on course.
  Mr. David Alton Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Edge Hill) rose—
  Mr. Allan Roberts Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle) rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: Since then, we and the corporation have been keeping a close watch on the way in which expenditure is moving. I have asked the Housing

  325
  Corporation so to regulate the flow of schemes as to ensure that its cash allocation is not exceeded and that only projects of the highest priority are allowed to proceed.
  Mr. Alton Mr. Alton rose—
  Mr. Roberts Mr. Roberts rose—
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney Dr. Brian Mawhinney (Peterborough) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: To which hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State giving way?
  Mr. Heseltine: To the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Alton: I do not know what I have done to earn this honour, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the figures of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which says that the number of starts this year will decline from 42,000 to 18,000, representing in real terms a reduction of 60 per cent?
  Mr. Heseltine: I have discussed this matter with representatives of the housing association movement. I think that the hon. Gentleman's point concerns the confusion between the level of spend and the level of approvals. There is a backlog of approvals, which is one of the difficulties that we face. They are now coming through the system in terms of spend. The cash limits for the Housing Corporation are limits for the expenditure. It is those cash limits that must be adhered to. We shall, of course, leave it to the corporation and the housing associations to work off their backlog of approvals, as they have the flexibility within the cash limits so to do.
  Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Department of the Environment stopped the Housing Corporation issuing a letter or circular—if that is the technical term for instructions from the corporation—to local authorities and housing associations telling them not to charge excessive fees for licences for short-life housing? Did the right hon. Gentleman know about that? If he did, will be admit that it was a mistake not to issue the circular, because failure to do so will prevent the use of properties that could be used and is likely to keep them standing empty? If he did not know about the matter, will be investigate it?
  Is it not an amazing achievement by the right hon. Gentleman that the voluntary housing association movement is campaigning against this Government, which is something that none of us expected?
  Mr. Heseltine: I understand that one housing association has made representations to us on the first matter, which is a fairly small administrative point. I am only too happy to have discussions with the association concerned to see whether the matter can be sorted out administratively. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's worst forecasts are not justified by the point that he has raised.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the National Federation of Housing Associations has tended to give a misleading impression over the past few weeks that the amount of money allocated to the associations had been cut when it had not? Does he also agree that it is regrettable that some members of the ecclesiastical establishment should have given credence to that misleading idea?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who has considerable knowledge of the subject of housing, is on to a very important point. At a time when I am doing my best to ensure that available resources are spent fully and that we do not run into an underspend, I deeply deplore that it should be the practice of so many people to present what we are doing as cutting the known programmes when in practice we are trying to ensure that we do not exceed the programmes. I also deeply deplore people speaking on the subject of housing and making headline news about matters on which they are not as fully briefed as they should be.
  The House will be aware of one other fact about housing associations. They operate within the disciplines of the fair rents legislation. Their tenants are drawn from the same income group as local authority tenants. They house some of the most heart-rending cases of housing need, and yet, throughout the period of the previous Government, it was accepted that there should be a differential of anything up to one-third in the rents paid by housing association tenants and local authority tenants.
  This brings me to one of the most serious legacies that I inherited from the previous Government—their culpable failure to keep council house rents in line with the targets that they set themselves. As a proportion of earnings, rents fell from 8 per cent. in 1974–75 to 6·4 per cent. in 1979–80. We now have a growing problem of badly maintained and indifferently repaired stocks of local authority housing. It is not surprising when the level of rents averaged £6·50 per week out of average weekly earnings of more than £100 per week in 1979–80.
  If I allowed this situation to continue, it would lead to further deterioration in the housing stock and larger subsidies from the ratepayers. Against the facts of council housing finance, I reject both these options, and, accordingly, I have today reissued the consultation document to local authority associations outlining the basis of the new subsidy system provided for by the Housing Act 1980.
  I should now like to give the House the background to the new housing subsidies and the effect that my determination of the local contribution under the new arrangements set out in the Housing Act 1980 may have on council rents.
  The new scheme for housing subsidies comes into effect on 1 April 1981. The amount of subsidy that an authority receives will depend upon three factors: what it received in the preceding year; the change in its reckonable expenditure; and the change in the local contribution—that is, the change in the amount that local authorities have to find whether by rent or by rate. I have to determine matters governing the latter two elements within the framework of the Act. Before making a determination affecting all local authorities, the Secretary of State has to consult the representative local authority organisations.
  The new provisions do not enable the Secretary of State to determine the level of local authority rents. That remains the responsibility of each local authority. The new arrangements enable the Secretary of State annually to take a judgment on the ability of local authorities to contribute to their housing costs and to determine an input into the calculations on which subsidy is based.
  The two consultation papers first issued on 13 November relate to the treatment of expenditure on

  327
  management and maintenance and to the determination of the local contribution. It is especially important for local authorities to know without undue delay our decision on the local contribution. We will, of course, consider most carefully the response to the proposals that we are now putting to the local authority associations.
  Our consultation paper proposes that the increase in local contribution next financial year should be in the range of £2·50 to £3 per dwelling per week. In addition, there will be some housing costs to be met that do not count towards subsidy.
  The House will want me to say something about the effects of these proposals on council house rents. The previous Government set out as their policy on council house rents that they should rise broadly in line with earnings. If the previous Government had done what they said, rents today would average about £10 per week, as opposed to the £8 or so a week currently being paid. Far from keeping pace with earnings, rents were allowed to fall in real terms, with the effect on the capital programme and the maintenance of the stock that is well documented.
  This record of financial irresponsibility is all the more reprehensible against the background of the rent rebate and supplementary benefit systems. Forty-five per cent. of council tenants are protected in whole or in part by those allowances. Nearly one-quarter of the council tenants—those with the lowest incomes—will pay no extra at all. About one-fifth more will have 60 per cent. of their increase met for them.
  But, if the poorest and poorer families are thus protected, the House cannot ignore the other side of the coin, where nearly one-quarter of council houses have household incomes in excess of—8,000 per annum. Indeed, in 200,000 or so council houses the individual tenant has an income of more than—8,000 per annum. It cannot be seriously suggested that council rents of £8 are a proper charge in these circumstances, and certainly not when that means that often an annual first-year subsidy of some £1,500 is being poured into a particular house, which has to be financed often from the rates or taxes of home owners, many of whom have lower incomes than the tenants they are subsidising.
  My consultation paper invites the views of local authorities on a range of assumptions about the contribution that they might make under the new subsidy system. The paper refers to a range of from £2·50 to £3. The actual decisions about rent levels consequential upon such figures are, as I have said, for individual authorities.
  Mr. Straw: Does not the Minister accept that, given the constraints that he has imposed not only on the housing subsidy system of local authorities but on the amount of the addition that they can raise in rates, and the fact that he will penalise authorities if they increase their rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, the idea of consulting local authorities is a sham and that what he is announcing today is a straightforward increase of between £2·50 and £3? If that is not the case, is he saying honestly that he will begin discussions with local authorities about the possibility of these rent increases being only 50p or £1?
  Mr. Heseltine: The local authority associations are perfectly free to come back and put to me any proposals that they like in the context of the difficult circumstances that they face. However, the hon. Member for Blackburn
  328
  (Mr. Straw) will remember from his experiences in the Department of the Environment that this is the first time that there has been a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations. That duty has been imposed as a result of the Housing Act 1980, which this Government put on the statute book.
  As I said, the actual decisions about rent levels consequential upon the figures that I have given the House have to be for individual authorities.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: Let me give the House an example—and it must, of course, be subject to variations in practice locally.
  Mr. Ginsburg Mr. Ginsburg rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: If we take the average of the figures—
  Mr. Ginsburg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I apologise to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) for not giving way to him. I have a very large number of points to make, and I have already given way a considerable number of times.
  Mr. Ginsburg: Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give way. This is very important.
  Mr. Heseltine: Very well.
  Mr. Faulds: The Secretary of State is at last learning his House of Commons manners.
  Mr. Ginsburg: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has just criticised the Labour Party for its failure, when in Government, to raise council house rents. I assume that he is referring to the year 1977. He will be aware that there was a similar event in 1973 when council house rents were not raised. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that there was a pay pause in operation on both occasions. Is it his view that when pay policies are operating council house rents should be allowed to rise?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Dewsbury is not following my argument, which is that over a period of years there has been a significant change in the balance of housing costs in favour of council tenants. The consequences have not worked in the best interests of council tenants, and it is necessary in the interests of housing policy to restore that position if we are not to see a continuing deterioration in the standards of the houses in which they live. The implementation of the policies must be for the best judgment of the indiviual authorities. However, my view, as expressed in the consultation document, is along the lines of the figures that are the subject of that consultation.
  I should like to give the House an example, subject to certain caveats. If we were to take the average of the figures that I have mentioned, allowing for the non-subsidisable items, which would come to about 30p per week, the gross rent increases before deducting allowances could be about £3 a week. To the extent that I determine a higher or lower figure than the average, an appropriate adjustment would be required. I add one further point. As the House knows, originally I issued a consultation paper in reply to a written question. That night I explained to the

  329
  House that I had followed precedent as closely as possible. In the short time available to me, I drew to the attention of the House my written answer of November 1979, in which I did exactly the same. A year ago I announced by written answer rent guidelines in money terms more than twice as large as ever before, and there was no protest whatsoever from the Opposition.
  That night I said that I had followed precedent. I wish to qualify that statement in one material way. I followed the precedent established by the Labour Government in 1976–77 and in 1977–78. What I should perhaps have told the House is that in 1978–79 and in 1979–80 the Labour Government issued their rent guidelines to local authorities without an announcement to Parliament at all, so far as I can find. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hypocrites."] That adds to the charge of hypocrisy that I levelled at right hon. Members of the Opposition on that occasion.
  Opposition Members might be tempted to argue that it did not matter that they did not report to the House because the rent guidelines were so low. Nothing could more misrepresent the facts. The lower the rent guidelines, the higher the subsidies and the higher the public expenditure consequences.
  The fact is that the Labour Government added an average of £200 million a year in real terms to public expenditure on the strength of written passages buried in reports on the rent support grant order in just some of the years for which they were responsible. I shall keep to whatever rules the House decides, but I shall take no criticism from the Labour Party that assumes too readily one set of rules in Government and a different set of rules in Opposition.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman has made a great deal of the Labour Government in one year not putting the rent guidelines to the House of Commons in a written answer. Will be be good enough to tell the House what the increase was in that year?
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Hidden behind the rent guidelines, which were very low, was an implied £200 million of public expenditure, on which the House was not allowed to reach a judgment.
  I have covered the capital progress and the rent contributions that play so central a part of the public expenditure allocation for next year. However, that is by no means the whole picture of housing policy. Amongst many factors, I have also to consider the role of the private rented sector, the supply of land and the incidence of the planning system.
  The recent Housing Act makes material changes in the private rented sector. The most significant is the introduction of the shorthold tenancies, which is the first serious attempt this decade to slow down the decline in private rented accommodation. During the five years of the last Government 125,000 rented dwellings a year were lost. It is not that the last Government were unaware of the problem. They set up their review of 1975 to study the devastating effects of their 1974 Rent Act. However, the review remained a review and the empty houses remained empty.
  Now, when we try to provide a framework when there is an incentive and opportunity for people in housing need to make use of some of this empty or underused property,
  330
  the right hon. Member for, Sparkbrook uses his every energy to deny them the chance. He is actually creating homelessness, and he is doing it for no better reason than a doctrinal antipathy to the private sector. He talks about the problems of the homeless and the badly housed, and in the same breath he does all that he can to exacerbate the situation.
  In addition to our proposals for shortholds, the House will know of the new rights that we have given to council tenants to sublet or take in lodgers, again to secure better use of the available housing. This is part of our wide-ranging proposals for a tenants' charter to enhance the rights and status of the millions of people who will wish to remain as public sector tenants.
  I found the same muddled story in land supply for new private building. My first task was to remove the Community Land Act, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has set development land tax at rates that do not act as a formidable barrier to the provision of housing land. In our first year, the Commission for the New Towns and the Housing Corporation disposed of 1,400 acres of land and the Property Services Agency disposed of 3,000 acres of non-agricultural land. The Local Government Act introduces land registers to tackle for the first time seriously the wasted land held in the public sector.
  The structure plans have been reviewed and approved far faster than under the previous Government, and have added 14 per cent. more housing provision to the plans put before me. I have arranged for the house builders to hold detailed discussions with local authorities to identify land shortages and have requested local authorities to maintain an identified five-year supply of housing land.
  Not only are we tackling the problems of land supply; we have examined the workings of the planning machine. I have often made clear my belief that in this country we need a sensitive and comprehensive planning system and that I broadly sympathise with the work that it has done over the past three decades. Equally, I believe that it is necessary for the machine to work with the sense of urgency that our economic problems demand. Next week I shall be issuing a development control circular designed to achieve this purpose.
  Already amongst many changes we have introduced a new and more flexible range of procedures into the appeals system and we have published proposed amendments to the general development order to remove about 10 per cent of cases from planning procedures altogether. I shall be requesting local authorities to publish details of the time taken in reaching their planning decisions and I am already publishing timetables for my own Department in the handling of appeals.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I welcome the initiatives that my right hon. Friend has taken, but does he recognise that each year about 50,000 acres of good, productive agricultural land are lost to urban development and that it is calculated that 250,000 acres of land remain derelict and unused in our towns and cities? In his circular, will be emphasise the importance of ensuring that the extra supply of land for building comes from the inner city or urban areas, or from non-productive agricultural land in our countryside?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's view. That is why the land registers under the Local

  331
  Government, Planning and Land (No.2) Act are the first significant step in listing and making known publicly where underused public land is identified. In the last resort, I have the power to direct that such land should be disposed of to those who will make more profitable use of it. Further, I am considering whether I should ask local authorities to list significant sites that they own over and above the areas designated for registration. There is every argument for using land that to some extent already has been taken away from agricultural use and is not properly used in our urban areas.
  Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield): That is interference.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is interference, but I want to achieve the more effective use of land without needlessly destroying the countryside.
  The performance of housing policy in the private sector depends largely on the performance of the national economy. This sector will not recover independent of the national economy. The announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday of a 2 per cent. drop in the minimum lending rate is a welcome first step. We shall do all that we can to remove the restraints on that recovery in land availability and planning efficiency. We are particlarly anxious to give young couples the opportunity to purchase their own homes. The House is familiar with the range of initiatives that we have taken in that respect. Of course, the right to buy for council tenants is now demonstrating the rectitude of our judgment that large numbers of them want to own homes of their own.
  Against an inheritance of rapidly declining housing programmes and a very difficult economic situation, this Government, through the Housing Act 1980 and a range of administrative changes, have initiated the most comprehensive improvement in housing policies for a decade. From the party opposite we have seen nothing but destructive criticism and not a single change in the policies that led to such disastrous results when it was in power. I have no hesitation in commending our policies to the House.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley:The Secretary of State made more or less the speech that we expected from him, and with his reputation standing as it does today I can think of no more bitter criticism than that.
  We shall, of course, examine the three parts of the Secretary of State's speech—the inevitable little bluster, the few dubious statistics that may well be corrected by written answers later, and the phoney logic that I shall attempt to expose paragraph by paragraph. But first I draw the attention of the House to what we regard as the extraordinary, even by the Secretary of State's standards, omissions from his speech. Yesterday I sent the right hon. Gentleman a message saying that, although it would be the Opposition's intention to concentrate on housing today, he would understand very well that, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer making less than 24 hours ago a statement that spells disaster for many local authority services, we would expect the Secretary of State in charge of these matters to give the House some of the details that the Chancellor promised.
  The Chancellor put out a notice yesterday describing some of his cuts, with poignant little promises: local
  332
  authority capital expenditure—details will be announced separately in due course; Department of the Environment—a reduction of £158 million in addition to the reduction in local authority spending, the breakdown of which will be given in due course. Faced with that situation, an announcement less than a day old that will affect every council in this country, it is extraordinary that the Secretary of State told us nothing about how the cuts will be managed and where they will fall.
  The truth is that the Secretary of State does not know where the cuts will fall, because the Government's policy with regard to local authorities is to cut first and think afterwards. All the Secretary of State knows is that he is required by the Chancellor to reduce his expenditure, and he is now deciding where the reductions shall come, irrespective of the policy merits of individual items of reduction. Notwithstanding that fact, the Secretary of State has said not a word about the cut in the rate support grant that was prophesied yesterday.
  I understand that there has been some dispute on the Government Benches about who should wind up this debate and that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales drew the short straw. It is the duty of the Under-Secretary of State to fill in the omissions left by his senior colleagues, and I am sorry that he is left with the duty of answering the difficult questions—difficult questions concerning the operation of the new Local Government, Planning and Land Act, which, it is now obvious, is as administratively unworkable as it is politically disreputable. It was passed without a single voice being raised in this House in support of the Minister who proposed it.
  No one who understands that Act can have any doubt that the new technique that it involves for the distribution of rate support grant was never intended to provide a fairer allocation of funds between authorities but was simply invented as a technique for enforcing a constant reduction in local authority expenditure. I have no doubt that the local authorities, with this weapon now available to them, will achieve that aim. Local authority expenditure will be held down year after year, but it will be held down at a terrible cost to the people of this country who depend on the services that local authorities provide—the old who need home helps and meals on wheels, the parents who need nursery places for their children, and the sick and the handicapped, for whom the quality of care and the level of amenity is deteriorating.
  The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) was right when he said yesterday that the cuts in local authority expenditure of the size proposed by the Government this week cannot be achieved by anything that is loosely called the elimination of waste or the marginal improvement of efficiency. Local authorities must damage and destroy whole programmes, and that the Secretary of State should know that and preside over it and not say a word about it today is, in our view, both typical and a disgrace.
  Let me tell the Secretary of State some of the facts that he did not tell the House. If, as the Secretary of State is instructed by the Chancellor, planned local authority expenditure is to be reduced next year by 3 per cent., that amounts to a cut in programmes of £430 million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that not only will the total budgets of local authorities be cut by that amount on their anticipated programmes but that the proportion of rate support grant allocated to them by the

  333
  Government, even on the smaller programmes, will also be cut. That can mean only a savage deterioration in the services that the councils provide.
  We must not get into the slipshod habit of talking about cuts to councils as if it is the councils and the councillors who are affected by them. The people who are affected are the men and women who depend on council services for their health provision, welfare, education and housing—not the sort of people who sit on the Government Front Bench, but people who are dependent on the public services provided by local government. All the signs are that not only will their overall levels of services deteriorate next year but that the Secretary of State will use his discretion to ensure that even within the lower level of provision the areas that need help most will get the least help and that the areas that need help least will get the most help. By that I mean that the towns and cities will be penalised and that the counties will receive a special benefit. The towns and cities will be penalised for voting Labour, and the counties will be helped because of the agreement that the Secretary of State reached with the Association of County Councils in order to get his Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill through the House of Lords.
  Mr. John Major: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many counties, such as Cambridgeshire, have accepted an increase of between 30 and 50 per cent. in population, largely from the cities, over the last 10 or 12 years? During that period, the Government of which he was such an illustrious ornament year after year cut the rate support grant to the counties. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it might be a small measure of justice to return some of that money to where the population is?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall certainly bear that in mind, but I do not agree with it. I mean no offence to the county of Cambridgeshire when I say that for the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) to imagine that the problems of his county are comparable with the problems of my constituency, in the decaying central area of Birmingham, and that the money spent in his county is as necessary in volume as it is in my constituency is to fly in the face of the facts.
  Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman may care to bear in mind that the whole of my background is concerned with Brixton, in the middle of Lambeth. I need no lectures from him about the problems of inner cities. I have seen far more of them than he has, and I am equally aware of the way in which many of the inner London boroughs have created their own problems and wasted vast amounts of money.
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I accept that the hon. Gentleman knows about Brixton, but it simply makes his first question all the more inexcusable.
  Mr. Heseltine: Although all hon. Members know that the regrettable statements made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) do not conform with parliamentary practice, there may be a wider audience, and perhaps I should explain—
  Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East): This is the Mace bearer.
  Mr. Heseltine:—that the subject for debate today was decided by the Opposition. It was the express request of
  334
  the Opposition that there should be a debate on housing. My office made every effort to check that that was the view of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. That is why I remained on the subject that the Opposition asked me to deal with. It is monstrous for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that I should have devoted my speech to local government affairs. He knows full well that if I had done so he would have suggested that I was trying to avoid discussing housing. I was not prepared to discuss local government affairs as the Opposition had expressly requested that I should deal with housing.
  Mr. Hattersley: As the right hon. Gentleman chooses to descend to these levels, I must tell him the facts. At 6 o'clock yesterday evening I had the Government notified that, thanks to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, local government finance was an unavoidable subject. I was told that the Minister for Housing and Construction would not reply to the debate and that someone more suitable would do so, namely, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. If that message was not conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not my fault. Perhaps with his permission I can pursue the speech that I always intended to make.
  I have said that when the rate support grant is allocated in about a month's time the county authorities will be advantaged at the expense of the towns. However, it is clear that not all Conservative authorities will be so advantaged. The Secretary of State's record indicates that he is as ministerially incompetent as he is politically prejudiced. We now have the advantage of knowing some of the ways in which the rate support grant will work out next year—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to control his exuberance. I think that we shall have a better debate if the hon. Gentleman will make a mighty effort to be quiet.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was saying that the Secretary of State is as ministerially incompetent as he is politically prejudiced. It seems that not all Conservative authorities will benefit from his new allocation of grant in the way that he anticipated. Civil servants in his Department are queueing up to tell newspapers the inner secrets of the workings of his rate support grant system. The only part of the construction industry that is benefiting under the Secretary of State is moles.
  One of the moles reporting to the Financial Times last week told us two things that I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will confirm or deny as the evening wears on. First, we have been told that the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services met some Conservative Back Benchers, and I fear that he did what he often does, by breaking ranks with the rest of his Department and making a speech that was both well-informed and honest. The right hon. Gentleman said to the group of Consevative Back Benchers "It is just too bad. We cannot get it right and the districts will have to live with it."
  The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The remarks that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to me are quite untrue. I am grateful to him for providing me with the opportunity to correct that statement.
  Mr. Hattersley: I throw up another soft ball for the right hon. Gentleman to hit. During the course of the

  335
  discussion in which he did not say that which has been attributed to him, was it revealed that a number of authorities under the present rate support grant allocation scheme seem likely to receive no grant? We are told that a number of highly rated authorities are to receive nothing. I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman about only one, Ellesmere Port. Will be tell us—or will the Under-Secretary of State for Wales do so when he replies—whether the scheme that Conservative Members voted for with so much enthusiasm 11 months ago will result, for instance, in Ellesmere Port receiving no grant? If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) will tell the House what he has to say about Ellesmere Port receiving no grant. If he will not tell us, perhaps the 468 Ellesmere Port voters who comprised the hon. Gentleman's majority at the General Election will have some view about Ellesmere Port receiving no rate support grant under the present Conservative scheme.
  Mr. Barry Porter:I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to mention my constituency. This morning I received a representation from the very learned clerk to the Ellesmere Port district council. He does not indicate that Ellesmere Port will be receiving no rate support grant. I shall be fair to the right hon. Gentleman and say that the learned clerk shows some disquiet about what he might be receiving. It was certainly nil-plus. My majority was 486, not 468. I am confident that I shall improve on that at the next election. I was happy to vote for my right hon. Friend's Bill and I am happy to make my own representations on behalf of my constituency.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's local patriotism does him credit. I look forward to his next election result with the warmest anticipation.
  It is not only I who think that the present rate support grant system is unworkable. I understand that as late as yesterday the leader of the Association of District Councils, Councillor Ian McCullum from Working, who does not serve in the Labour interest and who represents an authority that is dominated by a substantial Conservative majority, wrote to the Department of the Environment to remind it that everybody said that the new system would work and that he had proposed that it be postponed for a year. He asked whether the Department of the Environment was determined to go on with this folly.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will tell us the reply to that question that the Government anticipate and whether the Government are determined to continue with this unworkable scheme, despite the fact that every local authority association says that the way in which the rate support grant is to be distributed next year is chaotic and unworkable. If they continue with it, the only possible result will be a massive increase in rates, a massive reduction in services and the threat of substantial local government redundancies. When that happens, the country will have no doubt who is responsible: the Government will be responsible and no one else.
  As well as imposing the cuts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday, the Government are imposing a covert and surreptitious cut which is best
  336
  described, and which is described by them, as the 6 per cent. cash limit which they propose for the pay element in local authority spending next year.
  The 6 per cent. cash limit on pay can be considered in two ways. First, there can be a general Government expectation that local authority pay increases will be held to 6 per cent. If the Government want that, expect that and hope that they can enforce that, a 6 per cent. cash limit is no more than a limited wages policy in the public sector. It is a limited wages policy which clearly the local authority workers will not accept, because inflation will outstrip 6 per cent. by a substantial amount. Local authority workers will reject the idea of a cut in their standard of living next year. They will be right to reject it. They will have my support in rejecting it.
  The Government tell us that that is not really what they want. They say that it is not a half-pay policy imposed in the public sector but an indication of the sort of funds that should be devoted to the purpose. The Secretary of State for Employment said last week that authorities do not have to hold earnings increases down to 6 per cent. and that there are other ways in which they can be financed. He said that they can be financed out of rate increases. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman has not discovered that penalties are exacted on authorities that increase their rates beyond the level that is regarded as appropriate by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State for Employment also said that authorities can finance pay settlements by cutting other services and subsidising pay from other economies.
  The Opposition regard it as intolerable that freely elected councillors are to be forced to make intolerable choices between making workers redundant and increasing the cost of school meals or between cutting their employees' living standards and giving up buying books for their schools. When councillors refuse to make such choices, as I believe they will, and when the people they represent rise in revolt against a Government who impose those choices upon them, I hope that the Secretary of State will spare us the usual platitudes about how desirable it is for local authorities to respect the will of the national Government.
  The partnership that once existed between local government and national Government has been destroyed by the Secretary of State. It has been destroyed because he introduced a coercive Bill and because he has mounted a constant and reckless attack on local authority services. I repeat that the result of that attack can only be damage to services that are necessary for this country, massive rate increases and substantially increased redundancies in the public sector, all of which will bring chaos to local government—chaos compounded by the Government's attitude to housing.
  I want to say something about the Government's housing record and intentions. I am careful not to call it a housing policy. Within any reasonable definition of that term, the Government do not possess a housing policy. They will make no estimate of the number of new houses needed to meet demand between now and the end of the decade. They will make no forecast of how many houses are likely to be built this year or next in the public sector. They make no attempt to relate the rents that are charged in the public sector to the capital that is necessary to mount a satisfactory new building programme. All that the Government's housing policy amounts to is a mindless

  337
  determination to cut—to cut subsidies by continual rent increases and to cut capital by slashing the building programme.
  Some of my hon. Friends would argue—and I feel some sympathy with them—that increasing rent levels for families who are already well housed may well be justified if as a result extra resources become available to build new houses for families in slums, in multi-occupation and on the waiting list. However, our complaint against the Government is that they are both increasing rents and cutting the building programme. The extent of those cuts is still obscure, because the Secretary of State refuses absolutely to publish the forecast for house building next year and the years beyond, although nobody, certainly no one with experience in government, believes for a moment that such forecasts do not exist in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Treasury. They are there, but for one reason or another he prefers not to publish them.
  We have indications, however, of the sort of movement in house building and the programme that we are likely to endure. There are clues. The first is the White Paper on public expenditure. Most of the columns concerning housing in that remarkable document are left blank, but the total for housing spending is ominous enough. Between 1979–80 and 1983–84, housing expenditure will fall by 48.06 per cent.
  The second clue is the housing investment programme statement of February—or shall I say the revised housing investment programme statement, after some of its figures had been corrected by a written answer? That revealed that between 1979–80 and 1980–81 the total was to fall by 33·4 per cent.
  The third clue is the work of the Select Committee on the environment, which has estimated that for 1983–84 the best figure for housing starts that can be genuinely anticipated is 31,000 and that in the years before the starts will probably be less.
  However, even in the face of those facts, the Secretary of State continues his bluster about his housing policy being no different from ours—and that was before the Chancellor told us yesterday that the Department of the Environment must face an additional cut of £158 million, which, it is reliably expected, will involve a cut of £100 million to £130 million from housing and will, therefore, knock a further 5,000 starts off next year's programme and the programme the year after. The truth is that for the next three years completions—houses actually built in England and Wales—are likely to run at about 25,000 a year, rather less than one-third of the houses built during the worst year in the five-year record of the Labour Government. That is the real comparison.
  We can also make a comparison on the ground among the authorities that are suffering. Let me give the Secretary of State examples of what is really happening—reports from the boroughs that are being affected. Norwich reports that its progamme of 600 starts, including five sheltered housing schemes, has been scrapped—thanks to the Secretary of State. Wolverhampton says that there are no new contracts and no new builds in 1980–81—thanks to the Secretary of State. West Derbyshire says that there are no new houses, no further improvement schemes for council dwellings, no general improvement area schemes and no further adaptations for the disabled—thanks to the Secretary of State.
  338
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention in passing my constituency, to which I referred a few moments ago. It is a classic decaying central area which in the days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was in control of these matters was just beginning to receive the assistance that such areas need. My constituents' chances of being rehoused have been reduced by the reduction in the new building programme. The help that my constituency was receiving from the housing associations has disappeared overnight because of the attacks on housing association programmes. Perhaps most disastrous of all, the general improvement programmes have been stopped at literally 24 hours' notice. One area of improvement has been completed and another is left with houses half derelict, boarded up, empty and decaying.
  Mr. Heseltine: I happen to have here the figures for the authorities that the right hon. Gentleman is citing. He seems to be divorced from any sense of reality. Norwich is this year spending £7,832,000.
  Mr. Hattersley: I tried to explain this to the Secretary of State previously, but I shall do so again. His housing investment programme allocation has to accommodate two elements. One is work already in contract, which may last for more than one year. The other is new starts. Norwich is doing work that began last year, but it cannot afford the building that I have described because its HIP allocation will not allow new starts. What the Secretary of State gloried in last year when he talked about completions were completions begun under the Labour Government. What he is talking about now is work already begun before his February announcement.
  Mr. Straw: If my right hon. Friend would like another example, I can tell him that in Blackburn the allocation has been cut so much that the council can start only four dwellings this year compared with 124 in the lowest year under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Hattersley: I fear that the example that my hon. Friend gives can be duplicated in borough after borough all over the country. I chose three examples virtually at random. I could have chosen 33. The extraordinary thing is that the Secretary of State does not seem to understand that but believes that what is left from last year's programme is somehow a justification of the cuts that he is making next year. He should get to grips with such matters before he comes to the House.
  Mr. Heseltine: I understand exactly the significance. However, I can look up the fact that Blackburn, if I read across correctly, is spending about £8· million this year. The right hon. Gentleman fails completely to understand the situation. He does not appear to realise that new homes can be started within existing contracts.
  Mr. Hattersley: Charity would oblige me to take the Secretary of State through the matter again, but I must move to the other element of his programme—not simply the programme but the moratorium. The right hon. Gentleman has said three or four things about the moratorium. I wish to press him on each one.
  When the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replies, will be explain the point of the moratorium if overspending authorities this year will have their overspending deducted from next year's programme? If their gain on this year's swings will be lost on next year's roundabouts, the whole

  339
  economic purpose of a moratorium is destroyed. Of course, the publicity purpose still exists. It is still possible for the Secretary of State to posture about how toughly he is reacting to economic necessities. There is no real economic advantage in simply postponing and then correcting the following year. What is more damning in terms of the Secretary of State's performance is the simple fact that the figures on which he based the moratorium are being proved by all the local authority associations to be wrong.
  The Secretary of State knows, or he should know, that in the autumn of every year the anticipated contracts put out by local authorities exceed their total capital allocation. He knows, or he should know, that by the end of the year those contracts have been so adjusted that local authorities are within their spending total. That will happen this year. Already, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has convinced him that, far from the £92 million overestimate that he once claimed, it is at worst a £32 million overestimate. As the financial year goes on, he will find that there is no general overspending.
  The moratorium can have only two purposes. The first is its publicity value. The second, which is increasingly feared by local authorities, is that it is a calculated attempt to complicate their tendering procedures for next year and, therefore, artificially hold down the number of starts that can be allowed, even under the Secretary of State's provisions. The number of starts remains a mystery because the Secretary of State persists in making no estimate of the Government's proposals.
  I hope that the Minister will respond not to me but to this rhetorical question: is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he will reduce expenditure on housing by 50 per cent. and that he has given no serious thought to the consequences that may follow from that reduction? That question is not mine but a question posed by the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in the Select Committee on the environment. He, like me, was unable to believe that the Government do not possess forecasts of building for next year and the year after. He shared my suspicion that, although the forecasts existed, the Government were not prepared to reveal them.
  I turn from the house-building programme to rents—the subject of an announcement made earlier today by the Secretary of State. The same thing can be said about the Secretary of State's attitude to local authority rents as is said about his attitude to local authority capital expenditure. There are no policy and no attempt to relate capital programmes to the cost of building, equate it with rents and ensure a decent level of building. All that the Secretary of State has done in his rent policy since he came to office 18 months ago is to use the wide powers available to him to determine subsidies and to cut public expenditure. He told us on Prorogation day—and he repeated it again this afternoon—that his statement was no more than that he had
  "in mind making a determination prescribing a flat rate increase figure within the range of £2.50 to £3.00 per dwelling per week."
  He said that that was simply a first step in consultation.
  I do not believe that. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of his determination being changed. It is my view that the Treasury already anticipates that council rents will increase by that amount. The Secretary of State
  340
  signally refused to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on that subject. I hope that the Minister will address himself directly to that question. Do the Government believe for one moment that there is a chance that rents, on average, will not rise by the amount specified in the consultation paper? Of course not—not least because the councils, when they receive the determination and find the subsidies slashed, will have no other source of income with which to subsidise their rents. If they risk doing that out of the rate fund, they may fall foul of the Secretary of State's wrath and have the penalties in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act imposed upon them. As a result, rents will rise by that amount.
  The House should know, and the Minister should comment on, the changes in the amount of income that local authority tenants will now be required to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a clear view on these matters. In another Select Committee he said:
  "The percentage of average income going into local authority rents has fallen from 7·4 per cent. to 6·7 per cent. over the last five years."
  By April this year the Conservative Government had begun to redress the balance. The percentage had increased to 6·9 per cent. The October comparison is not yet available, but, through the courtesies of the local authority associations, the Library of the House and other people whose statistical ability is far greater than mine, it is possible to make a general, if rough, calculation.
  The local authority associations say that both the £1·50 increase and the 60p increase already imposed by the Secretary of State have, in general, been applied. They say that the average rent in the public sector is now about £9. That pushes the average up to 7 per cent. of earnings. But the £9 rent will be increased by almost 33 per cent. if today's announcement is implemented. That £9 may rise to £12. The House should be aware of the proportion of income that that amounts to if the Government's policy in other areas has its way. If earnings increase only by what the Government wish during the next 12 months—we shall take 6 per cent. as an indication of their intention—by the end of next year the average council house rent will be 9·5 per cent. of the average council house income. Will the Secretary of State now, or the Under-Secretary later, say whether the Government think that that is a proper and appropriate proportion?
  Let us not have any prejudiced nonsense about the head of the house in council houses earning £8,000 a year. On the Secretary of State's own admission, that amounts to three out of every 100 council dwellings. We need to talk about the generality of council tenants. Do the Government really think that they should pay 9·5 per cent. or do they think that they should pay more? May we have some vague indication of the principles on which the Government have based the rent increases, if such principles exist? My fear is that we shall have none of that information provided as the night wears on. We have not had it during the past 18 months, and I see no reason why we should have it tonight.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has spoken about rent. The majority of council tenants' rents include rates and water rates. More specifically, rent for the modern houses includes either electricity or gas for central heating. What does that

  341
  mean in relation to the increases that the nationalised industries have been forced to impose on domestic energy prices?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall not talk about rate increases, because the Secretary of State gets into a tizzy when I do that. I shall say two things related to my hon. Friend's points. I believe that council rents are now pushed to such a height that they are beginning to amount to a tax on council tenancy. If we combine with that the unnecessarily high prices for energy—the price increases imposed on the gas and electricity industries by the Government's financial policy—many council tenants are paying two disguised taxes, one for their gas and one for their rents.
  I turn to what the Government regard as a solution to all those problems. I have no doubt that before the night is over we shall be told—the Secretary of State almost said it in his opening speech—that the problems of the homeless, the badly housed, the slum dwellers and the overcrowded will be solved in the Government's brave new world by a greater reliance on the private sector.
  Greater reliance on the private sector means three things. First, it means the sale of council houses. The sale of council houses will not increase the housing stock by a single dwelling. It will only deny rented property to some of the families who are in greatest need of rented property.
  Secondly, the Housing Act will move the balance of advantage further away from the private tenant and closer towards the private landlord. I find something particularly squalid in parts of that Act. I give one simple example. The idea of shifting the time at which a fair rent is enforced from the day on which the tenant applies for it to the day when the landlord, after much delay and prevarication, has it imposed upon him seems to me the most petty way to maximise the landlord's advantage. But the great example of how the Government seek to solve our problems in the housing area by private enterprise is through the shorthold provision, about which the Secretary of State has already spoken.
  The Secretary of State says that the shorthold provision has been dealt a cruel blow by the Opposition's promise to repeal it. My personal hope is that it is suffering from mortal wounds. If that provision is dead, it died unmourned by those who worry about housing. For our part, we shall not be party to a pretence that the housing crisis in this country can be overcome by making tenants survive on one-year tenancies. Anyone who believes that we could conceivably continue that provision of the Housing Act misunderstands both the nature of that provision and the nature of the Labour Party.
  Thirdly, the Secretary of State said that he believed that there ought to be and that he would provide increasing provision for owner-occupation. I only wish that it had been like that during the past 18 months.
  Let me remind the House of some of the figures that the Secretary of State again failed to provide. While he talks in generalities about improving the prospects of owner-occupation, he fails to give us the figures which demonstrate that owner-occupation is being reduced in this country, thanks to what he is doing. In the first six months of 1979, the building societies lent £4·32 billion, which accounted for 352,000 new mortgages. In the first six months of this year, they lent £240 million less, so that 45,000 fewer owner-occupiers were able to take out mortgages.
  342
  Thanks to the Government's policy, mortgages have become so expensive that fewer and fewer families are taking out mortgages. The Secretary of State says that the reduction in the minimum lending rate announced yesterday ought to bring some hope to these people. No one on the Labour Benches will regret that MLR was reduced from the uniquely high level at which it has been held for a uniquely long period. No one will regret that belated reduction; it is highly welcome. But we delude ourselves if we believe that it will bring very much relief to owner-occupiers.
  I talked to the Building Societies Association yesterday, shortly after the announcement. I was told—I am sure that the Secretary of State knows this, but he could not bring himself to say it this afternoon—that mortgage holders should not anticipate any early relief. The reason why the building societies do not anticipate a fall in mortgage rates is partly because they are still remedying the damage done to their reserves by the false hopes held out to them by the Prime Minister in the summer of 1979. A further reason is that the index-linked national savings certificates, the so-called granny bonds, have taken from building society funds amounts which the societies estimate to be between £500 million and £750 million—money which would otherwise be available for new borrowing and to reduce the mortgage rate.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement yesterday, that index-linked bonds are to be extended in scope and that a larger issue of £3·6 billion is soon to be made available can only mean a further reduction in the funds available to building societies and the prospect of a reduction in the rate being pushed further and further into the future.
  In short, in all three areas the Government's housing policy has been a ghastly failure. Never have mortgages been so expensive. Never have house building figures for local authorities been so dismal. Never have local authority rents been so high. Never has there been a Government who cared so little about housing the people. It is for that reason that we chose to debate this subject today.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. John Heddle: I warmly endorse the announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the consultation document. My support for it is endorsed by the fact that it carries out to the letter the recommendation of the previous Labour Government in their Green Paper of 1977, in which they said that they considered that over a run of years rents should keep broadly in line with the changes in money income.
  The rents of council houses then represented about 8 per cent. of the incomes of those houses, but that subsequently dropped to about 6·4 per cent. The amount spent by owner-occupiers on mortgage repayments represents 20 per cent. of a household's income. Even if the calculations of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are correct, and the rent increase is £2.50 or £3 per week for those homes which can afford the increase—excluding the 45 per cent., nearly five in every 10, of council tenants who for one reason or another get either supplementary benefit or rent rebates—the rent of a council house is still incredibly reasonable compared with the mortgage repayment paid by the owner-occupier.

  343
  That is further endorsed by the fact that the Government have raised the maximum rent rebate this year to£25 for homes in central London and to£23 elsewhere, whereas those figures previously stood at £13 for London and £10 elsewhere. I shall, therefore, spend no time in sharing the crocodile tears which are wept by the Opposition Benches today.
  Last year's Queen's Speech promised a whirlwind of activity in housing and local government, and because of the Housing Act and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act a breath of fresh air is now beginning to sweep through the streets of our council estates—and also through the filing cabinets, the in-trays, the pending trays and the out-trays of every planning department in the land. May that continue and may it gain momentum during the next 12 months.
  But there are three scars on the nation's housing scene. I refer to the growing number of homeless families, to the still increasing number of empty homes and to the ever-rising level of council house rent arrears. As was predicted by Opposition spokesmen on the Conservative Benches at the time when the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill was debated in 1977, the Act has not reduced the number of homeless families. As in the case of other Acts introduced by the previous Labour Administration, the fullness of time has proved that Act to be counter-productive and contradictory. It has actually increased the number of homeless families from 32,000 in 1977 to nearly 56,000 today, most of whom are accommodated in hostels or in bed and breakfast accommodation at enormouse expense to the taxpayer and with great disruption of the family life of those poor people.
  Yet at the same time there are more than half a million empty homes in the country today, some owned by local authorities and some owned by private individuals—;half a million homes waiting to be occupied by a similar number of families hoping forlornly, because of the lack of an alternative choice, for the key to a council house or flat.
  If there is a housing crisis, it is not a crisis of demand or a crisis of supply. Nor is it a crisis of mortgage finance. It has been visited on the nation because of the Opposition's failure to acknowledge that the role of local authorities is to provide homes for those in genuine need and that the private sector has an equally important part to play in meeting the needs of those demanding a home to rent or buy. The crisis has also been caused by the inability of local government to allocate vacant homes quickly enough.
  I share the view of those who are calling on Parliament today to allow councils to abolish, or drastically to revise, council house waiting lists. They cost an enormous sum of money and waste an enormous amount of manpower because they need to be kept up to date. After a delay of 10 years, an applicant may reach the top of the list, but he may then not be prepared to take the accommodation offered.
  Mr. Alton: Hon. Members have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that waiting lists could be abolished. Will be explain in greater detail how the system would work and what would happen to those currently on waiting lists?
  Mr. Heddle: I think that the hon. Gentleman was, for a while, chairman of Liverpool's housing committee, so he will understand that the majority of those on council waiting lists do not necessarily want council accommodation. Such people want rented accommodation. Whether that accommodation is owned by the local authority, private landlords or a housing association matters not one jot or one title to them.
  A large proportion of the 400,000 or so people on waiting lists are not heads of separate households. Only a minority are married couples or one-parent families who have been forced to live with their parents-in-law. A large proportion of the remainder are young people who simply wish to leave home. Their wishes are understandable. Most of them are not housed in bad accommodation, and their needs may be for relatively short-term accommodation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook deliberately missed that point. The private sector rather than the local authority can provide the short-term accommodation that such people require.
  I join those who call for a more flexible approach by individual councils so that local needs can be better and more quickly identified. I also join those who eagerly await my right hon. Friend's announcement on the review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Why do not private owners let their vacant houses and flats? Are they eagerly awaiting Friday 28 November, when the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980 will come into effect? Time alone will tell. I hope so; I think Have they already been dissuaded from letting their vacant property on shorthold tenancies because of the irresponsible threat, made by the Opposition again this afternoon, to include the repeal of the shorthold provisions in their next election manifesto?
  Last January, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook uttered that irresponsible threat in an interview for the Local Government Review. He probably did so without having given full thought to the implications that it would have for his party's prospects at the next general election. I listened to his speech, and it appears that he has not yet tempered that threat. Let us hope that between now and the next election he will think again. Let us hope that at the next election he will not run the risk of being a leading member of a Labour Party branded by these Benches as the handmaiden of homelessness.
  In 1975, the nation's rent arrears amounted to £34·8 million of recoverable rent. That represents about 3 per cent of total rents collected. In 1979, the nation's total rent arrears amounted to almost £64 million. That is almost double the previous figure and represents about 3·5 per cent. of the total rent recoverable. Much of that enormous debt is written off by local authorities because the cost of collection is completely out of proportion to the sums recoverable. Inevitably, much of the debt is owed by those in receipt of supplementary benefit.
  Will my right hon. Friend consider taking measures, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Social Services, to ensure that during the lifetime of this Parliament the rent element provided by the DHSS is paid directly to the local housing authority in a greater number of cases? That would immediately ensure a considerable reduction in rent arrears. The tenant may be in default through circumstances that are beyond his control and can thereby be spared the agony of a court order or of the threat of eviction.

  345
  I express my regret at three omissions from this year's Queen's Speech. First, the Government have not found the time or, perhaps, the commitment to include legislation that admits the need for a total restructuring of the Development Land Tax Act. That tax threatens to erode the asset base of house-building firms. Despite the two constructive amendments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it remains a time bomb ticking away at the very foundations of the construction industry.
  I also regret that Parliament will not have time to consider implementing a building societies Bill. However, I understand that regulations—the European directive on credit institutions—may be introduced that will apply to building societies. A large proportion of the Building Societies Act 1962 is, in practice, obscure, inadequate and out of line with current needs and attitudes. Why should the major 20 or so building societies be restricted by the same rules and regulations as apply to hundreds of smaller local societies, which perform a useful local job? Why should not building societies be encouraged to provide homes for sale and rent in partnership with local authorities, housing associations and land owners? Why should the liquid funds of building societies be restricted to authorised investments, consisting mainly of gilts, local authority paper and bank deposits?
  At present, the building society movement is restricted by a legislative framework that was designed for the nineteenth century. It effectively debars more active and progressive societies from even beginning to move towards the challenges of the twenty-first century. Wider powers should permit diversification, which might transform the investment scene for the man in the street.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position this year to publish his Department's conclusions on the study relating to the rating system. The system is ever more unfair, because it is not related to ability to pay or to the services received. It is a system in which the very basis of valuation gives rise to inconsistencies and anomalies. It is a system that cries out for reform to meet future needs and demands. When the economy has recovered, the system might encourage the introduction of a scheme whereby a proportion of domestic rates could be treated as an allowable expense against income tax liability.
  Mr. Straw Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Heddle: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself a little longer, I am sure that he will have the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is a system that exposes commercial and industrial ratepayers and makes them pay disproportionately high rate increases when they do not have a voice to express how they wish the revenue that they have raised to be spent by local authorities.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) will excuse me if I do not take up his remarks. I intend to go for bigger fry, namely, the Secretary of State. I wish that the Secretary of State, who is now in conversation with one of his colleagues, would attend my advice bureaux. It would be good for him and for the council tenants.
  I believe that the Secretary of State does not understand how deep the housing shortage bites. If he does
  346
  understand, he is a man without feeling. Nine out of 10 of those who come to my advice bureaux come about housing. Twenty-five years ago they came because they were living in terrible slum houses and wanted to get out of them. Today, whilst thousands are still living in those conditions, the majority of constituents who come to my advice bureaux are living in council property.
  I shall give a typical example, by no means the worst, and one that could be multiplied one hundred thousandfold in this country's industrial cities. Mr. and Mrs. A. H.—I do not give their full names because I have not sought their permission to do so—live in a flat in Silk Street, Salford, which is a long street and which the right hon. Gentleman may know. They have two lovely young children, who have nowhere to play. The windows have to be tied up to prevent a fatal fall. There is underfloor electric heating, which is not used because it is too expensive. Partly as a result of that, the flat is continually damp, and this has serious effects on the children's health.
  Mr. and Mrs. A. H. have recently been told that it will be three years before they can be transferred, since those living in slum clearance areas have priority—quite properly. Therefore, these children have been and will be denied the right to a decent home. If and when they get one, it will be too late. They will have had their childhood without a proper home.
  But now the prospects have infinitely worsened, thanks to the present Government. These families are dependent upon getting a council house, since even with a mortgage they cannot afford to buy. The Secretary of State has dealt a death blow to council housing. To be more accurate, he has dealt four blows simultaneously. Considering the misery that he is causing, he is not a man or a Minister but a monster, as I propose to show.
  The Secretary of State has cut down to 30,000 council houses the number that will be started this year. In the 1960s, up to 200,000 were built annually. Secondly, he has now imposed a complete halt on all council house starts and improvements, which will reduce that figure. Thirdly, he has deliberately raised rents by up to £3 a week. There will be little difference between the rent and the instalments on the purchase price. This is intended to drive rents so high as to force tenants to buy even when they do not want to buy. Fourthly, he is compelling councils to sell houses, which means that they will no longer be available for reletting to the homeless or those needing transfers.
  I should like to deal with those four bitter ideological attacks on council housing, which the present Government hate. This morning, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers said:
  "There is no denying that total starts, both public and private, are unlikely to be much more than 150,000. This is half the level of four years ago and half the annual 'requirement' projected in the housing policy review Green Paper of 1977."
  It is not the building trades employees who say that; it is the building trades employers, who are represented on the Government side of the House and who gave fortunes, through CABIN, to put the present Government and the present Secretary of State on the green seats opposite.
  Mr. Anderson: Can they ask for their money back now?
  Mr. Allaun: I do not think that they will get it back, but I hope that they will not grant any more to the present Government or the Conservative Party.

  347
  There is worse to come. The Government are estimating for a 48 per cent. reduction in housing expenditure between now and 1983. Next, there is the moratorium announced four weeks ago. The excuse was that the Minister wanted local authority figures to be considered by 31 October. It is now 25 November. When will the freeze on building end? We have not been told this afternoon. We were given a vague phrase to the effect that it would be announced in due course. Some experts have made estimates that it will end next April. Others even wonder whether it is to continue for as long as the economic slump. God help us in that case, because it will continue for years. If it is necessary to cut public expenditure to such an extent, presumably the Government will think it necessary to have this freeze on council housing indefinitely.
  Salford council had 11 building contracts about to be signed. They will no longer be signed. The Minister evidently thinks that the homeless and the building firms and their workers can go on waiting. This year, 1980, is already by far the lowest year on record for total housing starts in both sectors since 1946. The freeze is bound to worsen the record, and next year's starts will be lower still. Council housing has been virtually ended. It has been slaughtered.
  Twelve days ago, as we all know, there were dramatic events in this Chamber. They arose because the Secretary of State tried to sneak through council rent increases of up to—3 a week. On that occasion he deceived the House. When he was faced with serious trouble, not far from where I am standing, he stated that his letters to the local authorities, released that evening, were only for consultation. That is untrue.
  The only matter for consultation is whether the increase is to be £2·50 or £3 a week. I quote from the document: "Taking the above considerations into account the Secretary of State has in mind making a determination prescribing a flat rate increase figure within the range of £2·50 to £3 per dwelling per week. However, before reaching a decision, he wishes to know the views of the associations on the point at which the fiat rate would be fixed within the range quoted. These figures relate exclusively to calculations of housing subsidy."
  So it was merely a question whether the increase would be £2·50 or ·3.
  But that is not everything. The document continues—and the Secretary of State presumably wrote it, or put his name to it:
  "In addition there will be some housing costs which are not subsidisable which also have to be met from local sources"
  Therefore, rents may be increased by well over £3 a week. That is on top of a £2·10 a week increase earlier this year. Most workers regard a huge rent increase as a big decrease in their real wage and will act accordingly.
  The subsidy on council rents is a big figure—£2,060,000 a year. The subsidy for owner-occupiers is £1,640,000 a year—another big figure. The Labour Party says "Hands off both". It is brutally unfair to increase the subsidy for owner-occupiers while slashing it for council tenants. The Minister for Housing and Construction may say that the subsidy for owner-occupiers is not being increased, but it is, because the increased number of those buying their own houses, whether they be private or council-owned, will mean an increase in the total sum lost to the Exchequer through income tax relief on mortgage interest.
  348
  Fourthly and lastly, far from increasing the stock of council houses to accommodate the 1,200,000 families on the waiting list, that stock will be deliberately cut. Huge bribes are to be paid to tenants to induce them to buy their homes. There will be discounts of between 33 and 50 per cent. on market prices. But who will pay for those bribes? It will be the rest of the community: the tenants who cannot buy; taxpayers, who will pay the tax relief on the mortgage interest; and ratepayers, who will have to bear the local authorities' loss. That loss, which in many cases amounts to £8,000 per house, results from the councils having to continue to pay the interest on the 60-year loans originally incurred by councils in order to build the houses.
  The Minister seeks to evade responsibility for those four blows by making the local authorities the instrument and thus the scapegoat. He hopes that the local authorities, which are increasingly under Labour control, will be blamed for the rent increases and the loss in house building for which he is responsible. Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. A. H. and their children continue their existence, penned up in their damp, multi-storey flat, their hopes of a proper home gone, and the 300,000 building trade workers will see ever more building operatives signing on each week at the employment exchange.
  The alternative is that which was applied with such brilliant success by President Roosevelt. With 13 million unemployed walking the streets of America in the 1930s slump, his new deal dramatically expanded the building of homes and ambitious projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority. It is possible to kill two birds—unemployment and homelessness—with one stone. To solve the bitter problems of the homeless and the unemployed, the Government must increase, not reduce, the housing programme. The first step would be to sack the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the highways and byways of Salford, enjoyable though that place may be, although I suspect that some of its problems are due to the nature of the council that has administered its housing for so long.
  I turn to some of the distortions that we have heard about in relation to housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) highlighted the distortion we have heard in recent weeks and months about housing association funds. The Government were portrayed as having cut back when they had merely sought to ensure that total spending was kept within the previously agreed estimate. Something similar is entering the annals of folklore with regard to the alleged effects of the moratorium announced four weeks ago. I speak as one who would wish to see more money spent on housing and who believes and trusts that, as and when the upturn comes, greater resources in real terms will be devoted to this area rather than to others. But that is a subject for separate discussion.
  Whatever our political views, we must surely support the determination of government, local and national, to live within previously established budgets. That was the purpose of the moratorium. That has been confirmed, and I do not think that it is a matter of disagreement. Yet it is

  349
  being put about that the effect of the moratorium, to quote the hon. Member for Salford, East, will be to leave more people homeless.
  There will be no medium-term or long-term gains for anyone, be they the homeless, local authorities, landlords or anyone else, if local authorities and Governments continue to overspend against what was previously arranged. That is no solution. It is merely the beginning of anarchy. The solution is to live within our means, to set budgets and to argue, as we shall and do in this House and in local authorities, and not to criticise Governments, of whatever political persuasion, who seek to ensure that those limits, once fixed, are adhered to.
  I turn to the question of rents. I do not believe that we as a party in Government should be concerned at being seen to support the need for tenants in council housing to pay a greater percentage of the cost of that housing. We live in an age when, rightly and properly, a rebate scheme and a series of safety nets can and do provide for the poorest—those who are unable to meet increasing costs. That being so, I believe that many people expect the better-off council tenants to meet a greater proportion of the cost.
  The figures supplied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicate that the percentage of income devoted to rent has fallen from about 8 per cent. to about 6·4 per cent. Given the importance of housing in the average family or individual budget, I defy anyone to suggest that 6·4 per cent. is other than a derisory figure. In real terms, it masks a great increase in cost to everyone else, because the subsidy on that housing must be paid for in one form or another. We cannot have it both ways. I was grateful that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) recognised that the argument for some rent increase was possibly in order. I can only agree with him.
  It is a pity that he did not point out that the absence of such increases placed a direct burden upon other people. It is not money conjured out of thin air. It must be met by ratepayers and taxpayers. We owe a responsibility to all people, regardless of their tenure. I should like to see some of the money raised through increased rents ploughed back into an area with which I shall deal later.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will look closely at the question of mortgages and mortgage interest tax relief. I refer in particular to relief on the higher rates of income tax. We are moving to a stage, particularly in view of the welcome reduction in the higher rates granted in the 1979 Budget, when we should not exect those paying higher rates also to receive mortgage interest relief at those rates. We should be looking closely at a package that may well extend and remove the present £25,000 upper limit. That limit, if not amended, will in any case fall by the wayside as a result of inflation. A package along those lines would raise considerable extra funds, which I should like to see devoted to the area that concerns me most. I speak of the quality of housing and the nature of the repairs and renovations that can or cannot take place.
  The Select Committee on the environment, on which I have the privilege to serve, recently published a report on housing projections, and some of its recommendations and comments have received wide publicity on both sides of the Chamber. One of its recommendations, which has achieved little publicity and which I seek to elevate this
  350
  afternoon, concerned the state of repair of the nation's housing stock. After all, that is the legacy that we leave to future generations. If the figures are as bad as they seemed to the Select Committee, we face a problem that the Government—any Government—must immediately and carefully consider.
  On the Select Committee's figures, the present level of housing repair and maintenance is one-third of what it would need to be to meet the Department of the Environment's criteria for repairs and maintenance. Moreover, within the three years ending 1982–83 it is likely that the amount expended under this heading will fall by a half, thus exacerbating the problem.
  I do not take any pleasure in mentioning these figures. I hope that the Government, either today or more probably in their answer to the Select Committee's report, will seek to show where those figures are in error. If they are right, or approximately right, we must contemplate a major shift of resources in the immediate future and not in five or 10 years, or face a bill for housing that, with the best will in the world, it will be difficult for us to meet.
  I have so far concentrated solely on housing. I turn now to local government, a subject on which I have spoken in this Chamber perhaps more than on any other in the short time that I have been a Member of the House Local government has been and is still a valuable, loyal servant of the country, under Governments of whatever political persuasion. Local government is now being asked to shoulder a very heavy burden in terms of the requirement to reduce grants, to cut services and to impose ever higher rate bills. It is right that local government should take its fair share of the national misery, for want of a better expression, because, like other areas of expenditure, it spends a considerable amount. I suggest that local government be judged in the same light and by the same criteria as we judge the Government's performance in the handling of their economic affairs. I am not making a party point; I speak of Governments of all political persuasions.
  I do not believe that local government receives a fair press. At times we rightly concentrate on the lunatic fringe and overlook the fact, which is also overlooked in the national newspapers, that the majority of the 460 or so authorities comply with every possible statute, instruction, order, request, pledge, or whatever it may be, in a formidable and successful way. I make that point because at times it goes without mention in the House generally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth correctly highlighted the duplicity of the Opposition on shortholds. One of the problems that has bedevilled housing over the years has been that it has been allowed to become a political football. I have endeavoured to show that I believe in a positive role for local authorities and the Government in assisting those who wish to purchase their own homes. But that is not the beginning and the end of the matter. It is dishonest of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to dismiss shorthold tenancies as being not on because they do not solve the housing crisis. No one said that they would. But they are a major contribution and could be an even greater contribution if they were given the chance.
  I very much regret that the Opposition, by their words and actions, would seek to eliminate the shorthold option or to reduce its effectiveness. We need to get away from the stereotyped belief that we can have only council housing or owner-occupation. We need to be flexible. We should take and consider each option. I hope that even now

  351
  the Opposition will listen to wiser words from more important and illustrious persons than me and think again about that pledge, because that is the root of bad housing. The hon. Member for Salford, East asked what would be done about rehousing some of his constituents who are living in poor conditions. I suggest that we should be flexible and look at all the options. The answer does not lie only in council housing.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) only on what he said about dishonesty. His speech showed a lack of knowledge, or he was being dishonest. He knows that the shorthold proposition was deliberately brought in to take the place of council housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no use hon. Members saying "No". Council housing has been cut back deliberately in the hope that people will be forced to take shorthold tenancies. That is the whole point of the exercise. Otherwise, there is no point in it.
  Mr. Major Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way. When the hon. Gentleman was a housing chairman in London, I heard him demand more money for London. Now, he has the effrontery to demand more money for Cambridgeshire. The hon. Gentleman is the kind of Member described by his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch—purely dishonest—and he knows it.
  Mr. Major Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Brown: Cambridgeshire may need the money, but it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to speak about it in that way. I find it absolutely nauseating that he should make that kind of intervention.
  Mr. Major: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: No.
  Mr. Major Mr. Major rose—
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Give way.
  Mr. Brown: No. The hon. Gentleman has heard me challenge him before when he has done the very same thing. I think that he should have made his remarks in the context of London. London needs the money, and he knows it. The hon. Gentleman may argue on behalf of Cambridgeshire now, but he should not put forward an argument that is so different from the argument that he put forward when he had a London responsibility. I hope that he will sit back and consider what I have said. If so, he will be a wiser man.
  Mr. Major: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I have tried—
  Mr. Major: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I have tried to advise the hon. Gentleman. We have discussed this matter before. The hon. Gentleman has again done that to which I have drawn his attention. I urge him to sit back and take a little time to consider whether the way that he is going on does him any credit. I was friendly towards the hon. Gentleman riginally, but the more I see him doing this sort of thing,
  352
  the more nauseating I find it. I urge him to take my advice, to sit still and to listen to the debate. If he is called, he can make any points he wishes to make. I think that it would be better if, on this occasion, he were to give his tongue a rest instead of doing what he so often does.
  Mr. Major: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's advice was unsought and unwanted. Perhaps I may try to catch your eye in a few minutes, to answer the totally dishonest and unscrupulous remarks that have been made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order. It is a declaration of intent.
  Mr. Brown: I tried to be helpful in advising the hon. Gentleman. We have discussed the matter before. He chose to intervene in someone else's speech to make his point. I do not accept what he said.
  It is incredible that we should have a Gracious Speech that contains no reference to housing. It is as if it were a solved problem. The Government's only excuse is that they did a lot of work on housing in the previous Session. But that does not excuse them for failing to recognise our enormous housing problem. It is sad that we have to rely on that well-worn phrase in the Gracious Speech that
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  The Secretary of State's speech gave the House an insight into his total misunderstanding of the real world. He sets out in his doctrinaire, party political way what he feels are the issues to be served. One might have thought from his speech that everything in housing was satisfactory and resolved.
  The Secretary of State implies glibly that underspending authorities are the good ones and that the overspenders cannot manage and do not do what they ought to be doing. To put it another way, he is saying that those who see the housing needs in their areas and walk away from them by underspending are the good guys in the mythology of Toryism. In the Secretary of State's view, the councillors who see the desperate situation, recognise the problems facing families on waiting lists who stand no chance of being housed unless something is done, see the needs of single persons becoming increasingly evident in the inner cities, appreciate that pensioners must be brought down from other accommodation to ground floor accommodation, recognise the need for sheltered housing and try to do something about those problems are the bad guys who have to be shot at. That is where the Secretary of State makes a fundamental error. He takes the simplistic view that those who undershoot are all right and those who overshoot are wrong. He does not take into consideration the problems facing individual authorities.
  The situation in the London borough of Hackney illustrates that we cannot carry out the sort of exercise on which the Secretary of State is embarked. In Hackney, there are 13,000 households sharing accommodation, 8,100 overcrowded households and 838 families accepted as homeless. There is a waiting list of more than 14,000 families, and it is growing at the rate of 100 families a month.
  There are 9,700 unfit private dwellings and a further 6,100 private dwellings that are substandard or in urgent need of renovation. There are 16,000 households in the private sector that lack exclusive use of basic amenities and 5,500 public sector dwellings, owned by the borough council, the GLC and housing associations, that are unfit.

  353
  Another 15,750 public sector dwellings, mainly on estates, are in need of urgent renovation. Against that background, I cannot understand how the Government can categorise councils as overspenders and take action against them.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that the Government had not forced a stop on council house building. They are forcing such a stop. In Hackney in 1977, the total number of lettings from all sources, the borough council and others, was 4,185. In 1980 it will be down to 2,263. There will be 15,838 families on the Hackney waiting list this year, and the figure will increase by about 100 families a month—perhaps even more.
  Some people are taking the advice of the Prime Minister and moving to Hackney from other parts of the country. They lodge or squat in the borough and have to be rehoused by the council because they are homeless. How can that situation be described as being of no consequence? How can it be alleged that Government policy is not causing that state of affairs? An independent study has concluded that no one on the Hackney housing waiting list will be rehoused in the next five years. It is an incredible position.
  The Government's political friends on the GLC have compounded their felonies. The GLC was set up to act as a strategic housing authority. It was to provide homes over a wide area of greater London so that people could move from one borough to another. The GLC held 250,000 properties throughout London. The particular attraction to my constituents was that the properties in the outer areas were little houses with gardens. Many of my, constituents were anxious to move to the outer areas as their circumstances allowed. That was happening. There were not sufficient places, but the GLC contributed to improving the housing of some of my constituents.
  The GLC has now decided to get out of the housing market. It has handed over houses to local boroughs and is selling homes. Of course, the only properties that have been sold are the most desirable houses—the sort that people living in inner London wanted to move to.
  The GLC has left thousands of houses standing empty in pursuance of its policy of selling. My constituents see GLC houses in Loughton, Ongar and Debden that are empty. They come to my surgeries, and I then approach the GLC district offices, but my constituents are unable to get those houses because they are being held for sale.
  An estate in my constituency is due to be completed in December or January. We have argued for years that in Hackney we should have houses with gardens. Now that we are to have them, we find that the GLC is advertising in every conceivable place that any of my constituents can purchase one of the houses on the estate for £41,400. They are told that the price is likely to go up because of inflation. That is happening in an area where we desperately need houses to rent.
  I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction is sensitive to these issues. How does he think my constituents feel about what is happening? They are desperate for homes. The figures that I have read out have not been concocted. They are known to the Minister and he has agreed them, yet we are faced with a situation in which the Hackney borough council finds it impossible to help anyone on the waiting list.
  As the House knows, the Secretary of State has identified the London borough of Hackney, with all these problems and many more that I could mention if there was
  354
  time, in the "hit" list of authorities to be penalised. During a recent debate in the House, I tried to put it to the Secretary of State that his attitude to Hackney was wrong. I deployed reasons why I thought that he was wrong. I assured him, as I assure the House again today, that this is not a party political issue. There are people in Hackney who are suffering. My two colleagues representing Hackney—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) sitting in the Chamber—and I have tried desperately to draw attention to the fact that the decision taken by the Secretary of State was based on a false premise.
  At the end of that debate I thought that the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services had agreed that he would review the situation and let me know whether he would see me again, and perhaps invite representatives of the Hackney borough council to see him, to discuss the terms upon which the "hit" list was formed and Hackney was included. I have not had the benefit of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. I again appeal to the Minister for Housing and Construction to intervene with his colleague to see whether there can be another review of the situation and to examine the information that I am presenting, because I believe that Hackney is being unfairly dealt with.
  I am aware that the Secretary of State has indicated that his criteria are simple: "If you have overspent, you are a bad boy and should be penalised. If you have underspent, you are all right." I do not believe that Hackney can be seen to have overspent. Such overspending as can be identified by the Secretary of State is adequately explained by the council's attempt to solve problems, not in a profligate way, but in a way that the Secretary of State, as a human being, would have expected.
  Hackney is one of the most successful of the partnership authorities. There is, however, clear evidence that the resources available to the council, especially now that it is on the "hit" list, cannot match the problems that it has to face. I believe there should be an increase in the allocation to enable a proper level of investment to take place in an area such as Hackney, with all its problems. A higher level of subsidy and expenditure should be allowed in all the priority programmes. Ministers have been chairmen of the committees. They have agreed those priority programmes and have commended Hackney on the value of those programmes. Ministers of this Government and of the previous Government were involved. There is common ground that the programmes are relevant to the problems facing Hackney. It is right to ask the Secretary of State to consider allowing a higher level of subsidy and expenditure on the priority programmes.
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman to continue or to inaugurate special programmes of assistance. The Minister, who has been to my constituency, is monitoring a valuable contribution that is being pursued by the Department together with Hackney borough council. That is going well. It brings praise from everyone, particularly those whom it is intended to help. I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether further help should not be given to other parts of my constituency that are equally bad. I had thought that the idea of the experimental programme was that it was a forerunner to others in areas such as that which I represent.
  Another request that I would make is that the restriction on the acquisition of properties should be reduced. Unless

  355
  that happens, properties will continue to fall into disrepair and become unusable. Such a move, above all, would give the authority an opportunity to manoeuvre and allow it to offer people things that they want. Otherwise, authorities are put in a straitjacket which makes it impossible for them to operate. I plead with the Secretary of State to invite members of Hackney council to see him to discuss the problems that they are facing. I ask him to treat them not as supplicants, demanding that they should come to him cap in hand and on bended knee, saying that they are sorry. They have no reason to be sorry. They have tried desperately hard to tackle problems that are faced by few other areas in this country. It would be a happy situation for Hackney if it faced only the problems of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). That is not the situation. Hackney has every kind of problem. There is not one problem that any hon. Member can name that Hackney does not have in some measure.
  Even at this late hour, I request the Minister to ask the Secretary of State to invite the Hackney representatives to see him. I hope that he will ask my Hackney colleagues and myself to join him, to see whether we can resolve the differences between the right hon. Gentleman and the authority. At the end of the day, we are dealing with human beings. We are not dealing with chequers on a chequer board. People in my constituency are suffering badly. It is the duty of this House, and especially my duty on their behalf, to say "For God's sake, let us find a solution."
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. John Major: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, because I am looking forward to a most pleasant engagement this evening which, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, will keep me away from the House for much of the evening. I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is at the moment leaving the Chamber, will forgive me if I am unable to return in time for his winding-up speech. I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy. I assure him that there is an engagement of long standing and of considerable importance to myself and to many of my colleagues.
  We always welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, on this solitary occasion, but we are a trifle sorry that you did not arrive a few seconds later. I had hoped to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker on his sixtieth birthday today. He sat patiently through a spirited exchange a moment ago. His good humour maintained the good nature of that exchange and prevented it becoming something rather more.
  Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I will convey the good wishes of the hon. Gentleman and of the House to the Deputy Speaker. I hope that he will reach my ripe old age.
  Mr. Major: We trust, Mr. Speaker, that if and when he does, he will retain your good humour and health.
  There are two specific reasons why I feel I must intervene in the debate. The first is what I thought was a smug and selective speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am sorry that he is not in his place. Secondly, there was a remarkable outburst by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and
  356
  Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referring specifically to myself. I will deal with his remarks first, as he neglected to afford me the courtesy of responding at the time. The hon. Gentleman remembers correctly that when I was housing chairman of Lambeth in the mid-1960s I was greatly concerned about the housing and other problems of Lambeth. I did all that I could to attract to the area that I sought to represent the resources that the area needed.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that one of the initiatives taken not by myself but by my colleagues and me in concert at that time was to set up an exchange scheme in which many of the people who lived in poor housing conditions in Lambeth were enabled to move out of Lambeth into Cambridgeshire and other areas, but specifically into the new town of Peterborough—which was then beginning and is now a startling success. That new town, to which many of the people that I represented in Lambeth have moved, now falls partly within my constituency of Huntingdonshire and partly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
  I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of dishonesty—surely an unparliamentary allegation—that I thought he made. I have made the point repeatedly about the rate support grant allocation that from the inner London areas, and in this case specifically from Lambeth to Cambridgeshire, there has been a dramatic movement of population to the outskirts, the shire counties beyond London.
  Cambridgeshire, the county for which I pleaded at Question Time a few days ago, and on behalf of which I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook earlier today, has the fastest growing population of any county in Great Britain. My constituency of Huntingdonshire is the fastest-growing part of Cambridgeshire. The electoral register reveals that its population has more than doubled since the general election of 1966. People are arriving at an astonishing rate.
  The net loss to Cambridgeshire resulting from the allocation of rate support grant under the previous Government over the four years preceding the general election was more than £20 million in revenue terms. It is against that backcloth that I am appealing on behalf of Cambridgeshire, though not for special treatment, because I understand, remember and recognise the problems that exist in inner London, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  What I am saying is that Cambridgeshire, with the best will in the world, has endeavoured to help London. It has said that it is willing to help many of the people who live in inner London by bringing them into the environment of Cambridgeshire. That has happened, and the people of Cambridgeshire have accepted those people with an open heart and a ready will. However, if the people of Cambridgeshire are to provide what is necessary they should not be asked to accept the population and then be denied the wherewithal to deal with that population. If they were asked to do that, the time would come when they and the people of other areas, including new towns, such as Bracknell, would say "No more will we go out of our way to help solve the problems of inner London."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have consistently sought not preferential treatment for the county that I represent but a fair allocation of rate support grant—that and no more.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I unreservedly withdraw the abuse that I poured upon the hon. Gentleman's head. I thought that he said that London had more than was sufficient for it and that it should now be transferred to places such as Cambridgeshire. I now understand that he was saying that there should be a fairer balance of the needs of London and the needs of Cambridgeshire. Therefore, I withdraw any imputation that he was arguing for less for London and more for Cambridgeshire.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Major: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I point out to those hon. Gentlemen who are keen to speak that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman but that, doubtless to their great regret, I have not yet finished my speech. However, I promise not to detain them for long.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the rate support grant allocation is a matter of general concern throughout the country. In addition to what I have just said about growing rural populations, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that, while the problems of the inner cities are great, there is such a thing as rural deprivation, too. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) need not explode. He can explode on his feet later.
  There are many areas in my constituency where the sewerage system, for example, is utterly inadequate. The weight of capital debt passed on to the Anglia water authority has meant water rates far above the rates in inner city areas. That aspect of rural deprivation must not be overlooked when we consider the great problem of housing—I acknowledge that it is great—in the inner cities and many other areas.
  I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about housing. I think that I heard him accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of bluster, dubious statistics and phoney logic. I do not believe that I could have fashioned a phrase so adequately and clearly identifying the nature of the performance that we have come to expect from the right hon. Gentleman. His speeches are typified by a dubious use of logic and a smug assertion that everything done by my right hon. Friend is done for the worst of all possible reasons, to create the worst of all possible problems.
  It has been suggested that the introduction of shorthold in the Housing Act was a specific aid to the ending of council houses and that the cutting of the capital allocation was also geared to that end. If the cutting of the capital allocation for housing is intended to cut out council housing entirely, we are bound to ask the Opposition whether that was the Labour Government's motive when they halved the capital allocation for housing in the last two or three years before the last general election. If it was their motive, will they admit it? If it was not, how can they suggest that it is my right hon. Friend's motive?
  That is the sort of malicious and irrelevant remark that deliberately divides the House far more than necessary when we face great housing and economic problems. I hope that I shall not sound pompous when I say that, as one who looked at the House from outside until recently, I believe that that kind of extravagant remark devalues its prestige among those who elect us.
  We heard from the right hon. Gentleman all the pat socially conscious phrases that he can produce. If there is a problem, we can be certain that the right hon. Gentleman
  358
  knows about it and has an opinion on it and that, whatever that opinion is, it will be on the side of the angels of the day. I sometimes think that he would embrace any folly and absurdity if he saw a temporary advantage for himself in doing so, with no recognition of the underlying causes of the problems that we face in housing and many other aspects of our current society.
  I turn to some specific housing matters that the Opposition have touched on today, though they have done so perhaps less squarely and clearly than I would have wished. The right hon. Gentleman hoped that local authorities would reject the 6 per cent. cash limit within the rate support grant. What would be the effect of that? If bigger salaries are paid, either the services about which he was rightly concerned will be cut yet again or there will be a further and bigger haemorrhage of job losses from local authorities. The only alternative is bigger rate increases or a large and greatly expanding public sector borrowing requirement.
  We know from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman today and of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) yesterday that it is the Labour Party's policy in the present circumstances to increase the PSBR. I understand that. It is a credible position, although I do not believe it to be right. What is not credible by any logical assessment is the suggestion that it is possible to seek a 4 per cent. reduction in the minimum lending rate and to expand the PSBR immediately by £7 billion. How does the right hon. Gentleman think that with a 12 per cent. MLR he would fund an £18 billion PSBR? Would he raise the money by taxes? He could do that, but, if my arithmetic is accurate, it would be necessary to raise the standard rate of income tax to 42p in the pound.
  We cannot have that sort of absurdity portrayed as the policy of the official Opposition. If they hold themselves out as ready to step into the role of Government in the near future, they have to produce better solutions to the economic and housing problems, which inevitably are intensified at a time of economic difficulty. The comments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the 6 per cent. cash limit were utterly unrealistic in the situation facing us at present.
  I turn briefly to the Housing Act 1980. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the legislation, and I see a number of other hon. Members present who joined me in examining the Government's proposals, eventually seeing them emerge as the Housing Act.
  On balance, the tenants' charter was welcomed by the Committee and throughout the country, although a part of it is arguably the most controversial section of the whole Act, namely, the right to buy. I hope that I do not misrepresent the Opposition when I say that the two principal arguments against the right to buy were that only the best would be sold and that it would disproportionately damage the prospects of those not yet housed. I think that I reflect accurately what was argued in Committee.
  Mr. John Tilley Mr. John Tilley(Lambeth, Central)indicated assent.
  Mr. Straw Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
  Mr. Major: I notice that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) agrees with me but that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who clearly has enjoyed an early dinner and only just returned to the Chamber, does not.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) anticipated my dinner. I have just enjoyed one of the Tea Room's coconut buns, which is all that I have had since lunchtime.
  The hon. Gentleman refers to two of the arguments advanced by the Opposition against the so-called right to buy. He omits a third one, which is that the right to buy at this level of discount will waste an enormous amount of public investment and public funds in housing.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Member touched on that. I touched on what I thought were the two fundamental objections. However, if he wishes me to do so, I shall deal with the third one that he mentions.
  I understand that the difference between the parties on this issue may not be bridgeable, but I hope that we can reach more of an accommodation than has yet been apparent. The point about the best houses being sold can only be true if the housing allocation policies of the local authorities have been utterly wrong in the past. If the people in greatest need were placed in houses of which they had the greatest need, it is extremely likely that most of the people in the two-and three-bedroom houses with gardens which it is said are likely to be sold would be precisely the people—provided that the allocation policies were right—who would not be able to take up the option to buy in the first place.
  As for the bad houses not being sold, that is eminently disprovable simply by glancing at the GLC homesteading scheme and its record over the past two or three years.
  In my view, the most damaging criticism was that selling council houses would damage the prospects of the homeless. However, we know that the vacancy rate for local authority dwellings is about 5 per cent., although it is not directly measurable. That 5 per cent. gives rise to a very small reduction of the housing waiting lists about which so many hon. Members are so emotive on so many occasions. The counterpoint to keeping the 5 per cent. vacancy rate would have been to deny to 6 million people the opportunity that so many of them seek to become home owners, thereby removing themselves from local authority tenancies, would not least for the security and prospects for capital allocation that that would create for themselves and their families in the future.
  Taking the medium-term view for those who seek to be first-time owner-occupiers in five years from now, the sale of those council houses will add dramatically to the volume of low-priced accommodation available in the private market. The greatest gainers over the next five to 10 years from the sale of local authority dwellings may well be those who wish to become owner-occupiers but who at present perhaps are just leaving school and not yet in a position to buy homes for themselves. The supply of relatively low-priced properties in the private sector in five or six years will be infinitely higher than it would have been without this legislation.
  I want briefly to touch on two other specific aspects of housing. The first is the housing investment programme capital allocations. My view of that is clear cut and simple. I understand our economic problems, caused not least by the effects of the international recession that has been threatening us for three, four or perhaps five years. As a contribution to our economic retrenchment, the housing programme has played a significant role. I accept and I support the reductions in the capital allocation that have proved necessary thus far. However, if the Treasury comes
  360
  back looking for more, I can assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he will have a far greater measure of support from Government Back Benchers than he may realise if he tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no capacity for further capital cuts in the housing investment programme in the foreseeable future. Housing has borne its share of cuts and, in capital terms, a substantial share. There should be no more.
  I turn even more briefly to a statement made earlier by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the subject of the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act. He said "Shorthold dies unmourned", assuming that the Opposition persist with their intention to repeal it should they ever be given the chance to do so. However, it does not die unmourned by the people who might have been housed by it. Nor does it die unmourned by people who may be homeless in the near future and may have enjoyed and wished for a short-term let. It does not die unmourned by students who may move round and require short-term lets. It does not die unmourned by people who, had they been satisfactory tenants, would have expected their tenancies to be renewed time and time again by their landlords.
  Never has the Conservative Party claimed that shorthold provided the renovation of the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it would arrest the decline in the private sector. That has always been our position. It may and will arrest the decline in my constituency and, but for the pledge by the Opposition, it would yield up fresh lettings which otherwise would not have been there given the rental policies which applied before.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does not the hon. Member understand that the fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the House about this issue is the Opposition's belief that tenants should have proper security? What security can there be in a one-year tenancy, especially when the tenant will not know from year to year whether the tenancy will be renewed?
  Mr. Major: We debated this matter ad nauseam in Committee. However, there is even less security in being homeless than in having 12 months' security of tenure, with the possibility of its being renewed.
  There are many people who will be made homeless because the right hon. Member for Ardwick decided that the Opposition would repeal the shorthold provisions in the Housing Act if they were ever given the chance. They chose not to wait to see whether the scheme was a success. They made up their minds, with the result that the scheme was crucified before it had a chance to operate. In an interview reported in the Local Government Review, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook expressed clearly his opposition to shorthold before the Standing Committee had even met to discuss the matter.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Before Second Reading.
  Mr. Major: Before Second Reading, my hon. Friend says. What an open mind that portrays to those who are homeless and to those who might have benefited from this innovation in housing.
  If shorthold had been tried, if it had been allowed to operate for three or four years, and if then it had failed, I should have agreed with the Opposition's decision to

  361
  scrap the measure if they became the Government. But what did they do? They decided to bring the guillotine down on its neck before it had a chance to make a contribution to help homeless people. Hon. Members who have had experience, such as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, should know that shorthold could make a significant contribution to remedying the plight of many homeless people. It is a tragedy that the Opposition's closed mind has locked that out.
  The economic climate has driven the Secretary of State and the Government to difficult decisions about housing. We recognise the problem. However, many innovations have taken place. I have heard no mention from the Opposition of the near-doubling of maximum rent rebates introduced by the Government. Many aspects of Government policy are wholly welcome, beneficial and desirable and would have been enacted many years ago had the Opposition not been so blinded by their dogmatic refusal to face the realities of our housing problems.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John Tilley: I spent 136 hours on the Housing Bill Committee, and I am inured to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) when asking for a bipartisan policy. In the last few moments of his speech, he revealed that by that he means that the Conservative Party should adopt a housing policy and that the Labour Party should then accept it.
  I shall keep the House for only a few moments to talk about an aspect of housing on which there was considerable support from both sides of the House in Committee. I refer to housing co-operatives. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
  "The co-operatives have their own distinctive contribution to make in public housing. I shall take a close personal interest in the progress of co-operatives already in existence and of others which may be set up."—[Official Report,15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1454.]
  If the Secretary of State has taken that interest, he will know that the housing co-operative movement is suffering serious blows as a result of his Government's policies. All that we have had is lip service from Ministers. The reality spells disaster for the co-operatives.
  There has been a cut in cash available to the Housing Corporation. The corporation has had to impose cuts on all the housing associations, and upon co-operatives in particular. Partly as a result of that, it is in the process of disbanding its team of co-operative specialists. That means that housing co-operatives that want to enter that sphere will not have the detailed help that they had before. The corporation is pushing housing associations to concentrate on houses for sale rather than on providing decent rented accommodation. The other source Of funds for housing associations and co-operatives—the local authorities—is drying up as local authorities struggle to maintain their own building programmes under the reduced housing investment programme.
  A co-operative in my constituency is facing a typical experience. I refer to the Bonham and Strathleven Road co-operative. It was formed four years ago by about 60 people living in a small area of Brixton. The Metropolitan Housing Trust agreed to buy and improve houses for the co-operative so that some members could move in and people still waiting would have the chance of decent housing in the not-too-distant future. Eventually, as the
  362
  co-operative acquired skills and experience, the houses were to be handed over to the tenants, who would have full control.
  So far, homes have been provided for about 18 people. A further 12 were to have been housed under this year's development programme, but that programme has had to be scrapped. The co-operative has explained some of the consequences in a letter which states:
  "No. 67/67a Strathleven Road, SW2 was to have been converted into two flats for four members. We actually own this house but cannot convert it so it is likely to stand empty. 3 Lambert Road, SW2 was to have been a scheme for 8–10 single members, some of whom have been in the Co-op since the start and contributed a great deal to its progress. This house cannot be bought and is in such bad condition that it is unlikely anyone else will convert it, other than a private speculator."
  The letter continues:
  "I am sure you can imagine the bitter disappointment of those members who had expected to get improved houses in the near future when they realised the prospect of that is now as distant as ever. They were encouraged 3 years ago to form a co-op and have put a great deal of their time and energy into making that co-op work, only to be told that there are no funds to keep it alive. Many of our members are already living in substandard conditions in short-life properties and joined the Co-op to find an alternative to this. Many of our members are young single people who have no eligibility for housing in the rest of the public sector."
  That is only one example from several parts of the country of co-operatives being blighted by Government action. The co-operatives were trying to find a way between local authority housing and owner occupation. In spite of verbal Government support, those involved are suffering directly as a result of Government cuts.
  There is a strong chance that it will no longer be possible for par value, or fair rent, co-operatives to get off the ground even if they do receive funds. That is because of the strong evidence that the Housing Corporation is considering refusing to register such co-operatives. Equity-sharing co-operatives, under which people pay large cash deposits or rents that are way above the fair rent level, are being encouraged. I do not suggest that they should not continue, but if the par value co-operatives are not registered and cannot be formed, co-operative housing will be well beyond the reach of many low-income families. Many families can afford only a fair rent as fixed by the rent officer, with the possibility of a rent allowance where appropriate.
  In Southwark, the Greater London Secondary Housing Association is involved in a "new build" scheme If that were an equity sharing scheme, the weekly payments would be—38·50 for a one-bedroomed flat. If it were a par value co-operative, the fair rent would be about £13 a week. That shows that if only equity-sharing co-operatives are allowed, normal working people and retired people will have no chance of being involved in co-operatives. That will defeat the purpose of housing co-operatives.
  Par value co-operatives were begun in 1976 in response to special needs. Large numbers of empty properties existed in inner city areas, but there was still a critical housing shortage. People affected by the lack of housing fell outside existing structures. They were single, one-parent families or pensioners on low or fixed incomes who could not obtain mortgages, did not qualify for council housing and were unable to afford real private sector rents.
  The co-operatives have boomed since 1976. More than 100 have been formed, with more than 6,000 homes provided. If the Housing Corporation decides to refuse to

  363
  register fair rent co-operatives, public funds will no longer be available and further expansion will be killed stone dead.
  The only reason given for this attitude is that too much time and effort by Housing Corporation officials has to be spent checking up on the co-operatives. Officials have to do their work in the evenings or at weekends because the tenants themselves are involved in the co-operatives and paid officials are not available. I hope that the excuse of bureaucratic inconvenience will not be allowed to stop the work of the Housing Corporation. I hope also that the excuse does not hide a more fundamental, ideological opposition to such co-operatives. I hope that Ministers are not expressing to Housing Corporation officials their dislike of such co-operatives because they fall outside the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act, because it would be extremely unfortunate if they were doing so.
  The Government must accept that there are people who want to own their homes collectively, without making a profit. We want the Government to show that however much they favour individual owner-occupation—they rarely lose an opportunity to tell us that they are in favour of it—they also must appreciate that there are other ways of providing decent housing and that par value—fair rent—co-operatives are such a way. Unless the Government intervene now to make sure that the Housing Corporation does not refuse to register par value cooperatives, a new and important pioneering form of cooperatives will be killed stone dead, and the responsibility for that will rest fair and square with the Government. Either tonight or in the near future, the Government must make a public declaration of support for this sort of housing co-operative, to which Ministers paid lip service in Committee and on Second Reading. We want a real declaration of support, to ensure that these co-operatives do not die.
  6.32 pm
  Sir Albert Costain: During the years since 1959 that I have been a Member of Parliament we have had a number of debates on housing. I have attended every debate and have spoken in all but one. I chose not to speak then, in order to give new Members with many new ideas on housing an opportunity to express their views.
  When I spoke in 1959 I said that the only commodity in this country that was in short supply was houses to rent. I pointed out that that was the only commodity that was controlled. I prophesied than that unless the then Labour Opposition made a statement saying that they would not alter the Rent Acts we would continue to have a shortage. I went one stage further. I was then a director of several companies, many connected with building and property. I told Mr. Michael Stewart, who was then the Opposition spokesman on housing, that my group would build 5,000 houses every year to rent if the then Opposition would pledge that they would not introduce any further rent legislation. Following that discussion, three other leading property owners said that if my company built 5,000 houses a year for rent their companies would do likewise. That would have been 20,000 houses a year—20 years ago. We would by now have had 500,000 houses to rent, and we would not have needed a debate on housing today.
  364
  Our debates today are about ways of getting round the shortage, but we still keep control and we still have shortages.
  Immediately after the First World war, in the early 1920s and 1930s, my company used to build what were called "spec" flats in Liverpool, Bootle, London and other parts of the country. Dolphin Square is one of those buildings, and about 60 hon. Members live there. Having built those flats, we sold them to the trustees of pension funds—many of them trade unions which bought them as a good investment.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Housing Act 1980 there is a new concept in tenancy called an assured tenancy, which has not been made great play of by Conservative Members today who have concentrated instead on the shorthold provisions in the Act? That provision allows developers or speculative builders to build houses for private rental, without being subject to any Rent Act provision. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, now that those provisions apply, it would be viable for his company to build such houses and get people to live in them at economic rents?
  Sir Albert Costain: I am only a shareholder in a property company now, so I cannot comment on that, but, if the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) wishes to test that, would he care to ask some of his friends in the union pension funds whether they would be prepared to buy such flats if they could not get a guarantee that an incoming Labour Government would not alter the law? I was almost driven to tears this afternoon when I heard the Opposition fighting and saying that they would rescind the shorthold tenancy provision. The shorthold provision is vital if we are to get people to let their houses instead of selling them. Many people wish to let their houses and will do so if that provision remains in the Act. At present there are many houses for sale at prices that people cannot afford to buy, which the owners would let if they could be assured that an incoming Labour Government would not rescind the shorthold provision. They could be sold to property companies or pension funds.
  Why on earth do the Opposition try to make housing a political issue? It is because they basically hate the landlord. Do Labour Members realise that a number of landlords are trade union pension funds?
  When my company used to build flats for letting, the trustees of certain pension funds owned by trade unions said that they would prefer us to build offices. So we built offices, when houses were needed. Many hundreds of thousands of people are homeless today because we continue to bring politics into housing.[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but let their laughter be recorded in their constituencies.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how we keep politics out of housing?
  Sir Albert Costain: I know that it is there, but it should not be there. It used not to be there. It is there now because there seems to be some political mileage in it.
  I remember, as a young boy, travelling with my father in the first Ford car he ever bought to the first council housing scheme in Bootle, which had been built by the Bootle corporation to ease the housing shortage there. The price that I had to pay for riding in my father's Ford—which used to have to go backwards up a hill—was to

  365
  write a report about what I had seen and learnt on the site. If I made a good report, I got a ride in the car the next day, so I did my best to take it all in. I remember people saying that those houses were built by Lloyd George as homes for heroes.
  There were those who said "They will not live in them for long. They will say that they are alms houses. They will say that it is charity. How are we to fill them when there is no demand?"
  As I have said, the first council housing estate was built at Bootle. What has happened? Council houses have not become homes for heroes. The only "heroes" are those who do not need the houses and who get them on the cheap. There are many who will admit that they do not mind whether their house is provided by the council or by private enterprise. They merely want a house. There are some who prefer a private landlord because they can get to know him better than council officials. There are some who do not want council officials to know the details of their rent and their income.
  The general public want houses to rent. They are prepared to have a private landlord. However, Labour Members must build the image of the private landlord being a character from Charles Dickens who wants to rape the daughters of those who do not pay their rent. That is nonsense. The private landlord is often a private corporation.
  If the Opposition are prepared to say today that they will not rescind the shorthold tenancy provisions, there will be an enormous number of houses put on the market for sale.
  I have been writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the difficulties of having houses altered for invalids. There is a rather pathetic example in my constituency. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has exempted alterations of houses for the disabled from the requirements that otherwise would apply. It is a good move. It may be only chicken feed, but for those concerned it is great.
  How is the Secretary of State to deal with a local authority that overspends? Until very recently, any local authority that overspent could do a Harvey Smith to the Secretary of State and he would not be able to do very much about it. As in all the biblical stories and all the stories that we heard at school, the whole world must suffer because of a few naughty people. That is why local authorities suffer.
  Housing should come under capital account, but the public financing of housing comes under revenue account. The cost of building council houses comes under revenue account when in civilised private enterprise accounting it would come under capital account. It would be written off over a number of years.
  Labour Members talk about the sale of council houses in terms of taking away public assets. As I understand it, no council house can be sold for less than the value that is entered in the council's books. No council can make a physical cash loss on selling a council house. However, a council is permitted to sell a house at a price that is up to 50 per cent. of its market value with vacant possession. The house that the council sells does not have vacant possession. If the council were ruthless and obtained vacant possession, it might get its price. However, it is allowing the house to be sold with occupation. There is a 50 per cent. discount. The council is not losing money.
  366
  Indeed, it will be enjoying a gain. I note that some Labour Members are laughing. If they want a course in property dealing, let them come to see me some time.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman put into the equation the cost of replacing the asset at current values?
  Sir Albert Costain: The cost of replacing the asset at current values will be greater than the sale price. The sale price includes the occupation factor. It will cost more to build a new house, but there will be two houses. The house that has been sold has not, as it were, been blown sky high. The person who bought the house will be living in it.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: That is nonsense.
  Sir Albert Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a person will buy a house and not live in it? The more that we probe these issues, the more we come to realise that housing is in a mess. It is no wonder that it is in that mess. We must get back to reality. The reality is that if one house is sold and one house is built, there are two houses. There is another house to let.
  One of the problems that has resulted in unemployment is lack of mobility. If a person owns his house, it is much easier for him to move to another area. He is able to sell his house and buy another one in the area where he wishes to live. It is not so easy for a tenant to move. If he has a council property, he will have to put a notice in a newspaper that states "I want to move from Folkestone to X. Is there someone living in a council house in the area where I want to live who wishes to retire to Folkestone?" It is much easier to sell a house. That results in more mobility of labour.
  The Government have now produced a granny bond. They have come to the conclusion that it is a good thing that the public are as anxious to enjoy a capital appreciation as they are to receive income. The object of the granny bond is to hedge bondholders against inflation. Why do we not produce a housing bond on exactly the same lines as the granny bond? There are many who invest in building societies, but that investment is no hedge against inflation. There is merely a high rate of interest.
  If half of an investment were placed in ordinary building societies and the other half in a housing bond, the result would be rather similar to what happened in America during a period of recovery. That type of financing would remove housing from the country's capital account.
  I thought that some Labour Members would say "That is what housing associations are all about." They have not, and that indicates the extent of their knowledge. In fact, they are about that, but only in part. I suggest that a housing bond on the lines that I have suggested would enable us to start building again regardless of the financing problems of local authorities. There is an idea for the Minister. It is equally an idea for the Opposition. I should be delighted if Labour Members had the guts to say "We shall not reverse the law on shortholds." Anyone who tries to reverse the shorthold provisions is stopping the supply of housing and should be ashamed of himself.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. David Alton: It was interesting to listen to the recollections of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). He made an interesting observation about homes for heroes. That was one of the promises made after the First World

  367
  War. One of my constituents put it very well to me recently. She lives in a home without an inside toilet or bathroom, and she said "In these days you have to be a hero to live in these conditions." There are over 1 million people in Britain who are still living in homes without inside sanitation and for them the set-piece battles that take place so regularly when policies are swung drunkenly to and forth have no real value.
  In a perceptive speech, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) talked of the dangers as our housing funds are slashed. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). I entirely agree. We have now passed the first piece of major housing legislation. It is disappointing that the Queen's Speech makes no mention of future housing legislation. The old battle cries are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the problems. The housing authorities of the future will have a complex mixture of roles, for which the old slogans will be a poor guide. The steam has gone out of the housing argument. The biggest slum clearance programme anywhere in the world, having been completed, and the biggest housing improvement programme of any country in Europe having been mounted, a variety of unorganised and less popular minorities are now left in housing need. Their requirements are often forgotten.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) mentioned the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) sponsored that Bill. It was not promoted primarily by the Labour Party, as the hon. Member suggested. He said that he hoped that the Act would be repealed. That would be appalling and would cause immense problems for the homeless. However, we all know that there are no votes in homelessness.
  Mr. Heddle: I said that I looked forward not to the legislation being repealed but to my right hon. Friend's review of the Act. Since its enactment in 1977, it seems not to have done that which it set out to do. It has increased the incidence of homelessness from 36,000 to 56,000 families.
  Mr. Alton: That remark shows the naivete of the hon. Gentleman. The Act has not increased homelessness. The policies of this Government, and those of the previous one, have increased the number who have become homeless and need to be helped by local authorities, upon which a statutory requirement is laid under the Act. That is why the Act is so important. Those people were not previously a figment of the imagination. The hon. Gentleman, by his remarks, has turned homeless people into scapegoats, which is most unfortunate.
  Mr. Keith Best: I might be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that in 1978–79 about 40,000 lettings were made to homeless people, which was only 13 per cent. of the total number of lettings? Sometimes, the furore over the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act is unjustified.
  Mr. Alton: The point that I am making is that to talk about repealing part of the Act or to try to diminish the need for that legislation does the homeless no service. The recommendations of CHAR and the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on the way in which
  368
  we deal with homelessness prove that we need additional legislation. We should not try to diminish the provisions of the existing Act
  Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is not the only hon. Member who represents Liverpool, as the two previous interventions appear to suggest. Many of us represent Liverpool constituencies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act should be extended to cover single people? Does he agree also that the intentional homeless clause should be looked at, because it is being used by reactionary councils to get round their responsibilities?
  Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Member—whose constituency falls outside the boundaries of Liverpool—that the intentionally homeless clause. is being used wrongly by some local authorities. Again, there are no votes in the single homeless. It is not a popular issue in the electoral battleground. We seem to spend too much time on the old arguments about whether houses should be sold and not enough time dealing with fundamental issues.
  Since the Secretary of State took office, rents have gone up by 23 to 28 per cent. His announcement today means that they will have gone up 50 per cent. in two years. However, practical measures can be taken to reduce local authority rents. It is a problem that all local authorities, the Government and the Opposition have to face. There would have been some increase whichever party was in power. The Opposition's objection is to the way in which the Secretary of State made his announcement, in a written reply, at the eleventh hour and tried almost by subterfuge to prevent hon. Members from knowing about the increase and taking action. He could not be challenged during the several days of recess before the new Session began.
  The scale of the rent increase perturbs us all.
  Mr. Kaufman: Is there not a further point? This is not a rent increase that is being decided by local authorities to deal with the needs of their housing revenue accounts but one that is being imposed by the Government by the use of a section in an Act which, when the Bill was being discussed in Committee, the Government denied was designed for that purpose.
  Mr. Alton: That adds to the subterfuge. It is a further erosion of the right of local authorities. They should determine the levels of rents and rates. The erosion of local authority power is evidenced not only in the Housing Act but in local government and planning legislation. Local councillors are elected on mandates to deal with rents and rates. Their rights to take such decisions are being eroded.
  One of the most perturbing aspects about the state of housing revenue accounts is the high levels of rent arrears. Between 1978 and 1979, rent arrears were £61 million. We should tackle that problem. Many council tenants pay their rent regularly and, whatever the increases, will continue to do so. I feel that it is unsatisfactory that they should subsidise those who cannot be bothered to pay their rents. I am not talking about those who cannot afford to pay. There are rebates and allowances to help such people, and it is also possible to have rent paid direct.
  But there is insufficient co-operation between the Department of Health and Social Security and local authority housing departments. Perhaps the Minister could try to bring them together. Often one of the biggest debtors

  369
  to a local authority is the DHSS, which does not always pay the backlog of arrears. We should try to reduce the high level of arrears for local authorities.
  We should also try to reduce the large number of empty properties owned by local authorities. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe and others referred to the private sector, but properties are empty in the public sector and are bringing in no revenue. We must try to increase the speed of lettings and ensure that vandalism does not occur between lettings. That would be a more constructive approach in getting value for money than arbitrarily putting up rents by extortionate amounts.
  It is also a more constructive approach than suddenly imposing a moratorium, again before Parliament reassembles. No one can convince me that the Government could not have waited five or six days so that the announcement could be made in the Chamber. It was most unfortunate that the Secretary of State made the decision before Parliament reconvened. We have heard nothing about when the decision will be rescinded or the moratorium lifted. It has halted house improvement programmes and stopped the construction of new homes. More construction workers will be on the dole as a result. It makes no economic or social sense to pay £6 billion or £7 billion a year to keep construction workers and other unemployed people on the dole when there is work to be done and their talents and skills could be used.
  I come now to the improvements programme. Some years ago, the bulldozers were pensioned off and it was decided to renovate and modernise homes. Millions of pounds have been invested in housing action and general improvement areas. But, as a result of the moratorium, there will probably be a patchwork quilt of decay and renovation in our inner-city areas. It will mean that many homes will not now be improved. It will also mean that those that have been improved will linger and languish alongside houses that are derelict, ugly horrible eyesores, a breeding-ground for vermin and totally unfit for people to live in. That is why the moratorium was unwise. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of when it will be lifted.
  There is also the question of the right to buy—an idea that was much vaunted during the first 12 months of the Government's period of office. We were given no indication today by the Secretary of State of what level of sales had been achieved. I am sure that those figures will be interesting when they are brought to the House in the near future. From my experience in my own constituency, where more than 30 per cent. of the people are out of work—many of them council tenants—I know that the sad truth is that they simply cannot afford to buy their own homes. Many of them will not be able to take up the opportunities afforded to them by the legislation that the House has enacted. Rather than bandy slogans about the right to buy, it would be more realistic and helpful if the Government would let us know how this scheme is working. If they did so, the House could perhaps reconsider its attitude.
  I turn now to shorthold. I am not against the idea of empty properties in the private sector being used for a short period by people in housing need—far from it. It is a good idea and it is one that I supported when it was recommended by Conservative Members in a Private Member's Bill. However, the provisions that the Government brought forward were very different from the provisions in that original Private Member's Bill. Many
  370
  Opposition Members felt that they could not support the shorthold arrangements because many of the safeguards were removed and it could become a charter for Rachmanism. Many of us would like to see the introduction of shorthold experimental areas on a limited basis, to see how the proposal works. If we were convinced that it could go ahead without causing all the problems about which we have fears, I am sure that the Government would receive support from Opposition Members.
  I turn to the mortgage rate. It is ironic that before the 1974 general election it was the Prime Minister herself who talked about fixing the mortgage rate at 10 per cent. She said that it would not go higher than 10 per cent. if a Conservative Government were elected.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Lady actually promised 9½ per cent. by Christmas.
  Mr. Alton: Perhaps an allowance for ½ per cent. can be made, but the present mortgage rate is 15 per cent. That is why many people cannot afford to buy their own homes. It is a reason why many people have been forced to sell and have become a burden on the local authorities. Perhaps it is one of the reasons why the number of homeless people is increasing. People are being forced to give up their owner-occupied property. I have met such people at my housing advice surgeries, and I can supply factual evidence of that.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more than 4,000 houses and flats in the ownership of Liverpool city council are at present unoccupied? Does he consider that they should be occupied first?
  Mr. Alton: Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to be present for the earlier part of the debate, and had he been here at the beginning of my speech, he would have heard me refer to the scandal of empty properties in the public sector. I agree that something should be done about that problem. Indeed, the number of empty properties in Liverpool has doubled since I was chairman of the housing committee. I do not think that that is the fault of the local authority, be it Labour or Liberal-controlled—it has rotated between the two for the last 10 years. It has far more to do with the reduction in funds that are made available to the local authority. As a result of the Government's policies, Liverpool is at present overspent by £2·5 million due to the reduction in funds to the housing investment programme. The number of vacant dwellings are increasing at the rate of 30 a month. Rents are to go up by £2·85 this year, plus the increase that will have to be added as a result of the Secretary of State's announcement.
  The how Gentleman's party has nothing to write home about. He would do far better to question his own Ministers about the reduction in funds which enable local authorities to turn over vacant properties at a faster rate. One must also accept that the community itself should do more to try to detect those who are committing crimes of vandalism, and it should ensure that the police are made aware of who are the culprits.
  I want to refer to the question of housing co-operatives. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) referred to the lack of help that housing co-operatives receive. II is a great shame that there are no

  371
  recommendations in the Gracious Speech to enable tenants on council estates to take over the management and control of their properties. If such management co-operatives did exist, I am sure that many of the problems referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) would be removed, because tenants would have a greater responsibility and involvement in the running of their own affairs. That will not be achieved by the sale of a house here or there. We must go far deeper into the problem, and that means initially the establishment of management cooperatives.
  I turn next to the question of sheltered accommodation. In Liverpool at present, one-third of the people are over the retirement age. There is a massive shortage of sheltered accommodation. That inevitably means that many houses are under-occupied—houses that could be used for people and families in need who are now on the waiting list. While there is a shortage of sheltered accommodation, it is impossible to rehouse those elderly people. It means that people are remaining in under-occupied property, and that is something to which the Government should turn their attention.
  Then there are the problems of the North-West in general. The cuts in housing association budgets will exaggerate the region's growing housing crisis. Local authority building has been cut back to the core. Private building for sale and rent is in serious decline. The Select Committee on the Environment has looked at the output from the private housing sector over the next few years and has concluded that
  "The private housing sector will at most make only a small contribution to offset the reduction in public sector investment."
  Furthermore, in 1979 more than 25 per cent.—600,000 out of 2·4 million, the highest proportion of any English region—of all the homes in the North-West were unfit for human habitation, lacked basic amenities or needed major renovation. A total of one-third of the region's housing stock was built before 1914. The Department of the Environment's quality of life indicators show that the North-West is below the national average in respect of 21 out of the 26 factors selected. Unlike some parts of the country, there is an absolute shortage of homes in the North-West.
  Local authorities have estimated that there is a need for 223,000 additional dwellings by 1984. Homelessness is on the increase. Waiting lists are swelling. More than 150,000 families are on local authority waiting lists in the North-West alone, and more than 400 families are in bedand-breakfast or hostel accommodation. The elderly, single parents, those who are already in substandard housing and the poorest in our community will be the hardest hit as a result of these housing cuts.
  One of the groups that has done most to try to tackle the problems of bad housing is the voluntary housing movement—the housing associations. Housing associations have produced 235,000 homes through new building and property rehabilitation. In the 10 years 1970 to 1979, 135,675 new homes were created as a result of new building and 99,857 as a result of property rehabilitation. In the last four years of that period, completions averaged 36,000 each year, including an average of just over 1,000 in Wales. This year, however, North-West approvals are down from 8,429 to 3,450, and the total stock of the voluntary housing movement was approximately 410,000
  372
  homes at the beginning of 1980. It will be interesting to see what the effects of the cuts will be on the voluntary housing movement.
  In the years 1977–78, 1978–79 and 1979–80, loan approvals to housing associations in England through the Housing Corporation provided for an average of about 33,500 homes each year. There were 34,579, 32,455 and 34,494 in those three years successively. About half were in schemes of new build and half in schemes of rehabilitation. In 1980–81 the housing association movement had to shoulder a heavy share of the public spending cuts. The level of Housing Corporation loan approvals for the year was cut by 35 per cent. this year, to 21,700 homes in England. However, because it became clear that the cost of the new programme, when added to the cost of schemes coming through the pipeline, would exceed the cash targets set by the Government, the moratorium announced by the Minister on 12 September was suddenly called. For a month no schemes proceeded. Now, a much-reduced programme has been resumed, with loan approvals down to 14,900, and building work on a large number of sites and properties has been postponed until next year or, in some cases, indefinitely.
  That is not the whole story, because housing associations have also borrowed money for their work from local authorities. Loan approvals for about 8,000 homes were given by local authorities to housing associations in 1979–80. Because of the need to cut their spending, many local authorities have stopped lending for further schemes and are cutting money for schemes already approved. The effect of that loan approval in 1980–81 will probably come down below 3,500 homes for the year. The picture for 1980–81 is of a probable level of loan approvals for about 18,000 homes, compared with 42,500 last year. That represents a cut in the programme of nearly 60 per cent.
  Mr. Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the figures that he has given for loan approvals are highly misleading and in no way represent the level of activities of housing associations? As I am sure he knows, there is a substantial pipeline of housing association activity, and the Department estimates that at the beginning of this financial year about £700 million of housing association activity was in the pipeline. That represents about 50,000 units of accommodation.
  Mr. Alton: The figures that I have given were provided for me by the National Federation of Housing Associations. Frankly, I believe its figures. After all, its members are people working at the coalface. They are having to administer the Government's policies and shoulder the burden of the cuts. The difference between funding in 1981–82 at £420 million and, say, £400 million makes a huge difference to the work of associations. Falling below 20,000 homes because of corporation funding means depriving people in extremely harsh circumstances of a decent home. It also reduces the level of activity of the movement at large to a point from which it may prove impossible to recover in the years ahead.
  I wish to relate that to the cuts that have been made in the public sector. The Government's White Paper on public expenditure set out proposals for cutting public expenditure. The aim is to reduce it from £69,500 million in 1980–81 to £60,100 million in 1983–84. That is at constant 1979 prices. In reality, it will actually be an

  373
  overall cut of £2,400 million. The cuts in public sector housing over those three years amount to £1,910 million, and 80 per cent. of the cuts come from the housing section of Britain's economy. The cash to housing has been cut by 40 per cent.
  The Secretary of State has not made clear how the global figure will be achieved by local government or how it will affect different sorts of housing activity. That is part of the new freedom that he gave to local authorities—the freedom to determine how to make their cuts. Local authorities are having to face cuts, Housing Corporation Loans to associations are being reduced and local authority loans to associations, expenditure on council housing, home loans, improvement grants and so on are all being cut. In overall terms, housing is taking the brunt of public expenditure cuts, which means that local authority and housing association activities are being reduced in real terms and placed in competition with each other in achieving cuts.
  The Secretary of State suggested that a substitute for the funds could be found in three separate areas, all of which will badly hit housing associations. First, he suggested that more money could be found by raising rents. If rents are raised at a higher rate than costs increase, the net gain can make a significant difference to the housing revenue accounts of local authorities. However, the housing association rents are currently 30 per cent. higher than those for comparable council houses. In any case, they are set by rent officers and are not under the control of the housing associations. Raising the rents is no use to them. It does not compensate for the funds that they will lose.
  Secondly, the housing associations have been told that they can find more funds by selling properties to existing tenants. Although there may be opportunities for local authorities to do so, few housing association tenants have the statutory right to buy or the associated favourable mortgage and other arrangements. Most association homes are owned by charities and meet specialist needs where sales would not be appropriate. Because half of the stocks of the voluntary movement have been completed in the past eight years, there are few surpluses, after deducting discounts, from any property.
  Thirdly, the Secretary of State suggested that the loss of funds could be compensated by reducing the number of employees and by ensuring wage restraint. Again, that has a minimal effect on the financial problems of housing associations. Only just over 1 per cent. of the total expenditure of the voluntary housing movement's programme goes in salaries to association staff, because it does not have direct labour departments. Only in a minority of cases does it employ in-house professionals. Where it has its own architects or surveyors, it normally contributes a surplus that offsets other costs.
  It is important to remember that local authorities are passing on much of the burden of public expenditure cuts direct to the housing associations and the voluntary housing movements. They are in an extremely exposed position, and a threat to their very existence hangs over their work. Even though it may be fully acknowledged that they are doing an important job, without public funds they will wind down, to the detriment of those who desperately need their help. That is why I said to the Secretary of State during one Question Time that by his policies he is turning what was known as the third arm of housing into the dead arm of housing.
  374
  I recall the words of the Secretary of State when he spoke to the CBI a couple of weeks ago. He said that sacrifice "was not an option" and that "someone would have to make sacrifices". He then compared himself with Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo. It is precisely that sort of pretentious nonsense that is at the core of our problems. While he is fighting imaginary battles, people are living in homes that are turning into rotting slums. They are living in conditions that defy description. Local authorities and housing associations are grinding to a halt because of the Government's policies. Instead of fighting imaginary battles, the Secretary of State should come and see the real battles that are being fought, not only in our inner city communities but in our rural areas, where there is rural deprivation and when houses there are also in a great state of decline. To ignore those problems is to fly in the face of disaster.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Keith Best: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not fight any battles tonight, because the spectre on housing is a damned close run thing anyway. I hope that I can find some degree of consensus, notwithstanding that housing is always a tendentious matter. I shall seek to be brief, not least because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) wishes to speak. We have an important engagement tonight. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know what that is. It would be wrong for us to miss it.
  We are all agreed that it would be beneficial to spend more money on housing. We can all find ways in which to do that. We all have our own pet schemes, arid some of them have been articulated tonight. That is why it is important to ascertain whether the money that we now spend on housing is spent wisely. Perhaps there are no Members in the House tonight who feel that more poignantly than those who represent Wales and who know of the poor housing stock and the need to do something drastic for Wales on the housing front.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned the number of houses throughout the United Kingdom which do not have inside toilets and bathrooms. There is a million of them. In 1978 there was a million more which needed in excess of £1,000 to be spent on them to bring them up to a suitable state of repair.
  I should like to pose one very simple question to the House tonight: can we continue to spend money as we do in the public sector when it is obviously not the most beneficial way of using the resources available?
  I remember reading a newspaper in which there was a headline referring to the staggering cost of a council house. The report stated that
  "Every three-bedroomed council home now being built in London will cost a staggering £216,000. Even in low cost South Wales the eventual cost will be nearly £80,000."
  It went on to explain the source of those figures as being the interest charges on the loans required to finance council house building, which dwarf the subsidies paid and, indeed, the construction costs and the costs of buying the land in a particular year. That is surprising in itself. What is even more horrifying perhaps is that the report was from a newspaper dated 15 November 1975. The position today is even graver than that.
  The other matter that one has to throw into the equation is the amount that is found from the people occupying

  375
  council houses as a contribution towards the cost. I know that in the Financial Times yesterday it was stated that that figure was no more than 40 per cent. of the annual cost. I choose figures which are even unfavourable to my argument, but I choose them because they come from Wales and because they were given to me in a written answer on 14 June last year. The answer showed that the council house costs in Wales that were covered by gross council rents went from 78 per cent. in 1972–73 to 58 per cent. in 1978–79. That means that the taxpayer and the ratepayer are having to fund a tremendous amount—in excess of £1,600 a year now—on every new council house that is being built.
  I am not one of those who see no role whatever for council housing, because one acknowledges that there will always be some people who need to be rehoused by the public sector. What concerns me is whether the people in the greatest need are the ones presently occupying council housing.
  We know that about a quarter of council house tenants are in receipt of supplementary benefit. It is perfectly right that they should receive a considerable subsidy from the public purse to fund their housing. We also know that 1 million people in public sector housing are in receipt of rent rebates and that two-thirds of any new increase will be refunded in increased rent rebates. Those people also are in need of assistance from the public sector. But that leaves a considerable number of people who could perhaps fund themselves in the private sector, without relying upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer to assist them in the public sector. This is what concerns me, because we all know the way in which money could be spent on housing.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows my concern about the single homeless and the need to provide more in that direction. I know also of the need to provide more improvement grants. My only criticism of the block grant principle that will come into force is that it perhaps leaves too much latitude to local authorities in deciding whether to spend any money at all on improvement grants.
  The August edition of the journal of the Environmental Health Officers Association shows that they carried out their own survey and informed my right hon. Friend that of some 300 local authorities 43 per cent. had already cut out improvement grants or had severely rationed grants for house improvement work. That surely is not the way in which we should be looking at our housing. Much more needs to be channelled into the improvement of the existing stock.
  I welcome the initiatives which have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), will refer to these initiatives in the new housing grant system which was announced in the Welsh Office paper entitled "The Proposed Framework of the Home Renovation Grant System for Wales", published in April of this year.
  If we are to adopt a sensible course for public sector housing in this country, I firmly believe that we must grasp the nettle at some stage and decide that the people in the greatest financial need should receive the subsidies from the taxpayer and the ratepayer, that those in the greatest housing need can often be better assisted through the medium of improvement grants and that those who are in
  376
  need of specific forms of accommodation, such as the single homeless, can be better provided for through hostel accommodation.
  Those matters all require public expenditure. That public expenditure is available. The fact remains that in many cases, unfortunately, the wrong people are getting it. Until we grasp that nettle, we shall continue to have a disastrous system of housing in this country.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. R. B. Cant: I rise, alas, without the expertise of many of my colleagues in this subject. I speak as one entering his twenty-eighth year in local government, and I want to try to communicate to the Secretary of State—although I gather that he is a rather insensitive type — some of the grave misgivings of people in local government, whether they are Labour or Tory, about what exactly the Government are doing.
  It is one of the ironies of history that a Government of one complexion always seem to manage to crucify the people who represent them on local authorities. Having come here in the middle 1960s, I know that that has been the cycle of events. Obviously, it is happening again, in the sense that the Tories of the shire counties are likely to be routed next May.
  One of the problems with the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State—or, if not the Secretary of State, at any rate the officials who advise him—is that they believe, quite simply, that every major problem facing the Government can be solved by reference to some rather simple formula, whether it is M3 or anything else.
  The Secretary of State recited a few statistics about housing, such as that the amount paid in rent, as a percentage of personal income, has been falling over the past five or six years from 8 per cent. to 6·4 per cent. Being of a statistical frame of mind, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked the Secretary of State whether he would update those figures and bring them somewhat nearer to what was likely to be the position in May 1981. It may well be that the percentage will be somewhere nearer 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. It is true that in 1962 the percentage of income attributable to rent in the housing revenue account was 70 per cent., whereas last year it was 40 per cent. Of 5 million council house tenants, 2·3 million have their rents paid either in whole or in part. Of the £1·2 billion of housing subsidies, more and more is spent on rent support rather than on construction. The claims about the numbers of council tenants earning £7,000 or £8,000 are more suspect.
  Many of those involved in local government are worried not only by the Secretary of State's total lack of style and the way in which he thinks he can introduce measures such as the consultative documents but by the way in which 6 per cent. wage increases are introduced through the back door one week, to be followed by rent increases of £3 a week in the next. It is an affront to the people, and particularly to those who suffer severely from the Government's policies, to suggest that they can find some consolation in the Secretary of State's rather simple calculations.
  By May 1981, rents will have increased by 50 per cent. One great characteristic of the Government is that they always fight inflation by increasing prices. It does not matter what those prices are. It does not matter to them whether they increase rents or the price of energy. The

  377
  Government think that they can defeat inflation—the great spectre in our midst—by increasing any price over which they have influence. In such an atmosphere, those in control of councils and housing committees would find the Government's policy more acceptable if they had an assurance that this great shift in the use of subsidies would involve the building and improvement of council houses. We would accept that.
  I share the grave concern expressed about the decline in the condition of our council housing stock. Perhaps some rent increases are inevitable in the case of those who can afford them. The Secretary of State makes his announcements in a characteristic manner. He announced the moratorium at the drop of a hat. Of course, he gave us some sort of statistical assurance that everything in the garden would be beautiful and that his actions were justified.
  That authoritative journal of public opinion, the Financial Times, states:
  "Education Department officials are admitting privately that later calculations have shown this to have been ill judged and unnecessary."
  If that had appeared in the Morning Star, I might have suspected its veracity. However, as it appeared in the Financial Times one must accept that t'tere is something to it. There is a tendency for many authorities to underspene.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to private housing and home ownership. Those who have mortgages and those who hope to obtain them had great hopes. My right hon. Friend explained that because the Government had launched their wonderful granny bond plus savings scheme between £1·5 billion and £2 billion would be taken from the funds of building societies. The details have not yet been announced, but presumably grandfathers start at the age of 55.
  There is another factor that will keep mortgage rates at their high level and to which my right hon. Friend did not refer. I refer to a change in the probable composite rate. Those who own the £50 billion of building society deposits are increasing—like some hon. Members—reaching the age of 60 or more. Next year, when the triennial review of building society composite rates is undertaken, the composite mortgage rate will increase from 22·5 per cent. to 25 per cent. That will hold up the mortgage rate by 1 per cent.
  I wish to refer to the broader problems of local government and the rate support grant. Those of us who were members of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill Committee and those who spoke on Report were led a merry dance about the change in the rate support grant. The new Act will introduce all sorts of uncertainty. I received a letter from the treasurer of a county council on which I have had the honour to serve. I do not say that he is a good Tory; I do not think that he has any politics. However, it is a Tory county council. Its members are in fear and trembling about what will happen next May, but they remain a solid phalanx of 80 Tory councillors. They took over from the Labour Party at the last election and have left us with a mere godly remnant of 15 "Labourites". The treasurer speaks on behalf of a shire county that has a population of 1 million and a budget of about £360 million per annum. One should read the list of uncertainties that face such councils not in relation to
  378
  the Budget for 1984–85 but in relation to next year's Budget. They face all the problems of capital expenditure control.
  When the Secretary of State introduced the new system, he said that in the interests of greater efficiency and democracy he would decide how much money local authorities would get. He said that he would allow them to have a measure of switching, so that they could decide how to spend the money under the various heads. Obviously, we face a totally unsatisfactory and unreal situation.
  Great concern has arisen over other services. For example, it now costs about £750,000 to buy the hole in which refuse is placed. When that is considered in relation to what the Secretary of State will allow for the total "other services" block, the mind boggles. There will still be a 100 per cent. grant for land reclamation, but that grant will have to come out of the "other services" block. That means that land reclamation—one of the post-war glories of Stoke-on-Trent—will come to an end in Staffordshire.
  There is the problem of the building of nursery units on industrial estates. Despite all the work that the present Government say they want to do for private enterprise, they will make that increasingly difficult because they will not accept a simple arrangement under the head lease agreements, to say nothing of gipsy caravans, and so on.
  That is merely under the heading of capital expenditure. Under the block grant itself, what the Secretary of State has done in lopping off £200 million already and what he proposes to do in taking another £165 million from local authorities will make the position extremely difficult. The uncertainties have also been introduced because of changes in the way in which the grant is lo be settled. Every authority is faced with the problem of what it will get, what will be the effect of the multipliers and what sort of options the Government will adopt in the long run.
  In Committee, it was argued that the great virtue of this block grant capital expenditure control system was its simplicity and that all the difficulties associated with the rate support grant would be thrown out of the window. Yet every expert who has written or spoken about this problen has stated without equivocation that the new system is far more complicated and uncertain in its incidence.
  The problems that face local authorities are almost insuperable, not only in terms of the handling of these complex technical formulas but in terms of making the cuts that are necessary in order to keep within the cash limits. It was stated that we should know by 21 November what the block grant for authorities would be. That date was moved to 4 December. Now, it is hoped that authorities will be told some time before Christmas. I suppose that the problems and traumas of local government are chicken feed compared with what is happening in industry.
  The Government's decision deliberately to deindustrialise the nation is causing problems of unemployment on a scale that we could not possibly contemplate a few months ago. In that context, perhaps problems of local government seem to be minimal. However, for those who work in local government, for those who have the responsibility—such as officials and councillors in local government—and for those who find, day by day, that the services for which local government is responsible are being continuously eroded, one must. as a representative in this House of a local authority, say that the future is bleak indeed.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has already mentioned that he and I have an engagement of long standing and of great importance this evening. Therefore, I must apologise to the speakers who will be winding up the debate for the fact that I shall not be present to listen to them. I should also like to apologise for the discourtesy that I must show by leaving the Chamber very shortly after I sit down.
  I commence by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the help that he gave to co-owners to enable them to purchase their properties, because these people had paid out substantial sums of money in paying off the mortgage on the property during the term of their tenancy, and it is only proper that they should be given that right.
  The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said that there were special classes of tenant in housing associations who were in special categories. I hope that there will be provision for these housing associations not to give automatic rights of purchase to their members. I am thinking particularly of the associations that were set up primarily to help people with a first start on the housing ladder, where, more often than not, the money was raised privately and no call has been made on public funds. Such people were given an opportunity to occupy accommodation, for the first two or three years after they had started their married life, in very reasonably priced accommodation. It would be very unfortunate if that accommodation, which was let to them for a specific short period, were then to be removed from the housing market because it was sold to those who happened to be in occupation at the time, quite contrary to the agreement into which they entered when they first took the tenancy.
  I had the pleasure of serving on a housing association in which it was intended right from the beginning to give people a start and to give them an opportunity to save sufficient money to put down the deposit to purchase a house giving them three years of tenancy, at the end of which time their tenancy was reviewed and unless they could show very good reason why they had not managed to save enough money in the nyantime they were asked to make alternative arrangements. In this way, with very few exceptions, the system worked extremely satisfactorily. I should deplore the possibility that such an opportunity should be lost unless some alternative arrangements were to be provided.
  I welcome the intention of giving back to ratepayers from council rents a little of their investment. The investments made over the years by ratepayers, as well as taxpayers, have been very substantial. It is important that ratepayers should now begin to see the benefit of some of the historic costs that have been invested on housing in their local areas.
  I like to think that all hon. Members are in favour of taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, at whatever stage in life that may be. However, it seems wrong to me that the Department of the Environment rather than the Department of Health and Social Security should be making a contribution in this regard. I have always considered the Department of Health and Social Security to be the proper Department for dealing with claims on the public purse of this nature.
  Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary considered the desirability of encouraging a much greater investment by
  380
  pension funds and insurance companies, and trade unions for that matter, in the private residential sector? They have vast resources, and week by week their funds increase. At present they invest substantial sums of money on the stock market. They also invest substantially in commercial and industrial property. The time is well past when they should be making considerable investments in the housing market. I am certain that many builders would welcome the opportunity to accept work in building accommodation of this sort for institutions such as these.
  Perhaps the reason why such institutions do not do this is that the present fair rent system does not allow them sufficient return to make it viable and distracts them from investing their members' funds in this way. This is a grave mistake. If people who occupy houses and flats are unable to meet the rents, they ought to be helped by the Department of Health and Social Security. I see no reason why institutions of that nature should not make a major contribution of this sort. As regards new properties and new lettings, I consider it to be a failure of the fair rent system if it is not possible for these organisations to make such investments profitably. I address my remarks principally in respect of new buildings and lets, but to some extent they are true of properties which are already let. Many opportunities have been lost in the past because of major problems which discourage investment in housing. I hope that my hon. Friend will do everything possible to ensure that this situation does not continue for much longer.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. David Ginsburg: It has been agreed during the debate on the Gracious Speech that we are going through a serious recession. What is not agreed are the steps needed to see us through and out of the recession.
  One point which should be crystal clear is that, to the extent that society imposes burdens in consequence of the recession, those burdens should fall on those best able to bear them and not on the weakest in our society. The ignoring of this principle by the Government has been apparent in a number of areas and in the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is no more clearly apparent than in housing, which features prominently in today's debate. Looking at the scene, one sees that there is a total absence of Government policy and a loading of the burden on the weakest in our community.
  Council house rents in Dewsbury are at the national average level. Nevertheless, those who know that part of West Yorkshire will be aware that wages are well below the national average. That fact and the growth of unemployment among women workers mean that the rent increases that the Secretary of State is predicating across the board are bound to be most severely felt in areas such as the one that I represent.
  Dewsbury is an area in which there are many old houses in both the private and public sectors. There is a total freeze on new local authority building, there is the recent moratorium on the modernisation of local authority buildings, and there is no local authority finance for loans for the improvement of private houses. The moratorium is especially severe because it bears on people living in housing action areas. It bears on the disabled and on those living in British Iron and Steel Federation houses, which are still all too apparent in my constituency.
  The Kirklees housing authority, which covers my constituency and five other constituencies in West

  381
  Yorkshire, has issued a statement about the consequences of the moratorium on the area. I did not detect any gleam of hope from what the Secretary of State said. I may have misunderstood him. I propose to write to the Secretary of State after the debate and to enclose the local authority's view on the moratorium. I hope that he will let me know how he sees the future.
  The gloom in the public sector is not offset by any favourable developments in the private sector which the Government would no doubt like to see. Private house building is still depressed. High interest rates and inflationary house prices make house purchase a heavy burden. As has been said, there is only limited tax relief. Funds for the maintenance and redecoration of private and public properties are in short supply. The nation's stock of accommodation will not only decline but deteriorate in the years ahead.
  The Government's reply will be that we are in a recession and that we must accept the consequences in housing as elsewhere. They deny that there is a better way of managing things.
  Two points need to be made. First, there are great doubts in the House and in the country about the Government's economic strategy. Some say that the medicine is too harsh. Others say that the medicine is not harsh enough.
  I notice that the Prime Minister's guru—Professor Hayek, not Professor Milton Friedman—has criticised both the teacher, Professor Friedman, and the pupil, the Prime Minister, for being infirm of purpose—in other words, too wet. According to the interview with Professor Hayek, published in The Times last week, he said that inflation can only be seen out with 20 per cent. unemployment and with massive bankruptcies. Otherwise—he says this of the Government's measures—we go back on to the inflationary treadmill. One must devoutly hope that Professor Hayek is wrong.
  The second observation arises directly from reflationary measures to cure unemployment, whether those measures are advocated by the Government or the Opposition. Such measures can be introduced without the risk of hyperinflation only if pay settlements are moderated.
  Professors Meade and Cairncross, who were, respectively, advisers to the Attlee and Churchill Governments, in their letter to The Times, which was published on Thursday 20 November, say:
  "We are in a cleft stick. Either we suffer our present misery and control inflation or we restore employment and inflation. In fact we can achieve full employment without inflation only if we can suitably modify our present pay-fixing arrangements."
  I believe that the truth of this fact is being accepted on both sides of the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has, as a Minister, seen the abyss and come round to recognise some of the inherent verities in pay policy. The Prime Minister with her 6 per cent., which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has criticised, is, I suspect, equally beginning to recognise the truth. But the Prime Minister must also accept that pay policy cannot be imposed from on high. Pay policy must be founded on the understanding and consent of those to whom it applies. There is a challenge here to our democratic institutions, to the Government and to the trade unions. If agreement is not worked out, we shall face a depressed economy for a very long time. If pay policy is to be part of our arrangements, equity is an essential
  382
  prerequisite. It was so during the pay pauses of post-war years—the years of our fastest economic growth—and during the pay pauses of my right hon. Friends the Members for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  If the Prime Minister wants expansion with a sharp fall in inflation, there will have to be supreme effort to secure a greater social and economic equity. I stress the need for this sense of fairness not merely in relation to the 6 per cent. policy in local government employment and more generally in home affairs but also in our overseas relations. We live in a dangerous world with a darkening international scene. Defence is a priority. I believe that the British people know that and will accept the price and financial sacrifice involved. That 1-ealisation applies as much in the Labour movement as in any other part of society. However, the facing of external danger requires far greater national unity, and the Government have a role to play in their social policies in building up national unity and eschewing divisive policies.
  In conclusion, I wish to refer to a legislative matter of some importance. It is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech and I suspect that it is one of the "other measures" that will be laid before Parliament. I am concerned about the patriation of the Canadian constitution. I have gained some familiarity with the subject through my knowledge of French and broadcasts to French Canada.
  I accept that this Parliament has a duty to respond to the federal Canadian Parliament and to act with speed and good grace, but I trust that the Canadian Prime Minister realises that this is a sovereign Parliament. His external affairs department was tactless, to say the least, when it said in its briefing that the United Kingdom Parliament "may not look behind" any request. Perhaps it would have been better to say that we "should not look behind." I repeat that we are a sovereign Parliament and we have a duty to perform.
  I hope that the Government will get together with the Canadian Government to ensure that what is ultimately placed before us deals with the minimum necessary for patriation of the Canadian constitution and an amendment formula but that we are not presented, as it looks as though we will be, with the job of revising the constitution. Such a proposal would place us in great difficulty, and many hon. Members would not let it go through on the nod.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Tony Durant: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) made an interesting speech, which was different from others made today in that it touched on the general economic situation. It was a courageous speech, and I agree with a great deal of it. I was interested in the hon. Member's reference to the Canadian constitution.
  I revert to the debate on housing. I wish to discuss the four important aspects of housing—land availability, my right hon. Friend the construction industry, the availability of finance and the best use of existing accommodation.
  On land availability, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ought to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the development land tax rate is still too high. All the opinions that I sought before the election about the level of the tax confirmed that 50 per cent. would be a fair and just rate, which would bring sufficient land on to the market. A reduction in the tax should be considered.

  383
  There is no doubt that planning is a great deterrent to development. I recently visited a large development in a neighbouring constituency. It has just started. It involves 2,000 houses, but it has taken 10 years to get to the point when the first six houses can be built. It is a terrible indictment of our planning system that it can take 10 years from the time that a person has the land and the finance and wishes to develop to the development getting under way.
  There are various reasons for delays, but they are still an indictment of the planning system and they occur far too often. Planning officers always say that developers make more money out of a deal because land values rise and they benefit from delays. That may be comforting to big investors, but it is no comfort to small builders who have borrowed money at high interest rates and cannot wait for the development. We must keep pressing for improvements in our planning procedures.
  All Governments have tended to use the construction industry as an economic barometer. That has been a mistake. The industry wants a stable amount of construction and development. It does not want great surges of construction, which are as damaging as slumps. It wants a steady development programme. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind, because the construction industry is in difficulty and under great pressure.
  We must look towards cutting expenditure. We are too prone to cut capital expenditure time and again. All Governments do it, and I appreciate that it is easier than cutting current expenditure, but cuts in current expenditure are the ones that we should aim for when cuts are necessary.
  The reduction in the MLR will have some effect on the availability of finance. It will take time, but more money may become available in the housing market. I am delighted that banks are beginning to give home loans. It is a tentative beginning, and they are up-market, but they have put their toe in the water and I hope that they will go further and come down-market to the ordinary householders who wish to raise mortgages.
  If more local authorities had shown some thrust on council house sales and got on with them faster, there would have been more money available for developing properties. That would have helped the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) mentioned investment by unions, which have vast sums of money available. I once worked in an office block in Regent Street that was owned by the NUM. It was a damned tough landlord. It would have been better if the union had put its money into more socially desirable developments, but it has tended to invest in office blocks.
  I am concerned that we have reached the stage at which the housing allocation in the national Budget is at about the lowest point that we can accept. Housing has taken most of the brunt. I have to put that on record.
  I hope to see the growth of the housing association movement. It is the best development since the war and has made a tremendous difference in housing. Housing associations are better at managing their affairs and running their estates, and they build accommodation to suit people's requirements.
  It is slightly disturbing that the movement has become almost party political. It has started waving its arms about
  384
  as though it is being unjustly treated. In fact, it has not had too bad a deal this year. One can argue about future years, but the finance available this year has not been too bad. The movement has not had a cut in its allocation for the current year. There is an argument about future years, but I consider that misunderstanding about this matter has been unjust. We must do all that we can to foster the housing association movement.
  I now turn to the question of the best use of accommodation. If local authorities are not building as much housing as previously, and if there is a decline in the building section, providing more time for those authorities to examine their general stock of housing, they should become more efficient on lets. There are far too many empty council properties. If I write to my local authority about a property, it is amazing to me that within a week someone is occupying that property. Whether the authority says "My God, the MP has spotted it" or whether it was to be occupied in any case, I do not know. It is always odd that if I find a property that has been empty for three months it can be filled at a minute's notice. The question of empty properties should be examined by local government.
  There has been mention of the shorthold tenancy. It is a pity that the Opposition took the view that they did on shorthold. I was keen on it. I believed in it. During the last general election I came across accommodation that was ready and available. Now landlords, and especially landladies, are very concerned whether they should go ahead and let. The attitude of the Opposition has been a tragedy. It was unnecessary. The Opposition could have reserved their position and stated that they would wait to see what happened and review the matter in a couple of years. That would have been a reasonable stance instead of taking the almost dogmatic attitude of stamping on it from the beginning.
  I hope that improvement grants will be fostered as much as possible. All that can be done to improve existing property will bring more into circulation. There are enough units, but some are in bad condition. The homesteading experiment by the Greater London Council was a worthy one. More of these experiments should be carried out in housing. I agree about the lack of courage in dealing with the Rent Acts. All Governments have looked at the Rent Acts and run away from them. The Opposition produced a Green Paper on the Rent Acts. It was a good document. I considered it a worthwhile consideration of the whole Rent Act structure. The Opposition did nothing about it. We must have the courage to tackle the Rent Acts, which are a deterrent to letting accommodation. A Select Committee of the House might be the avenue to examine this matter.
  Mr. Winnick: We are looking at it.
  Mr. Durant: I am delighted to hear that the Select Committee is looking at the matter. That may be the place to start. It will be an interesting document. I look forward to receiving it. I hope that there can be a debate when the report is received.
  That is the type of problem that has to be tackled if we are to get more housing on stream. There is housing available. There are opportunities available. If we have the will and the belief, we can improve our stock and increase the amount of housing.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: It is something of an honour to follow the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), whose views on housing in Conservative Party politics are considerably Left-wing. Yet the hon. Gentleman misrepresents the truth when he claims that the housing association movement has not been badly treated. Housing association after housing association on Merseyside has shown me houses that it had acquired and intended to improve but which will now stand unimproved as a result of the Government's cuts and the moratorium.
  Mr. Durant: It is important that the hon. Gentleman should realise that the Housing Corporation went ahead and allowed too many schemes against the budget finance available. As it went ahead, unwisely for those poor people affected—sympathise with them—t was caught out. The Housing Corporation has something to answer for. The allocation of money in the current year was not cut.
  Mr. Roberts: That is the argument used by the Secretary of State to justify the moratorium on the public sector as a whole. The argument does not hold water for either local authority housing or housing associations. For the housing association movement, considered in the past to be the Conservative Party's social conscience, to attack this Conservative Government is as amazing as the Government's achievement in getting the CBI to attack them. The housing association movement is justified in criticising the Government for the cuts and the moratorium, which have resulted in much hardship.
  I have listened with some interest to the statements of Conservative Members on rent increases. They have proved that they do not understand how housing finance works. Alternatively, they are purposely misrepresenting how it works in order to justify vicious rent increases. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) said that if council houses are sold at half the market value a profit is made. It was also stated from the Conservative Benches that it cost £60,000 to build a council house, and this was used as an argument to justify rent increases. One cannot have it both ways.
  Ministers have justified the increase by saying that a bigger direct contribution is needed from people living in council houses towards the cost of housing. That argument does not stand up. It is unfair to try to justify rent increases by arguing that three in every 100 people in council houses have an income of £8,000. Those earning £8,000 are paying for their subsidies through their taxes and also helping to pay other people's subsidies. If there is universal benefit for owner-occupiers in the form of income tax relief on interest paid on mortgages, the same should apply to council tenants. To push up council rents by massive amounts and to legislate as this Government have done to allow local authorities to make a profit on their housing revenue account is a big mistake at a time when people are having to accept cuts in living standards.
  The justification given by Conservative Members for the shorthold provision is curious. It is part of the total package, not to support people who are homeless or the tenants of private landlords but to give a new lease of life to the private landlord and to provide a landlords' charter. There is not only the shorthold provision. About 200,000 houses that were controlled in the private rented sector have been taken out of rent control. There are reviews of
  386
  fair rents which mean increases in fair rents every two years instead of every three or four years. Assured tenancies are being introduced. We also have legislation to allow back-to-back houses to be built by private speculators.
  It is claimed that getting rid of Rent Act control and allowing people to invest money in property and get a fair return on the capital they invest by charging what rents they want will lead to an increase in accommodation for rent in the private rented sector. This misrepresents the situation. If a house was built costing £15,000 and the money to build it was borrowed at a 17 per cent. rate of interest, it would cost £2,500 a year in interest to fund the loan. The economic rent that the private landlord would have to charge for that house is £50 a week. That is not on when it comes to meeting the housing needs of people.
  Unless subsidies are given to owner-occupiers or to tenants through local authorities or housing associations, there is no way in which the needs of the vast bulk of the population can be met. To suggest that the private rented sector can meet those needs by such tricks as shorthold, which is really a means of destroying security of tenure, is to mislead people.
  I want especially to mention empty houses. Much play is made by Conservative Members of this matter. They suggest that the Opposition, by opposing the shorthold provisions, are encouraging houses to be kept empty. I would argue that by their cuts, by their economies and by abandoning local authority programmes to give home loans and improvement grants and to provide money to improve houses that are now standing empty—houses acquired from the private rented sector—the Government are doing more to keep houses standing empty, despite the needs of homeless families, than any Government in the history of housing in this country.
  I should like to give two examples of how the Government are administratively causing houses to be kept empty. The first is the way in which the subsidy system for local authority housing subsidies will be worked. A consultative paper is being issued to local authorities telling them that the subsidy will be deducted on any properties that are kept empty above a certain percentage of their housing stock. Many houses owned by local authorities are let on a licence for short-life housing schemes, and no rent is collected. Under the subsidy regulation arrangements that the Government are introducing, local authorities will lose subsidy on such properties. It will be more economical under the subsidy arrangements for the authorities to keep the properties empty, to write them out of stock and not to have the subsidy deducted as a result of keeping them on a licence without collecting any rent income.
  Housing associations have available through the Housing Corporation mini-grants to spend on houses with a relatively short life, but they cannot take advantage of the grants, which in theory are still available, because the Government, through the Housing Corporation, have frozen the housing associations' overdraft guarantee provisions. The associations cannot borrow the money to do the work on which they would receive the grants after the work had been done. Houses are therefore being kept empty as a result of the Government's actions.
  In addition, a circular from the corporation was to go out to housing associations and local authorities telling them to make full use of short-life housing and not to charge excessive licence fees for it. As I said in an earlier

  387
  intervention, that was stopped by the Department of the Environment on the ground that local authorities and housing associations should maximise their income. As a result, local authorities such as Islington are charging licence fees so excessive that the release of empty properties which are unimproved but which could be improved for short-life housing schemes has been brought to a halt.
  I turn finally to the racket that is now developing as a result of the right-to-buy provisions in Government legislation. Estate agents, so-called house buyers' associations and other people are jumping on the bandwagon, setting up organisations to advise council tenants, charging them to help then fill in the 22-page forms produced by the Department of the Environment and, taking fees to help speed up the processing of the applications to local authorities. Already, the private sector is exploiting the public sector for profit in the buying of council houses.
  If the Government do not end their moratorium and the cuts, if they do not carefully examine some of the administrative decisions they are now taking in panic to try to cope with a crisis of their own making, more and more houses will stand empty, waiting lists will grow longer than they have been for many years, and within 12 months we shall face a housing crisis as bad as the one that we faced in 1945. That will be the next Labour Government's inheritance from the present Government.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I sometimes wonder whether people who go into Tory Members' surgeries are different from those that come into Labour Members' surgeries. I have been amazed by some of the comments from the Conservative Benches.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) was serious when he suggested that waiting lists should be done away with. I have never heard such nonsense. It would be like doing away with the Highway Code, with everyone driving on whichever side of the road he wished.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) suggested that council house rents should go up, so that ratepayers would have some return on their rates. I do not know whether he realises that council tenants are ratepayers and taxpayers and that they pay a considerable amount of rates and taxes.
  The Government have embarked on a policy of reducing the money supply. All their policies are directed towards that end. They now claim in the Gracious Speech that it is essential further to reduce public expenditure. It seems strange to want to continue a monetary policy that has already led to massive unemployment. The figures announced today are disgraceful. In my constituency the male unemployment rate is above 18 per cent., and half of those have been unemployed for six months or more. That percentage has come about because of the Government's policy.
  It is not only strange that the Government carry out that policy, but it is immoral to pursue it at the expense of the poorest and weakest in our society and further to cut public expenditure. It seems that the Government are more interested in the pound than in the people.
  388
  I remind Conservative Members of what effect a further reduction in public expenditure will have on the ordinary people of South Tyneside, where my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) are situated. In particular, I should like to point out the effects of the disastrous housing policy that is being forced on local authorities, a policy, determined by central Government totally divorced from the needs of the people, that denies people the right to a decent home and makes it impossible for responsible local authorities even to maintain and repair their housing stock.
  In the area that I represent there are 7,353 people on the council waiting list. For the benefit of those Conservative Members who would not recognise a council waiting list if they saw one, I explain that that means 7,353 households, not 7,353 individuals. Those households are looking in desperation to the local authority to help them, but the authorities are being prevented from helping because of an American economist's theories. Far from offering assistance to housing authorities, the Government have already reduced the finance available to them. The Government claim "We cannot afford to build houses. People will have to wait until the current financial crisis is over and inflation is down to a figure acceptable to us." That is just short of criminal in view of the number of young people who are waiting for houses and the number of construction workers who are signing the book. How long do the Government expect them to wait?
  My authority has built only 112 houses this year. If the Secretary of State for the Environment lifts his ill-advised and totally unnecessary moratorium, it will be possible to build 200 houses this year. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to work out that at the rate of 200 dwellings each year it will take more than 35 years to provide new homes for those on the present list.
  Of course, the Government will claim that the councils' waiting lists are not static. They express the fond hope that in future years those lists will decline as everyone becomes an owner-occupier. For the Minister's information, let me tell him that the waiting list in my area has risen more than 600 in the past year alone, so 200 new dwellings each year—the limit imposed by the Government—are not enough to deal with the increases, let alone with the 7,353 households already waiting for a house.
  The other topic on which I wish to touch is that of the difficult-to-let properties which we and, no doubt, other local authorities have. The Government not only prevent housing authorities from building new houses, but their fanatical adherence to financial controls makes it impossible for those authorities to improve existing dwellings that are unsuitable for family life.
  During the 1950s the Government virtually forced authorities to build high-rise flats and deck access maisonettes, with all the problems that they created. Instead of recognising this mistake, the present Government are refusing local authorities the finance to rectify those design faults. There is one estate in my constituency, in Queen's Road, Jarrow, where four-storey maisonettes with deck access and an external staircase must be improved or demolished. However, the Government, especially the Secretary of State, first tried to dictate how they should be improved, then threatened to withdraw subsidy for any dwellings that were demolished and finally reduced expenditure, thus putting the whole improvement scheme in jeopardy.

  389
  That is interference of the worst kind by the Government in local housing matters and shows how little respect one can have for a Secretary of State who promises to increase local autonomy. Instead of allowing local authorities the right to determine their own local policies and giving them the means to resolve local problems, the Government issue blanket restrictions of the most autocratic kind. Because "Tarzan" knows best, the tenants of Queen's Road, Jarrow, will have to push prams up ramps and carry buckets of coal up two flights of steps in the open air.
  Even the authority's attempts to use existing stocks to the best advantage is being hindered. South Tyneside authority has 3,506 properties in council stock that are unusable for its needs. Elderly tenants occupy three-bedroom houses. Often they are frail and cannot manage to climb stairs. With mass unemployment forcing younger householders to leave the borough, the elderly form an increasing proportion of our community. Obviously, these frail elderly people require smaller houses and preferably warden-controlled sheltered schemes, but the Government's cutback and moratorium prevent the authority from building them. Two sets of households suffer: the single person who occupies a family house because there is no suitable smaller house available, and the overcrowded family who could occupy the larger house. That is the kind of absurdity to which the Government's action leads, denying the elderly comfort and independence and forcing families to a life in flats.
  Even more tragic is the plight of those unfortunate people who happen to live in slum clearance dwellings. The South Tyneside authority pursued a vigorous policy of clearance and was well on the way to removing this cancer from our area. After years of effort, only 600 dwellings are left in the clearance areas, most of them in the South Shields part of the district. But they will remain a lot longer because of the cutback. The Government are sentencing people to live in dwellings that were condemned as being unfit for human habitation even by the standards of the Housing Act 1957, which was passed a good number of years ago.
  The Government claimed to be committed to a policy of rehabilitation rather than to one of building new dwellings. They maintain that the preservation of communities in improved dwellings is infinitely more desirable than bulldozing older properties to build new houses. With much publicity and self-congratulation, the Secretary of State announced increased grant amounts and a reduction in administrative procedures. However, the biggest reduction is the reduction in the finance given to authorities to enable them to make grants in the first place, allowing the South Tyneside authority this year to approve only 200 grants instead of the normal 400.
  My authority has more than 4,500 private tenants who still fill their baths with kettles of water. There are more than 5,000 occupiers of private dwellings without WCs. This is only a small part of the 1 million dwellings that lack amenities, and it is an even smaller part of the 3 million that are known to be in a state of gross disrepair. The tenants of these properties also look to the Government and the local authority for help. They receive none.
  Like most other authorities, South Tyneside has to restrict the number of grants that it clan make. Instead of giving older dwellings in the borough the basic amenities by 1984–85, which was our objective when reorganization
  390
  took place in 1974, they will not be improved until we get a change in Government thinking or, better still, a change in Government.
  The stupidity of it all is that, apart from the human misery, it does not even make economic sense to stop making grants. Many properties in older areas can make good family houses. Many have already been improved with grant aid. The potential for further improvement and the finance already invested are being put at risk by the Government's shortsighted policies.
  Those authorities that believed the Government's claim to be committed to house improvement and to the need to improve our declining inner city areas have been misled. The Government encouraged authorities to embark on improvement programmes and have now apparently changed their mind.
  Previously, the local authority could help tenants when a private landlord failed to accept responsibility for substandard houses. As a last resort, the council could purchase houses by agreement or by compulsion and then improve them. By Government decree local authorities are forbidden to purchase by agreement. Even if they could do so the finances are not available.
  Mortgages are closely related to the improvement aid previously given to provide basic amenities. The phenomenon of Tyneside Flats exists in my area. It consists of two-storey terraces with separate flats on each floor. Traditionally, they are sold in pairs. The owner becomes the occupier of one flat and the landlord of the other. Many of the flats have been handed down through the generations, and many are owned by elderly people. The local authority has assisted many elderly owners to repair and improve their properties by means of council mortgages, because building societies prefer to lend their millions to better-off clients on better-quality housing. Since finance has been reduced, sales are limited and such mortgages cannot be continued.
  I deal next with the sale of council houses. I have no doubt that the Minister knows about the case that I wish to mention. He will not defend what has taken place. In 1978, a constituent of mine applied to buy a council house after a programme encouraging the sale of council houses was forced through by the Conservatives and Liberals on South Tyneside council. It was such a dismal failure that when Labour took control the policy was not changed. Over two and a half years, only about 300 of the 34,000 council houses were sold.
  When my constituent applied to buy the house, there was a problem about the cost of land and ministerial approval was necessary. That approval was given only in June this year. The council decided, in fairness to the tenant, to offer him the house at the price that applied when he made his original application to buy. That experience makes a mockery of the Government's argument in favour of the right to buy.
  The individual purchased the house at 11 am last Monday for £11,000—the price that applied in 1978. Within minutes, he put it on the market for £18,000 and earned a profit of £7,000. In fairness to the Minister, it should be said that that could not happen under the Housing Act, but under the two years' £100 option system a similar problem could arise.
  The Government's policy is determined by money supply. Under their education policy they are depriving youngsters at comprehensive schools of school books, while they are providing grants for private schools. The

  391
  Government have no regional policy for industry. Areas such as the North-East are being turned into industrial deserts.
  The Government are robbing the old, the disabled, the sick and the unemployed of social services provision. Their tax concessions line the pockets of people at the top of the wages league. They are denying young couples housing and sentencing others to live in flats for the rest of their lives. The Government's policy represents Robin Hood in reverse. They are robbing the poor to give to the rich.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: The debate has been illuminating in two respects. First, the majority of Conservative Members are voting with their feet. Despite the activities of Government Whips, few Conservatives have taken part in the debate. Secondly, the debate is interesting in terms of what Conservatives have let out of the bag. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) spoke seriously about the abolition of waiting lists. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) let the cat out of the bag by admitting that shorthold tenure exists to get round security of tenure for private tenants. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) admitted that the country faces years of national misery.
  Part of that national misery is being secured by the Secretary of State for the Environment, because he is presiding over what will become the worst housing crisis that many of us will have seen in our lifetime. When the Secretary of State is challenged on that, instead of accepting blame for the crisis he suggests that his policies are a continuation of policies that were followed over five years by the previous Labour Government. In seeking to justify his record, he utters three sets of falsehoods about Labour's programme: about the level of Labour's construction programme—the level of cash put into the housing programme over those five years—about our record on projections and starts, and about our record on projections of future demand. I shall deal with those three points in turn.
  First, with regard to the level of the Labour Government's house building programme between 1974 and 1979, the Secretary of State has said time and time again that the programme that he is following is merely a continuation of the trend set under the Labour Government. He said again today that Labour's programme was in rapid decline and that all that he has done is to follow that through. I know that the encounters of the Secretary of State with truth are always brief and accidental, but even he should address himself to the facts before uttering such falsehoods. The truth is that during the five years of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979, an average of 135,000 dwellings were built each year—11,000 more than were built in each of the years of the previous Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974. Even in 1978—the last complete year of the previous Labour Government—we achieved 107,000 starts, which compares very well with the 55,000 starts that are likely to be achieved this year and the probable 40,000 or next year.
  If the Secretary of State believes that all that he is doing is following a trend, he should see what is happening
  392
  locally. The worst year for my constituency of Blackburn under the previous Labour Government was that of 1978–79, when there were 129 starts. As I said earlier, this year there have been only four starts, and it is not likely that there will be any more. I do not believe that that is a continuation of a trend.
  What is true in terms of starts is also true in terms of expenditure. Between 1974 and 1979, Labour's housing expenditure averaged more than £6 billion—£2 billion, or 50 per cent., more than the average between 1970 and 1974. Labour's worst year between 1974 and 1979 was better than the Conservative's best year between 1970 and 1974.
  The Secretary of State said that the amount of expenditure fell consistently between 1975 and 1979. That is true, but what he always fails to point out is that it fell because it reached an all-time post-war peak in 1974–75—an increase in that year alone of £2 billion, as a result of the Labour Government's counter-inflation policies of freezing rents and pumping more subsidies, rightly, into the coffers of the councils and their housing revenue accounts.
  The second falsehood that the Secretary of State utters is on the extent to which Labour's projections on the starts have matched the outturn. Only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State said:
  "the Labour Party's performance never met—or did not usually do so—the figures that it put forward. I have never expected the Labour Party's performance to live up to its promises."—[Official Report, 12 November 1980; Vol 991, c.465.]
  The truth is that in three of the five years of the Labour Government we exceeded our promises in terms of starts. The Secretary of State should remember that. Only in two years did we produce an outturn less than the total starts.
  I should like to give the Secretary of State the figures. In 1974 we were 21,000 starts ahead of the forecast, in 1975 we were 14,000 starts ahead of the forecast and in 1976 we were 5,000 starts ahead of the forecast. In 1977 we were 13,000 below it. In 1978, the last complete year, we were 18,000 below it. A total of 720,000 dwellings was forecast for the five complete calendar years, and we built 730,000. If we include 1979, when the Secretary of State was responsible for most of the year and the construction industry faced its worst winter for 30 years, we had 830,000 starts and the outturn was 810,000.
  Let us have no more falsehoods from the Secretary of State that suggest that he cannot bring forward projections of the level of starts because Labour's record was so bad. The Labour Government's record was excellent, as was the record of his predecessors between 1970 and 1974. The cumulative error was no more than 2·5 per cent. The standard that statisticians use, the absolute mean error, resulted in no more than a 10 per cent. error. If the right hon. Gentleman consults his statisticians, they will confirm what I have said.
  The third falsehood that the right hon. Gentleman utters concerns forecasts of housing demand. Whenever we have asked him to declare what his forecasts for housing demand will be in the next five years, he has replied "We cannot do that because the Labour Government considered that and in their Green Paper it was stated that those forecasts of demand were highly speculative." I invite the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to the contents of the Green Paper. Nowhere in the Green Paper are the words "highly speculative" used about projections of

  393
  demand. Those words are used in page 135 in terms of whether the public sector would meet the demand and whether the supply of dwellings between 1980–85 would be sufficient to meet the demand that was then clear. It was reasonable of the writers of that document to state that the figures were highly speculative. They had to look into the crystal ball and predict what a Conservative Government or a change of Government would mean for the council house building sector.
  The figures for the level of housing demand are based on demographic information. That is available within the right hon. Gentleman's Department. It concerns the level of household formation over the next five years. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on the best figures available we shall be 500,000 houses short.
  We have long believed that the right hon. Gentleman had the information in his Department. I genuinely commend him for his managerial efforts to improve Ministers' information systems and his publication of those systems. This is an important development in the control of Ministers over their civil servants and the control of the House over Ministers. I unreservedly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that development.
  However, if we consider one of the 17 documents that the right hon. Gentleman placed in the library, we see that housing directorate A is running an assessment of past and current trends and future prospects for housing. Assessments of global trends in housing have already been carried out. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can no longer hide behind suggestions that the information is not available or that his Department is not preparing it. It is on record that information is available in his Department about the level of demand. We want to see that information published. Failure to publish it will merely confirm our worst suspicions—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman is suppressing information about Britain's mounting housing crisis.
  It was announced this afternoon that more than 2,100,000 are unemployed. That is the highest total since the war. It is the highest total since February 1933, when 2,411,358 were unemployed. The fact that the Government have increased unemployment to levels never seen since the late 1930s or before the early 1930s is significant. Ministers have only 200,000 to go before they exceed the highest total throughout the 1930's. There will be only two months more of unemployment before the levels under this Government are the highest ever recorded this century.
  The fact that we are plumbing the depths of unemployment that were reached in the 1930s has led to suggestions that the Government are following the economic policies of the 1930s. I wholly reject that. They are not. They are following the policies of the 1870s, when we were plunged into the greatest depression that the country has seen since industrialisation. Even the National Government in the 1930s realised that housing construction could be an engine of economic recovery. Alan Taylor, in "English History 1914–1945", records that
  "the building boom was the outstanding cause for the recovery of the thirties when the recovery came the building boom accounted for 30% of the increase in employment between 1932 and 1935."
  That is why unemployment started to go down after 1934. The reason why it is starting to go up and will far exceed the levels of the 1930s is, above all, that the
  394
  Government have flown in the face not only of the Keynesian post-war experience but of the experience of the 1930s. They have failed to understand that massive cuts in public spending hit not only the public sector but the private construction industry and that that leads to a massive increase in unemployment.
  The Government's policies are those of the blind Victorians, who believed that the market should be allowed to operate without intervention. The Prime Minister clearly does not understand. But unless there is a significant change in policy and the Government start to put money into housing instead of taking it out the national misery of which the hon. Member for Hornchurch spoke will last not for only two or three years but for the 28 years of the depression that started in 1870.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The debate appears to suggest that we are fighting the battle for housing on so party political a ground that we are unable to look at the real issue, which is that Britain has been unsuccessful in meeting its housing needs under Governments of both parties for a long time. It would be more sensible to look at the basic reasons instead of bandying statistics across the Floor of the House.
  Although we have more people in State-provided housing than almost any other country in the free world, we still have the kind of housing lists that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned. That should lead us to conclude that there may be other and much more fundamental reasons for our housing problems than those put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  The hon. Member for Blackburn suggested, in effect, that if only we increased to a large extent the construction of public housing we should meet our needs. However, the major problem is that the only provision of housing in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Jarrow is public housing. That is one reason why we are in such a mess after so many different Governments have attempted to spend large sums on housing. The provision of housing in large areas of the country now lies wholly on the shoulders of local authorities, because we have made it impossible for anyone else to provide it. It is on that aspect of the Government's policy that I wish to concentrate. Until we get into the housing market a much wider provision from many more sources, we shall not do as well in providing homes for our people as do our neighbours in the rest of Europe.
  In my constituency, which is different from that of the hon. Member for Jarrow but contains large numbers of people who are deprived, although perhaps rather more prettily than in Tyneside, many people live in poor housing because there is no private provision for letting. Extending the provision of properties to let is absolutely vital if we are to have a sensible housing policy. The guilty man on this matter is quite clearly the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). Many families in rural areas are homeless today because the Government's shorthold policy has been torpedoed in the long term by the refusal of the Opposition to support so sensible a policy.
  I say that with considerable feeling because week after week in my surgeries in the towns and villages of my constituency I meet many people who are desperate for housing which is there but which is not available to them

  395
  because, unlike all the other countries within the European Community, we have an attitude towards the private landlord which so discourages, corrals and inhibits him that he does not bring it on to the market.
  We must face this issue not as a party political issue but as a humanitarian one. I cannot go on telling young couples "You cannot have a home" when I know that places are available for them which are not let because of the false arguments of the Marxist-oriented Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Once again, I ask that they give this matter serious consideration. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Ardwick will listen for a moment. He should remember that there are places in the country that are not entirely like Manchester. They are different. They have different problems.
  People who are homeless could be provided with a home if the right hon. Gentleman would help us. All that we ask is that he accepts that there must be a system of tenure which enables people who may not always wish to let and who may wish to recover possession to do so. For example, they may wish to let their property for only a short period because they will need it for a relative. Whatever the reason, there should be the security of a sensible contract for the people who live there. If there is not, those houses, flats and former tied cottages will remain vacant.
  I know that this is painful for the right hon. Member for Ardwick, which is why he is talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but the fact remains that, there are people in my constituency who with a word from him, could be housed. It is a powerful position for the right hon. Gentleman to be in, and I hope that he will give that word this evening. The word is simply that a future Labour Government, in 20 years or whatever, when Labour Members sort out a leader who will manage to win the election, will honour the shorthold proposals in order that people shall have houses. I am willing for the right hon. Gentleman to say "I am opposed to shorthold, it is contrary to my beliefs, but because I believe that it will help the homeless I will go against my own party view in order to help them."
  I do not mind how the right hon. Gentleman says it. He can cover it up as much as he likes. But I ask him to accept the plea of those of us who represent people in the countryside to do something about it, because it matters to us—[Interruption.] It is all very well to shout from a seated position, but hon. Members who represent urban constituencies seem to find it difficult to understand that there are other places in the country with problems, and we ask for their help. There are 69 Members who represent rural constituencies, and we need the support of those in urban areas if we are to solve the problems of our constituents. We are unlikely to meet the housing needs of the nation if we reduce our options by saying that our concerns are only with the particular areas and the particular forms of housing which happen to fit our predilections.
  I am one of those who would urge my right hon. Friend to urge his right hon. and learned Friend to look much more closely into the way in which we arrange tax relief on mortgages, because I believe that the balance of investment in private housing—and the way in which one of the few methods by which people may create capital
  396
  for themselves is so concentrated upon the housing market—has damaging effects. We have to look at that. But, if we are to ask that it be looked at, with our long commitment to the encouragement of home ownership—a commitment that I would not like us to go back on in any sense—we have a right to ask the Labour Party to look at its attitude toward the landlord.
  I remember well the comments of Dick Crossman when he was the housing Minister. He said that when the word "landlord" was mentioned it immediately put his hackles up. That is not a sensible way in which to approach our housing problems. There are many good landlords, and they ought to be encouraged. We want more of them and more homes to let. There would be fewer homeless if we were to encourage the good landlords.
  If we on the Tory Benches are willing to look much more widely and imaginatively at the effects of tax relief on housing, we have a right to ask Labour Members to get off their ideological seats and start to face the fact that only by accepting a system of shorthold will the problems in the rural areas in particular be solved.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) made a passionate appeal for shorthold. Shorthold could make but a marginal contribution to dealing with the major housing stress in our areas of greater population. His appeal would have been better directed to his own Front Bench during the discussions on the Housing Bill, when it clearly overplayed its hand and refused to accept safeguards. Had those safeguards been inserted then, the view of the Labour Party might well have been coloured by them. The Government thought that their hand was stronger than it turned out to be. They have reaped what they deserved as a result of their own ideological stance at that time.
  Yesterday in this House we had a unique parliamentary occasion. We had the interruption of a debate on the Queen's Speech for a "Budget Statement". That statement marked the breaking of a number of election pledges. The first related to the burden of taxation, with the increase in the national insurance contribution. The second related to social security benefits, with the breaking of the link between social security benefits and inflation. One cannot point to a similar election pledge on housing, but the electors could legitimately have imagined, prior to the last general election, that by voting Conservative they would share in the general prosperity in the housing area that would have been their lot under a Conservative Government.
  One cannot envy the task of the Minister in having to defend the indefensible, in having to defend a Government who are presiding over an acute housing crisis. The reality is that, comparison of the third quarter of this year shows that with the third quarter of last year, total housing starts are down by 39 per cent., and starts in the public sector are down by 37 per cent. Council house waiting lists are now more realistic as a result of annual monitoring. Compared with 1979, the numbers of those on council house waiting lists increased by 150,000 in 1980. Clearly, the supply of housing is diminishing at a time when demand is increasing.
  Under this Government, housing has taken a disproportionate share of the cuts. Of the total reduction planned, 75 per cent. will fall on housing. It is as if, in those long Cabinet meetings, the Secretary of State had

  397
  volunteered the suggestion that his Department should suffer greater cuts. It is as if he did not fight his corner when the Secretary of State for Defence spoke about resignation and got off relatively unscathed. The Secretary of State for the Environment, an arch-monetarist, is putting his head on the chopping block and rejecting the interests of those whom he should represent.
  The report of the Select Committee shows that the housing cuts are a result of the Government's failure to think through the social and economic implications of their policies. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales intends to reply to the debate, I shall prove that the situation in Wales is even more dramatic. I refer him to Roof, the journal published by Shelter. The publication dated July-August 1980 show that 15·4 per cent. of housing stock in Wales was unfit compared with 9·6 per cent. in the relevant survey of English housing investment programmes.
  Allocations fall far short of the bids. Rising unemployment and building costs in South Wales and in the areas of greatest stress will probably mean that fewer owners will be able to take up improvement grants. At the same time, the recession means that many of those in the public sector who might otherwise have looked to the private sector for housing are staying put and thus reducing the supply of housing for those in need.
  Nearly one-quarter of all pensioners in Wales live in houses without indoor sanitation. About 75,000 houses in South Wales are unfit for habitation. Those houses represent a town larger than Swansea. I have given some indication of the severity of the housing crisis in Wales. There is a chronic housing problem and, in addition, under-investment. We face a cut of 40 per cent.
  I refer the Minister to the October report of the South Wales chief housing officers' group. It is not a radical group, yet the report ends with the startling words:
  "We fear that if increased finance is not made available very soon then the problem that will be created in the next 10 to 20 years will require drastic action such as extensive clearance programmes … We therefore urge the Government to reconsider its attitude towards housing and towards a philosophy which cannot and will not work in the current economic situation. Unless this reconsideration takes place we believe that the housing problems of South Wales will reach a point when they may be insoluble."
  Those housing officers see the situation every day. They point out that housing needs remain unmet and that there is a slide into increasing obsolescence. That is the legacy that the Government will leave their successors.
  In my local authority, 46 per cent. of tenants require some form of assistance in order to pay their rent. Clearly, such people cannot enter the private housing market, nor can they buy their council houses. Of the remainder of the tenants, a substantial proportion are at an age at which they will be unable to obtain a mortgage. No one in his mid-forties would wish to purchase a property, given the problems of unemployment and the insecurity that it causes. The picture that the Welsh Office and the Government try to give of people moving from the shackles of the public sector into the freedom of the private sector does not accord with the realities of the present economic situation.
  I wonder what picture the Welsh Office and the Government have of the role of the public sector. In a debate on 3 November, the Under-Secretary gave a picture of public housing in Wales being, in the Government's view, designed for special needs, such as welfare housing
  398
  —something akin to the American picture. That is very far indeed from our needs. As I have tried to stress, given our present economic situation and the profile of housing, with 46 per cent. of our people receiving assistance with their rents, who is able to afford to move from the public to the private sector?
  No doubt the Secretary of State saw the leader in The Times on 10 November—even The Times—which pointed out in the most glaring way the result of the disproportionate cuts that the housing sector is suffering under the Government. That leader asked what sort of legacy of housing stock the Government would leave to their successors. In particular, it asked what would be the impact on disadvantaged groups. It mentioned the need not to destroy the building industry and the need to protect the stock that we already have.
  The truth is that, if we ask what the Government's housing policy is, we find that they do not have a housing policy as such, because all is subordinated to their monetarist policies, which are manifestly failing. Who now believes the technical view of the purists that by limiting money supply there will inevitably be a fall in inflation?
  Mr. Nick Budgen: There has been such a fall.
  Mr. Anderson: The Government have failed to control the money supply either because of some conspiracy on the part of Keynesian moles in the Treasury or the Bank of England or because the whole basis of their philosophy is thoroughly discredited by economists. There are very few people, save on the Government Front Bench, who can think that this policy is working. Surely, we in this country are now the guinea pigs of an experiment. As the Bank for International Settlements has said, this is a laboratory experiment.
  In his speech over the weekend the Secretary of State for Industry said, in his simple and disarmingly innocent and refreshing way, that we have lost one year. It is not the Government who have lost one year. It is the unemployed, the homeless and those who had prospects of better living accommodation who have lost it.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is now almost universally agreed that this country is facing its gravest peacetime housing crisis for more than half a century. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) illustrated that very fully in his speech. Houses for rent and for sale are scarcer and dearer than ever before. The Government's policies are increasing the scope for usury in the private market for sale and for harassment and Rachmanism in the private market for rent. In the public sector, fewer houses are being built than for generations and rents are being forced up to record levels. All this is now accepted by most observers, despite the sedulous efforts by the Government to suppress the facts when they can and to fiddle the facts when suppression is impossible.
  The Secretary of State has led the way in this distortion of the facts. Never has he given an honest, straightforward answer when a dishonest, distorted alternative has been available. Yet this is the Minister who has lately been flooding the press with propaganda about his latest exercise in self-glorification—an exercise which he claims is in the interests of open government. This is what

  399
  he calls his MINIS project. Hon. Members may ask "What are MINIS?" The Secretary of State certainly regards them as very important. He spoke about his MINIS recently in a solemn address to the assembled staff of the Department of the Environment. He said:
  "I should like to describe some of my personal reactions to MINIS. I have now had 19 meetings—as my office have told me, the MINIS exercise has made greater demands on my time than almost any other aspect of work over the last four months."
  Before hon. Members jump to hasty conclusions, I should explain that MINIS is an acronym for management information system for Ministers.
  Fifteen volumes full of MINIS have helpfully been placed in the Library by the Secretary of State. They are a veritable gold mine of information about the workings of the Department of the Environment. For example, part 4A deals with housing, construction, and finance. Set out in these volumes of MINIS are details of tasks set by the Secretary of State for his civil servants and assessments of performance. Under reference C5 we have:
  "Advice supplied in answer to PQs, PSOs"—
  whatever they may be—
  "and for ministerial speaking engagements and for parliamentary debates."
  Then we have an assessment of the performance of the task:
  "As efficient and cost effective as could be expected."
  The task set under reference D1 is:
  "Material prepared, and co-ordinated … for briefing for ministerial engagements and parliamentary debates and questions."
  The assessment of the carrying out of that task is:
  "Efficient in the circumstances."
  The task set under reference D3 is:
  "Guidance given both internally, (e.g. briefing for PAC and Environment Committee, and to other divisions on accounting practicalities arising out of the Housing Bill—sale of houses, subsidy system, capital controls) and externally".
  This time we have not a performance assessment but a forecast of planned performance. The forecast is:
  "These deal with activities in a manner which will help Ministers and officials to present the strongest case for the Government for parliamentary and other public occasions."
  No doubt, industrious officials have been toiling indefatigably over the weekend to fulfil that remit, but all to no avail. The MINIS enable the Secretary of State to know in great detail what his officials are doing, but it is exceedingly difficult for his officials or anybody else to find out what the Secretary of State is doing, because time and again the right hon. Gentleman refuses to provide the necessary information, or, when he cannot avoid giving some kind of answer, he distorts it.
  In February, when the Secretary of State announced the housing investment programme allocations, he pretended that the cut in the HIP compared with last year was 21 per cent. When he was asked to give the reduction in real terms, he refused to do so, in these words:
  "I should like to help the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is that many figures are involved in this exercise. I am not prepared to give them across the Dispatch Box".—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 682.]
  When the Secretary of State was forced to reply by a precise parliamentary question, he had to admit that the HIP cut was not 21 per cent. but 33 per cent.
  When the Select Committee on the Environment requested information from the Secretary of State, he wriggled time and again, as the report of the Select Committee makes clear. Paragraph 7 of chapter 1 states:
  400
  "In only one respect would the Secretary of State disclose information relating to the overall expenditure figures for 1981–84".
  Paragraph 8 of chapter 2 states:
  "Your Committee does not, however, consider that this, or the argument that publication would lead to misinterpretation, justifies a refusal by the Secretary of State to indicate the likely consequences of such decisions as he will have to make".
  It added:
  "The Committee notes that the Secretary of State was not prepared to estimate the effects of such action."
  It is not only in the House that the Secretary of State refuses to provide information. Last month he was interviewed on the BBC radio programme "File on Four" and was asked for details of the cuts in housing expenditure compared with the Government's expenditure cuts as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I know, but it doesn't come out at that you see, and quite a lot of programmes have taken reductions, of which housing has taken no reduction. Other programmes have had increases of the sort that I have mentioned, and so you have to look at the overall situation, you just can't take the assumption that housing has borne virtually the whole lot, because that simply isn't the case."
  The interviewer, Mr. Henshaw, understandably baffled by that reply, said:
  "What's your figure then, Minister?"
  The transcript of the programme, which has been supplied to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), goes on:
  "Heseltine: Well you don't—I don't have a figure for the, in that sense I could find out what it was for you.
  Henshaw: But you can't give me a real figure?
  Heseltine: Well if you want my Department to work one out for you I'll get one for you, but I haven't got it available in front of me now."
  In the end, the Department of the Environment admitted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has pointed out, that housing alone was having to bear 75 per cent. of all the Government spending cuts. Even that may turn out to be an underestimate and it does not take into account yesterday's further £323 million cut in Department of the Environment and local government spending.
  It is a measure of the shattering blows that the Government have struck at housing. For owner-occupiers the cost of borrowing has been, for nearly a year, higher than ever before, and that record high rate has been held longer than any previous top rate of recent years. For existing borrowers, that amounts to an annual tax of £1 billion. For would-be borrowers it means in many cases losing the chance of a house that they have set their hearts on. The latest figure announced at the weekend shows that new orders for homes for sale are down 41 per cent. On a year ago.
  The last full year of the Labour Government saw an all-time record of 802,000 home loans. This year the total may not reach 650,000—a cut of 19 per cent., and that from what the Prime Minister has claimed to be the "owner-occupiers' party". For tenants of private landlords, this coming Friday marks the implementation of the threefold attack on private tenants embodied in the Housing Act 1980. First, there is the complete end of protection for the 200,000 tenants still safeguarded by rent control. Those tenants are often old, often poor, often living in rundown property.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: What about the landlords?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am glad to hear the cry on behalf of the landlords of these 200,000 most under-privileged

  401
  tenants whose rents are to go up by large amounts. That is the only concern of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury).
  There is the end of the three-year interval between rent increases for regulated tenants and its replacement by a two-year gap. That means faster and higher rent increases for all private tenants.
  There is also the introduction of the new and infamous shorthold tenancies, which mark the beginning of the end of rent protection and security of tenure for tenants of private landlords. They are tenancies which hand over a licence to revive Rachmanism to the many unscrupulous landlords who still prowl the back streets of our great cities. I readily repeat this party's commitment to repeal the shorthold tenancies.
  The Secretary of State's attacks on owner-occupiers and private tenants are disgraceful enough, but the right hon. Gentleman has reserved his main offensive for public sector tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) has illustrated vividly the effect on the co-operative movement. My hon. Friend has raised extremely important questions. We look to the Under-Secretary of State, in his reply, to answer them in detail.
  Housing associations, once the apple of the Secretary of State's eye, are having their programmes cut by 60 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has dealt with that matter. The housing associations are voicing fears that next year they will not be in a position to start a single new home compared with the 42,000 starts last year. Even this is as nothing compared with the assault on local authority programmes. When the previous Labour Government's housing drive reached its peak in 1974–75, housing accounted for over 10 per cent. of public expenditure. By 1983–84, housing—this is what Conservative Members laugh at—as a proportion of public expenditure, will have fallen from 10 per cent. to 4 per cent. That calculation was made before yesterday's additional cuts.
  The Secretary of State constantly draws attention to the decline in Labour's housing programme from our peak years in the mid-1970s. That is true. It is regrettable. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, even more regrettable is the fact that our worst year is liable to be seen retrospectively as a miracle of achievement compared with the best that this Government can do. Our trough will be higher than their peak.
  In 1975, 119,000 council houses were started in England and Wales. It would be interesting to have a promise from the Secretary of State that all the local authority starts added together for all five years of this Parliament, if it lasts that long, will add up to as many as that 119,000 in 1975. If the Secretary of State will give me the promise that all the starts in the five-year Parliament added together will be as many as the Labour starts in 1975, I will gladly give way to him now. We will not get a guarantee that a whole Tory Parliament's starts will be as many as in one Labour Government year.
  As the Opposition have been warning, the policies of this Secretary of State will mean intolerably high rents for 5·25 million council housing tenants in England and Wales. In the final moments of the last Session, the Secretary of State's now notorious paper on council house rents was dragged kicking and screaming into the light of of day. The Secretary of State says in his document that he
  402
  "has in mind making a determination prescribing a flat rate increase figure within the range of £2·50 to £3 per dwelling per week"
  But, in that squirming, wriggling statement that he made when he temporarily withdrew the document on the last night of the last Session, he claimed:
  "in the course of the legislative arrangements under the Housing Act 1980, we have arranged for Ministers not to announce their views without consultation on the level of council house rents."—[Official Report,13 November 1980; Vol. 992, c. 768.]
  That seems terrifically democratic. What could be fairer than consulting the local authorities on the level of their rents? But what sounded splendid at the end of an eventful evening looks somewhat different when we reexamine it in an action replay. The nature of the consultation is described in the right hon. Gentleman's document. It states that the Secretary of State
  "wishes to know the views of the associations on the point at which the flat rate would be fixed within the range quoted."
  So all that the Secretary of State is consulting about is what sum between £2·50 and £3 the rent rises shall be fixed at. It is as though a judge tells a condemned man that he is consulting him about his sentence by offering him a choice between garrotting and the guillotine.
  It is about time the right hon. Gentleman abandoned his consistently deceitful attempt to distort the Labour Government's rent policy. He claims that it was the Labour Government's policy to put up rents in line with earnings, and he quotes in evidence our Green Paper. At page 37 the Green Paper says:
  "The Government consider that over a run of years rents should keep broadly in line with changes in money incomes."
  In June 1977 the right hon. Gentleman, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore):
  "would he agree that, as rents are to rise in line with money incomes, this will represent a significantly higher rate of rent increases than those in recent years and certainly a faster rate than that laid down in the Housing Finance Act 1972?"
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "I do not envisage that increases in rents will be higher under the future formula than they have been in the past two or three years."—[Official Report, 28 June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 251–2.]
  In fact, in the following two years, that was borne out by an average rise in rents under the Labour Government of only 7 per cent. a year. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had better abandon his distortion of the Labour Government's policy, which has been disproved by his own words.
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is flinging around some fairly wild words, such as "deceitful". I should be grateful if he would comment on a matter of which he has had very full notice and to which I thought he would refer. This afternoon his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) told the House that he had notified the Government that he intended to widen the debate today, so justifying his devoting a large part of his speech to a subject that was not on the Order Paper. I shall be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House in what way his right hon. Friend had notified the Government.
  Mr. Hattersley: Why not ask me?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend because he is addressing the House. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made extremely serious allegations about me this afternoon. We have been waiting for his right hon. Friend to comment on the matter and to

  403
  explain why it was assumed that I should have known that the right hon. Gentleman was to debate this afternoon a subject that was not on the Order Paper and of which I could not possibly have had reasonable notice in any ordinary parliamentary sense. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman, who is making such wild and trivial charges, would care to deal with that.
  Mr. Kaufman: This is not a debate about the Secretary of State's ruffled feelings. It is about the important subject of housing.
  Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely seeking to clarify how it was that this afternoon the spokesman for the Opposition should have told the House that he had notified the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Chair has no power to arrange the contents of a speech.
  Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the limitations of the powers of the Chair in this matter, but is it not appropriate that, when the Opposition are fully aware that statements have been made in the House this afternoon which demand an explanation, there should be an explanation in the winding-up speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that that matter has been heard by members of the Opposition Front Bench and will be given whatever consideration they feel it deserves.
  Mr. Kaufman: This is a debate about housing, and I intend to speak about housing.
  Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole point of what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook told the House this afternoon was that he wanted to widen the debate away from housing, and he devoted half his speech to doing precisely that, saying that I should have done the same.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite clear that a speech is made on the responsibility of the right hon. or hon. Member making it.
  Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it was a point of order. I said that I had given that message to the Government for no better reason than that it was true.
  Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook say that this afternoon. I am now waiting for an explanation of precisely how he did it.
  Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we are not on a point of order, I call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman).
  Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I ask the Secretary of State whether, at the end of the day, he is coming to a point of order?
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has now said that what he said this afternoon was true. It must be realistic to ask him to amplify that statement, in view of the charges—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That can only be an intervention.
  Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order—
  Several Hon. Members: Watch the Mace!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless the Opposition spokesman gives way, the Secretary of State must resume his seat.
  Mr. Kaufman: This episode will be noted outside the House by many millions of people who regard the housing crisis as much more important than the Heseltine crisis. As I was saying, I intend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your agreement, to proceed with the speech which you called me to make.
  I want now to speak about rent increases. It is obvious that Conservative Members do not want to hear about rent increases. The huge rent increases which have been imposed by this Government will be an intolerable burden on tenants whose average household income is 24 per cent. below the national level and whose rents will almost have doubled since this Government came to office. What is more, they are rent increases which amount to a massive additional tax totalling between £700 million and £840 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) pointed out, this is Robin Hood in reverse.
  But at least each of those families will have a home and, very likely, a home built to acceptable standards. Meanwhile, the Government's unprecedented withdrawal of finance from the housing programme will be inflicting a catastrophe on the nation's stock of dwellings. The money evaporates. It is down 32 per cent. this year and will be down 48 per cent. by 1983–84. Subsidies are being wiped out completely and the problem will take on almost uncontrollable dimensions. The quality of the nation's housing stock is deteriorating fast.
  The Secretary of State does not care about any of this. He is concerned about his own personality, not about what he is doing to the housing needs of the country. The quality of the nation's housing stock is deteriorating so fast that the cost of installing basic amenities and making good arrears of maintenance probably totals £14½ billion.
  The collapse of the house-building programme under the Government is likely by 1986 to mean that the nation will have 400,000 dwellings fewer than it needs. The cost of providing such dwellings at today's prices is at least £7½ billion. The price of the Secretary of State is mounting rapidly beyond £20 billion.
  Mr. Major: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: Not at this stage.
  This housing tragedy is brought about by the Secretary of State and the Tory Government.
  Mr. Major: Give way.
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  This housing tragedy will impose a burden of human deprivation. That is what matters, not the Secretary of State. The housing tragedy brought about by the Secretary of State will impose a burden that the nation will have to

  405
  carry for decades. The right hon. Gentleman's policies are ensuring that Britain's housing crisis will endure well into the twenty-first century. He has been in office only a brief time, although he seems to carry it heavily. For the homeless and the ill housed, he has already been in office far too long.
  9.41 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I should like to make two introductory points. First, the subject of the debate today, as announced by Mr. Speaker at the opening of the debate on the Queen's Speech, is housing. The majority of speakers in today's debate have recognised that, apart from Opposition Front Bench Members. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has wriggled.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debate on the Queen's Speech. If I or any other hon. Member had wanted to speak about defence, or about who shot J.R., that would have been permissible. Therefore, the Under-Secretary's remarks should be ruled out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Subjects mentioned in the Queen's Speech are in order. There was an example in the House yesterday of an hon. Member talking about a matter that was not strictly the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that in order to reply properly to the debate one should know the subject of the debate. I have said that the subject chosen for debate by the Chair was housing, and that is the subject recognised by the majority of hon. Members who have participated, apart from right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in reply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, said that he had approached the Government in order to extend the subject. He said that that was true. I give him the opportunity now to say how he approached the Government.
  Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the Minister to be raising a point of order. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wishes to raise a point of order.
  Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I understood the Minister to have been called not to continue with his speech but to raise a point of order, which, as I understand, should be addressed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to the Opposition Front Bench.
  Secondly, is it not within the knowledge of the House that this evening, during this debate on housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) made a speech about amendments to the Canadian constitution? Because this is a debate on the Queen's Speech, he was not ruled out of order.
  Mr. Roberts: I have given an opportunity, and I still extend the opportunity, to the right hon. Member for
  406
  Sparkbrook to give the House an answer to a question that has arisen during the course of the debate. How does he justify his statement that he had approached the Government?
  Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Minister to spend this amount of time on an incestuous matter between the two Front Benches a matter that is of no interest whatsoever—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The content of the speeches made from the Front or Back Benches has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Roberts: I think that the House will reach its own conclusions.
  Mr. Major: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I hope is genuine. It is a matter of concern to the House, first, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was assailed for not dealing with matters of which he was not aware would be raised and, secondly, that Conservative Back Benchers were assailed on matters that had nothing to do with the rate support grant and other matters that were not expected to be the subject of discussion today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman can do better than that, there is no point of order.
  Mr. Roberts: I was also going to say that my presence at the Dispatch Box symbolises the Welsh dimension in housing. Of course, I have taken note of the points made by hon. Members from England, too, but the fact remains that the consultation papers that were issued to local authority associations today are in the names of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales.
  I have noted the presence in the Chamber from time to time today of a few right hon. and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, but the majority of Welsh Members appear to have missed their opportunity—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
  Several right hon. and hon. Members referred to the decline in new building, which, incidentally, started under the previous Labour Government, and they criticised the imposition of the moratorium in England. To hear those hon. Members, one would imagine that they knew nothing of the serious financial and economic position resulting from the present world recession. With regard to the moratorium, it is clear that the halt on the housing improvement programme expenditure in England has been misunderstood and misinterpreted.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked what was the point of the moratorium. He was ably answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). The purpose of the action in England, was simply to prevent overspending on the amount allocated.
  The cash limit of £2,186 million has not been reduced. The value of housing work that may be undertaken this year by the building industry has not been reduced below the level originally planned. In seeking to exercise a proper control over public expenditure in this way, the Government are not introducing any new principle. This is what any responsible Government would have done.

  407
  Indeed, the previous Government themselves introduced a moratorium on new house building in July 1976 specifically to avoid overspending.
  Mr. Alec Jones (Rhonnda): How long?
  Mr. Roberts: It applied in Wales as well.
  Mr. Alec Jones: How long?
  Mr. Roberts: It is not a question of for how long we introduce a moratorium. It is the principle of the moratorium—
  Mr. Straw Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Alec Jones Mr. Alec Jones rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is bad enough to have the Minister and a right hon. Member on their feet at the same time, let alone Back Benchers as well.
  Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) will understand that there is only a short time remaining for the debate and that I am unable to give way to him. I have a great deal of territory to cover.
  I emphasise that the moratorium does not cover expenditure contractually committed by the time that the circular of the Department of the Environment was received. That includes schemes for which tenders had been formally accepted in terms that might make an authority liable if it did not then sign a contract. It does not cover expenditure that is not yet committed but which the authority is statutorily obliged to incur—for instance, on intermediate and other mandatory grants or on acquisitions under confirmed CPOs when the authority has entered the property.
  I should stress that home insulation grants are unaffected, as are essential adaptations to public sector property for the chronically sick and disabled, grants for such adaptations to private dwellings, and mortgages on council house sales.
  It is recognised that the standstill bears hard upon those authorities that are not likely to overspend this year. They are having to suffer because of what others have done.
  My view is that my colleagues have been right to act as they have. It is clear from the figures that action was necessary.
  I go further. If the Opposition were in Government now, they would have done the same. We cannot allow cash limits to be breached. I remind the Opposition that the discipline of cash limits was introduced by them. We welcomed the introduction of cash limits. We expect support in their application now.
  We have heard very little from the Opposition about the moratorium in 1976. That can have added only to the downturn in housing investment that was initiated by the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Straw Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Roberts: We have not yet had to impose a moratorium in Wales. That is cause for some relief to us but it is not a matter for boasting. We are closely watching the situation in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are able to maintain close and even intimate relationships with individual local authorities. Welsh local authorities are fully aware of our views and they know what is required of them.
  408
  We must rely on the good sense of local authorities in Wales to keep their spending under control. I appeal to all concerned to help us in avoiding consequences that they would greatly regret. Make no mistake, we would have to impose a moratorium if it appeared as if we in Wales were heading for overspending this year or to an over-commitment for next year.
  We have heard today of the effects of stopping and starting housing programmes. There is a need for continuity in planning. Again, I can refer to experience in Wales. The previous Government's moratorium in 1976—which covered Wales—came not long after a tour of Welsh local authorities by one of my predecessors as Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who urged authorities to "spend, spend, spend" and "break the bank". Well, they did break the bank. That was the result of the drive referred to by the right hon. Member for Ardwick.
  I turn briefly to another main element in the debate—subsidies for local authority housing and the rents charged by local authorities to their tenants. I make that distinction between rents and subsidies because some hon. Members have spoken as though the two issues are one and the same. It is the Government who take decisions on Exchequer subsidy, while it remains the statutory responsibility of local authorities to set their own rent levels. That is a real and significant difference.
  We make no apology for the figure that my right hon. Friend quoted for the increase in the local contribution. It would have been considerably less if under the previous Labour Government rents had moved in line with earnings, in accordance with the policy that they proposed but did not carry out.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Roberts: We have heard—
  Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both Front Bench Members must realise that only one hon. Member at a time can hold the Floor.
  Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Roberts: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman has been absent for the greater part of the debate.
  Had the previous Government followed the policy that they talked of, rents would be about £10 a week, instead of about £8·10 pence. We should not have witnessed the steady, uncorrected decline of rents as a proportion of earnings over the Labour years, from 8 per cent. in 1974–75 to the 6·4 per cent. that we inherited. What we are doing here, as elsewhere in our policies, is acting to restore realism in housing. Real costs must be faced. It does no credit to the previous Government that they hid their heads in the sand.
  What we must not do is look at rents as if all increases stood to be paid in full by local authority tenants. Almost 45 per cent. of tenants in England and Wales receive rent assistance of one kind or another. For that sizable proportion of tenants, the extra rent that they will be called on to pay will be considerably less than the increase that we have discussed. Almost 20 per cent. of tenants receive assistance by means of rent rebates. For them, 60 per cent. of any increase will be met by their rebate, and in some

  409
  high rent areas the figure will be even higher. For tenants on supplementary benefit almost 25 per cent. the increase will be met in full.
  I should also like to remind the House that the Government raised the maximum rent rebate this year to £25 a week in London and £23 elsewhere. The previous maxima were £13 and £10 respectively.
  Many tenants can well afford to pay higher rents than those now prevailing. Updating the data in the latest family expenditure survey, it is estimated that 1¼ million tenants 25 per cent. have household incomes of £8,000 a year or more, and average industrial earnings are now £125 a week, compared with the present average council rent of £8·10 pence a week. Even if rents were to rise an average of, say, £11 a week next year, they would still be below 10 per cent. of present average industrial earnings.
  We must bear in mind, too, that excessive subsidies for council rents eat into resources which might otherwise be used for capital investment—
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Manpower Services Commission (North-West Area Office)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne Mr. Stan Thorne(Preston, South) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman should realise that his time is running out.
  Mr. Thorne: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to be heard, and that is not really possible when hon. Members are leaving the Chamber.
  It is strange that we should be discussing the proposed closure of the North-West area office of the Manpower Services Commission's employment service division at Preston in view of the temendous increase in unemployment in the areas covered by that office. It was only at midday today that I received a letter from the vicar of St. John the Evangelist, Whittle-le-Woods, in which he referred to the concern of committed Christians about the level of unemployment in the area, the serious threat to family life and the stability of young married families, which is adversely affected by the stigma of unemployment and lack of work.
  The North-West ESD area is the smallest of the 18 areas nationally. It also happens to be the most efficient and cost-effective area, which leads the field in placings per staff unit and costs per placing. That is no accident of chance, as the smallness of the area gives a personal contact and rapport with local offices that larger areas cannot achieve. The West Midlands is a classic example of that.
  To make the Manchester and Merseyside areas, which form part of the suggested closure, even larger by adding two of Preston's districts to each will only lower their already poorer performance. I shall return to this in a moment.
  A survey team came to Preston to look at the work of the area office. The staff and others feel that the answer had already been determined, and thus the report reflected
  410
  that fact. The main functions of the employment services divisions are to provide access to a free placement service, free employment service and free disablement resettlement service. They are in the front line of the training service. They continually check the work of the jobcentres within their areas. Even the relatively new rehabilitation centre at Ingol, in Preston, would, if the proposal to close went ahead, become administered by Liverpool, which is about 30 miles away.
  What does the proposed closure at Preston really involve? One part of the proposal is to add East Lancashire and Cumbria to the Manchester area, which would be geographical nonsense. Cumbria would be virtually detached from the rest of the area as rail routes, the A6, the M6 and so on all run through Lancaster. which, paradoxically, would be in the Merseyside area. From Manchester to Carlisle is 118 miles. The journey by rail necessitates a change at Preston, with very rare exceptions. Similar travel difficulties apply to Barrow, Whitehaven and Workington—and, of course, to the smaller offices which they in turn control. This has certainly been under-emphasised in the report of the survey team.
  Communications from East Lancashire to Manchester are not so difficult, but they are not as good as to Preston, from which a network of bus services operates to virtually every town in East Lancashire.
  East Lancashire has no affinity with Manchester. It would make as much sense to tack it on to Leeds, about the same distance from Burnley. Cumbria has absolutely no affinity with Manchester. It is a large and undeveloped district, remote from any of the traditional administrative centres. It has nothing in common with Newcastle, its former overlord. Though difficult for whoever runs it, the past six years have shown that it is best run from Preston, as any staff in the Cumbrian offices will confirm.
  To add central Lancashire and the Lancashire coast to Merseyside is even greater nonsense. Chorley, for example, is almost within the Greater Manchester area, while the Fyldes, Morecambe and Lancaster are totally alien to anything connected with Merseyside, with which communication by road is indifferent and by rail hopeless.
  A check of annex M to the survey report shows that the proposed closure of the North-West area would achieve staff savings of 11·5 staff units, namely, one principal, one SEO, two HEOs, two EOs, three COs, two typists and 0·5 of a personal secretary, although I would not want to go into that too closely.
  The main effect of this would be to save the two receiving areas from achieving staff reductions of 11 on Merseyside and nine in Manchester, which would otherwise be required of them by 1 April 1982. Instead, Manchester would lose two staff units only and Merseyside the 0·5 staff unit from its present complement. The price for this would be the extinction of an area which, as I mentioned earlier, has a much better record. One might well ask, what price efficiency?
  On what do I base the reference to poorer records in the other two areas? Some figures must be quoted. The staff in the local and district offices of the North-West—the area that it is suggested should be closed—during the quarter ending September 1980, placed 15,985 people in jobs. The ratio, therefore, of placings per unit of staff was 41·63 to 1. In Manchester, the staff is 624, its placings

  411
  were 19,918, and its ratio was only 31.92 to 1. Merseyside, with 632 staff, had placings of 20,082, a ratio of 31·78 to 1.
  Clearly, those figures show that the North-West's role in terms of placings is a much more efficient one than either of the two other areas which it is suggested should take over the work presently done by it.
  The staff cost of the 11·5 staff units "saved", if the closure goes ahead, would be £96,724 per annum at 1980 salaries. Much of that alleged saving—which amounts to less than £2,000 a week—would be clawed back through increased telecommunication costs and through increases in staff travelling and in night subsistence claims, notably for those training in Manchester and for the area office staff who visit outlying offices. Any savings that accrue are likely to be puny in comparison with what will have been sacrificed to achieve them.
  Let us assume that the closure of the North-West area office goes ahead. The reallocation of the present staff of about 35 will present serious problems. There will be few, if any, vacancies in Manchester or Merseyside for the mobile grades, which comprise two SEOs, five HEOs and 11 EOs. Although the two SEOs could probably be slotted into managerial posts, there is only one foreseeable HEO vacancy. Already, supernumerary EOs are awaiting posts in this area. As a result, four HEOs and 11 EOs are likely to be supernumerary at an annual cost of about £130,000. If one adds to that figure the non-mobile grades—say, 12 clerical officers and a couple of typists—few of whom can be readily reallocated within daily travel distance, the total annual cost of supernumerary staff increases to more than £200,000. That sum far exceeds the ostensible "savings" to be made from closing the North-West area office.
  The merits of retaining the North-West area office were fully demonstrated three years ago. They are equally viable now. At that time, the former chief executive and executive director agreed that if Lancashire were welded on to Manchester or Merseyside those areas would become too cumbersome. During that Parliament, I took a deputation to meet the former Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Along with others, we tried to persuade him that it made sense to retain that office. He clearly accepted that view, not only on the basis of our representations but also on the basis of evidence from other sources.
  I have mentioned staff costs, but I now turn to the subject of staff morale and welfare. Many of the staff at Preston area office have lived under a vague sort of sword of Damocles for the past three years or more. Despite that continuous threat, it has remained an efficient area. The staff deserve a break. They deserve to be treated in a better way and should not be kicked about as supernumeraries or as transferees to inconvenient and unwanted vacancies in other arms of the Department of Employment's group, where they would probably need retraining. Since they have their own cuts to contend with, they would not be particularly welcomed by other staff, who are faced with similar difficulties.
  At present, to effect economies, Lancashire and Cumbria cannot be adequately serviced from remote control points in Manchester and Liverpool. Central Lancashire new town is developing as a logical
  412
  counterbalance to those two centres of southern metropolises. Preston is the administrative centre for Lancashire and the centre of the new town development. The loss of an area office will only sow the seeds of problems in the near future when its reinstatement will become essential and a matter of urgency.
  When the idea of closure was mooted three years ago, there were then Members such as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), the present Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), now Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, and others who showed a considerable interest. They collectively opposed the plan, as I understand it. I wonder where they now stand m regard to this plan.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary has studied the map and has seen how unrealistic it is to merge Cumbria with Manchester. A glance at the map shows Preston to be at the centre of the area that we are discussing. The growth of the central Lancashire new town and the central role for Preston must be maintained. I urge upon the Minister the need to reject this proposed closure.
  I end by referring to letters from the chairman of the central Lancashire district manpower committee, the chairman of the East Lancashire district manpower committee and the chairman of the Blackburn and district disablement advisory committee, which I am sure the Minister has seen. I am sure that he has noted their collective opposition to the suggested closure. I hope that he will take serious note of their representations. Some of the Under-Secretary's colleagues—I notice the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) sitting behind him—will be equally concerned for him to reappraise the situation and to accept the need to forget about what he may consider an economy and to recognise that to maintain efficiency in this area of the North-West is essential if over the next few months we are to meet the needs of the growing number of unemployed.
  10.17 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): First, I assure the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that I appreciate his comments and the comments of his clerical correspondent over the problems of unemployment in the North-West. I hope that he will draw to his correspondent's attention the massive Government support that goes into the North-West through the Department of Industry and the Department of the Environment and through the development of new ideas such as the Urban Development Corporation and the enterprise zone, and, indeed, the package of new measures that my Department announced only on Friday, a considerable part of which goes into the North-West.
  However, I turn to the issue that the hon. Member raises. First, as I made clear in reply to questions earlier this month, no decision has yet been taken to close the North-West area office of the Manpower Services Commission's employment service division. I therefore welcome the interest shown by the hon. Member and the opportunity to put the situation clearly before the House. I should like to explain the reasons for the proposal to merge the North-West area with the adjacent areas of Merseyside and Manchester—a proposal that includes the closure of the employment service division's North-West area office at Preston.

  413
  As the hon. Member is aware, the present Government have been concerned to reduce the size of the Civil Service. MSC staff numbers had increased rapidly and could not be exempt from reductions. The Commission's corporate plan and manpower review set out the position following the initial reductions, and we asked for a further reduction of 2·8 per cent. across the Civil Service as a whole in March of this year in connection with the Civil Service pay settlement. The proposal that we are discussing tonight is one measure designed to enable the employment service to meet its share of these economies. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 13 May our intention of reducing the size of the Civil Service to about 630,000 by 1 April 1984. The MSC again will have to bear its share of these further reductions, although no decision has yet been announced on the size of the further reductions that we shall be seeking from it.
  This further economy underlines the need to streamline administration wherever possible. The employment service division—in common with other parts of the MSC—looked at what economies it might make, and it included in its consideration the scope for rationalising and simplifying its area organisation. As a result, an internal survey was undertaken, which recommended the merging of certain areas, of which the North-West was one.
  The MSC also considered major changes to the North-West area some 18 months ago, but the issue was deferred pending a further review. Now, of course, the new factor to be weighed is the need for economies.
  I stress that, in deciding where the various changes are to be made, the MSC has sought as far as possible to preserve the resources available for its front-line services to the public. In the case of the employment service division, therefore, the emphasis has been on continuing to give the maximum possible assistance to the unemployed through the work of jobcentres and employment offices. This assistance involves not only obtaining and filling vacancies but providing unemployed people with access to training courses and the MSC's special programmes. This has meant, however, that the ESD's staffing reductions have particularly affected support and back-up services, which are provided by an administrative structure that includes 18 area offices and a head office.
  The Government believe that these priorities are right. It could, nevertheless, be argued that pro rata cuts could be made to the employment service division's area organisation, so that the present network of area offices could be preserved, although each office would be smaller. In fact, such measures have already been taken in response to the Government's request for staffing reductions. However, there are limits to how far this approach can be taken. Below a certain size, an area office would be unable to offer its local offices a comprehensive range of support services covering specialised functions such as personnel, psychological and technical support. Accordingly, it has been necessary to consider amalgamations, particularly those involving smaller areas. In this way, support services can continue to be provided, but in a more cost-effective way.
  Of course, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, there are limits to how far amalgamations can go. Too large an area could mean problems of staff relations, of inflexibility and of remoteness of local needs.
  414
  But the North-West area office is very small, with a cadre of just under 40 staff, and there is little scope for further reductions there if it is to continue to be effective. On the other hand, the MSC's study has shown that significant economies could be achieved by apportioning the area between the Merseyside and Manchester areas. I emphasise again that this would not entail any detriment to the ESD's services to the public in the North-West.
  Although both the Manchester and Merseyside area offices would require a small increase in their staffing to deal with their newly expanded territories, the difference between this increase and the reductions resulting from the closure of the North-West area office at Preston would give worthwhile savings. In my written reply to the hon. Member on 13 November, I indicated that eight and a half posts would be saved, with a cash saving of £88,000. The figures have since been examined afresh, and I am now advised that there would be an overall staff saving of about 11 or 12 posts. Leaving aside non-recurring costs—staff transfer expenses and so on—the annual saving would be about £98,000. In addition, a further annual saving of £23,000 would accrue when the lease of the Preston area office premises was reassigned.
  The employment service division of the MSC is convinced that the amalgamation of the North-West area would not have any adverse effect on the level and effectiveness of its services to the public in the area. Jobcentres and employment offices in central Lancashire and the Lancashire coastal districts would continue to be administered just as effectively under the Merseyside area and the offices in Cumbria and East Lancashire under Manchester. Furthermore, there will be no change to the territorial responsibility of the MSC's regional manpower services director for the North-West, who is located in Manchester, or to that of the employment service division's executive director for Wales, West and North-West, who is also based in Manchester. I should also make it clear, in case there is any confusion on the point, that the proposal to close the employment service division's area office at Preston is not related to a proposal, which is still under consideration, for the transfer of Cumbria to the Department of the Environment's North-West region.
  As would be expected, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the reallocation of staff. Careful consideration has been given to the reallocation prospects of staff at the Preston area office. Many would be absorbed locally—for example, by the special programmes division of the MSC, which, due to an expansion of the special measures in the North-West region, will have posts to fill, nine of which will be in Preston. The MSC has assured me that if the proposal that we are considering were implemented there would he no compulsory redundancies of staff from the Preston area office, although in some individual cases redeployment might take a little time to achieve.
  I understand that the MSC has still to approve the proposed change. In advance of that, a meeting has been arranged with the staff associations concerned so that their views can be taken fully into account. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, despite his geographical concern, I am satisfied that the service will not be affected and that the staff can be reallocated satisfactorily without compulsory redundancies. I undertake to ensure that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are drawn to the attention of the MSC.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: One of the matters of concern, not only to me but to colleagues in Blackburn and Nelson and Colne, is that when the area on the central west side is married to Merseyside it will be wedded to a department which already has a massive problem because of its much higher level of unemployment. If the offices in Merseyside have the pressure of their own area on them and there are problems outside in the vague northern parts of Lancashire, which of them will be the first concern of those offices? That applies also, though perhaps to a lesser extent, to Manchester. Will those in Nelson and Colne, Burnley and further north, as far as Cumbria, get the sort of attention that the local offices have given to Manchester's problems? There is grave doubt about that.
  Mr. Lester: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's doubts. He is closer to the ground than I am in terms of the situation in Preston, but I have never thought of the North-West in terms of the geographical split to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I have always thought of it as a conterminous area, where the problems tend to overlap. I am assured by the MSC that it is satisfied that the support services to the front-line service, which we all want to maintain, will not be impaired by the proposed change.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

Employment
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Cannock and Rugeley
  Cannock and Rugeley
Overseas Development
  Cameroon
  Cameroon
Trade
  Foreign Airlines
  Foreign Airlines
  Polyester Filament and Nylon Carpet Yarns
  Polyester Filament and Nylon Carpet Yarns
Social Services
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  CHANGES IN CONTRIBUTION RATES
  CHANGES IN CONTRIBUTION RATES
  National Health Service (Financing)
  National Health Service (Financing)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Funeral Costs
  Funeral Costs
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Lomotil
  Lomotil
  Monthly Index of Medical Specialties
  Monthly Index of Medical Specialties
Home Department
  Mental Patients (Electoral Franchise)
  Mental Patients (Electoral Franchise)
  Metropolitan Police (Special Branch)
  Metropolitan Police (Special Branch)
  Prisons (Cash Limits)
  Prisons (Cash Limits)
  Election Deposits
  Election Deposits
  Juvenile Courts (Legal Aid)
  Juvenile Courts (Legal Aid)
  Operation Square Leg
  Operation Square Leg
Industry
  Pentachlorophenol
  Pentachlorophenol
  Deindustrialisation
  Deindustrialisation
  Nexos
  Nexos
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Small Firms (Liquidation)
  Small Firms (Liquidation)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
Wales
  Welsh Housing Survey
  Welsh Housing Survey
  Welsh Language Education (Expenditure)
  Welsh Language Education (Expenditure)
  15-year-olds (Mathematical Skills)
  15-year-olds (Mathematical Skills)
  South Wales (Integrated Operations)
  South Wales (Integrated Operations)
House of Commons
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Food and Agricultural Commodities (European Community Trade)
  Food and Agricultural Commodities (European Community Trade)
Education and Science
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Examination Results
  Examination Results
  A-Levels (Science and Mathematics)
  A-Levels (Science and Mathematics)
  Computer Programmes and Textbooks
  Computer Programmes and Textbooks
  New College, Northampton
  New College, Northampton
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
  17-Plus Examination
  17-Plus Examination
  Common Examination System
  Common Examination System
  Voluntary Schools
  Voluntary Schools
  Parents' Charter
  Parents' Charter
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Animals (Scientific Education)
  Animals (Scientific Education)
  Primary Schools (Admissions)
  Primary Schools (Admissions)
  Provision for Youth (Review Body)
  Provision for Youth (Review Body)
  Discretionary Awards
  Discretionary Awards
  Integrated Sandwich Courses
  Integrated Sandwich Courses
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Teachers (Conditions of Service)
  Teachers (Conditions of Service)
  Truro
  Truro
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Education Advisers
  Education Advisers
  Education System (Industrial Demands)
  Education System (Industrial Demands)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
  General Teachers' Council
  General Teachers' Council
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Universities (Finance)
  Universities (Finance)
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Engineering Research
  Engineering Research
  Independent Schools (Fees)
  Independent Schools (Fees)
  Religious Instruction
  Religious Instruction
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Slough
  Slough
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Bingham Inquiry
  Bingham Inquiry
  Castlemilk, Glasgow
  Castlemilk, Glasgow
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  President-elect Reagan
  President-elect Reagan
  European Community
  European Community
  West Germany
  West Germany
  CBI
  CBI
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Yorkshire
  Yorkshire
  Industry (Energy Costs)
  Industry (Energy Costs)
  Secretary of State for Industry
  Secretary of State for Industry
  Economic Adviser
  Economic Adviser
  Service Personnel (Education Grants)
  Service Personnel (Education Grants)
  Public Sector Employees (Salary Payments)
  Public Sector Employees (Salary Payments)
Defence
  Rapier Missile
  Rapier Missile
National Finance
  Joint Stock Banks
  Joint Stock Banks
  Commission of the European Communities
  Commission of the European Communities
  North Sea Oil Revenues
  North Sea Oil Revenues
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
Scotland
  Miss Margaret Ralley
  Miss Margaret Ralley
  Alcohol Studies Centre (Paisley College of Technology)
  Alcohol Studies Centre (Paisley College of Technology)
  Scottish Seed Potato Association
  Scottish Seed Potato Association
  Fox Hunting
  Fox Hunting
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
Civil Service
  Maternity Retention Pay Scheme
  Maternity Retention Pay Scheme
Transport
  A45 Weedon to M1 (Lighting)
  A45 Weedon to M1 (Lighting)
  M11 (Service Areas)
  M11 (Service Areas)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Roads (Cash Limit)
  Roads (Cash Limit)
Environment
  Local Government Staff
  Local Government Staff
  Housing Subsidy System
  Housing Subsidy System
  Chief Inspector of Audit (Report)
  Chief Inspector of Audit (Report)
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales

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

Short-Time Working: Cost
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the estimated Government expenditure in the past three months in respect of employees of firms working a four-day week.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is not possible to provide a precise answer in the form which is requested by my noble friend as statistics are not kept on this basis. But in the three-month period up to 31st October 1980 a total of £50·2 million compensation was paid to firms claiming support under the scheme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many workers are currently affected by this short-time working compensation scheme? Will be note that since this Question was tabled, it is very gratifying to the Government side of the House to know that the period of extension has gone up from six months of help to nine months of help? This will greatly help industry which is struggling to maintain employment in a very difficult economic situation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's first question, during October 1980 over 410,000 workers were on short-time employment and were receiving assistance under this scheme. On my noble friend's second question, the department is very grateful that this scheme at least is of some assistance.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to the extent to which there has been an increase in the number of employees benefiting under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme in the period of three months to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred, as compared with the period of three months perhaps immediately preceding that period?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry but I could not answer that question; the noble Lord might he satisfied, and perhaps the House might be happier, if I wrote to him giving that information.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether the figures that he has given include those who are on a three-day week? Can he also tell us how the money is actually paid?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the figures that I have given cover all payments under the temporary scheme, but the method of payment is somewhat complicated.
18
Perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to write to him on that because the compensation is paid in about five or six different ways, and I think that the House would be weary if I went through them.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord—and I do so in order to get a proper balance of things—whether he can tell us that it is true that during the past month the number of unemployed has risen by 100,000.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I could not reply without notice to such an unconfirmed report, but I do not think that we should be too precise over the figures. Possibly we shall find out.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has said, will the noble Lord tell me what is the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the increasing number of unemployed, say in terms of 100,000 or 500,000?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord mentioned 100,000 or 500,000. Was that unemployed, pounds, or units of account? I think that that question is probably a little wide of the Question down in the name of my noble friend.

The European Human Rights Convention
2.41 p.m.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I apologise to the House and to the Minister for a clerical error? The words "Article 40" should read "Article 46".
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to ensure that the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms shall be renewed and, if so, for an indefinite period, and whether the appropriate declaration will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe; and further whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make the appropriate declaration under Article 40 of the said convention to be effective for an indefinite period and to deposit such declaration with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided that our acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights, will be renewed for a period of five years from January 1981. The appropriate declarations will be communicated to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe shortly.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I welcome that Answer by the Minister, which I hope will end recent uncertainty about the position of individual petitions. Will the

19
Minister agree that it should now be an accepted principle that an individual adversely affected by an alleged or real act under the convention should have a right of access either to a domestic court or to the European Court? Finally, if that be so, would it not be helpful if the procedure under Article 25 were determined by a more suitable and more permanent practice than an announcement by the Government of the day lasting only five years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the access to the European Court is of course through the Commission, and subject to the findings of the Commission. That is the effect of the continued acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of Articles 25 and 46. So far as matters to do with domestic courts in this country are concerned, that is a matter for the courts of this country. The noble Lord asked finally whether the Government's acceptance of these two articles should be on a permanent footing. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that we believe that the acceptance that we have given is in the best interests of this country, and that we have renewed for as long a period as any of the countries which have renewed for specified periods.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his announcement that the Government have decided to renew the right of petition for a term of five years is greatly welcomed on this side of the House? It is the same period of renewal that the previous Administration decided upon and it is, after all, quite a substantial span of time. Does the noble Lord agree that the right of individual petition goes to the very root of the provisions for the protection of human rights, and has contributed greatly to that protection during the time of the ratification and existence of the convention?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the support that he has given for the machinery by which we have accepted these articles. So far as the last remarks of the noble and learned Lord are concerned, the Government attach importance to support of human rights in Europe, and it is for that reason that we have given this acceptance that I have announced today.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming deeply the decision of the Government, may I ask this: can something he done to speed up the procedure of the court, which oftens means that applicants have to wait for months, even years, before a decision is made? Will Her Majesty's Government make some suggestion by which this may be remedied?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I imagine that this is a matter for the court, but certainly we will look at what the noble Lord is asking.
Lord Wade: My Lords, while not lessening my welcome, would the noble Lord agree that there are cases where there is a breach, or alleged breach, of one of the articles and the complainant cannot find a
20
remedy in a British court and has great difficulty in getting the case to the European court?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this may be so, but I do not think it alters the terms of the original answer which I gave to the noble Lord's first supplementary question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I do not often find myself in total agreement with Lord Fenner Brockway but that I should like from this side of the House to accentuate the need for some speeding up of the procedure? The railwaymen who have been appealing to the human rights court now for some three years are still awaiting a judgment. When people have lost their jobs through the application of the closed shop, it is very unfair that individuals should be kept waiting for three or more years for a judgment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the Government's responsibility is concerned, we certainly take note of the support that the noble Lord has given to the noble Lord opposite.

Dumping of Hazardous Industrial Waste
2.47 p.m
Lord Hale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct as stated in The Times (17th November, col. 1, page 5) that thousands of gallons of hazardous industrial waste rejected by Holland (its place of origin), after being refused entry into Ireland, is now being redirected to Teesside in a coastal tender flying the flag of Panama because it is too toxic to permit of dumping in the sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, consignments of industrial waste have been imported into storage in Teesside in recent months pending decisions on reprocessing or disposal by the owners. They have been notified to the waste disposal authorities under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act and disposal or treatment in the United Kingdom can only take place at a site licensed by the waste disposal authority for the purpose under the Control of Pollution Act. A licence would be required from MAFF for disposal at sea after loading from a United Kingdom port.
Lord Hale: Yes, my Lords, but is the noble Lord the Minister aware that The Times suggest that this waste consists mainly of polychlorinate-biphenyl, just about the most toxic thing in the world, which laid low all the fish in the Great Lakes of Canada, which devastated Indiana, and which is generally recognised by scientists as both carcinogenic and teratogenic? Is it taking the maximum precaution to allow this to be floating about our fishing grounds under the Panamanian flag, over which we exercise very little authority if

21
alternative directions are to be given? Would the noble Lord take this really seriously, because for all practical purposes this particular toxic element is believed to be completely indestructible?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I take the question very seriously indeed. It is a serious matter. That is why I would repeat that a licence would be required from MAFF for disposal at sea after loading from a United Kingdom port. The question of the Panamanian flag would not in any way affect that.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that this particular cargo came from the "Deborah II" and that it was declared non-toxic by MAFF and to be perfectly safe? Would he agree that while Teesside has the warehousing tanks suitable for control and that it would be adequately safeguarded with precautions, it is highly desirable that these tanks should be used for chemicals rather than have the risk of fly tipping in the North Sea where the owners have nowhere to put their chemicals? May I ask the noble Lord to go further into the question of the eventual destination of these chemicals?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I cannot answer the last part of that supplementary, because so far as I am aware that has not yet been decided. I know, and I gladly confirm, as my noble friend said, that the shipments are those which came in on the vessel to which he referred. While repeating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hale—that this is something worthy of watching very carefully—I gladly confirm that, because it is being so watched, there has been proper notification in every way, and we shall therefore be very alert to what ultimately transpires.
Lord Hale: My Lords, will the Minister also consider letting the Drugs Squad have a little reminder that, in shipping quantities of this kind, nothing is simpler than to bury a tin, resistant to fire for a time, to mark its presence by attaching a piece of string, leaving investigators quite helpless to locate or extract it and to be exposed to grave risks of poisoning themselves?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not sure where the Drugs Squad comes into this and I can do no more to help the noble Lord than repeat what I said earlier; namely, that it is a serious matter which we watch very carefully. At the same time there are proper commercial transactions which take place and, provided there is no breach of any of the stringent and strict regulations which are laid down in this area, I think we can, at least at the present time, be satisfied.

Contempt of Court Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to contempt of court and related matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Anguilla Bill [H.L.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to Anguilla. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975; to prohibit certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals; to restrict the introduction of certain animals and plants; to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976; to amend the law relating to nature conservation, the countryside and National Parks and to make provision with respect to the Countryside Commission; to amend the law relating to public rights of way; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Constitutional Referendum Bill [H.L.]
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make obligatory the holding of a constitutional referendum before a Bill which contains provisions to abolish the House of Lords or substantially to diminish its legislative powers may proceed beyong Second Reading in either House of Parliament and to amend Section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Alport.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer power to make regulations requiring the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Bill of Rights [H.L.]
Lord Wade: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to render the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights enforceable in the courts of the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Wade.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order No. 60 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:—

Lord President (L. Soames)

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Byers, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ilchester, E.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Peart, L.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unemployment
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on long-term remedies for unemployment.—(Lord Soames.)
Lord Peart: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord for introducing this. After all, the country is facing a serious unemployment problem. I am sure their Lordships will devote their attention to this matter and no doubt a very valuable report will be produced.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Queen's Speech

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Earl De La Warr—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  24
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
  2.57 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin my speech by repeating, briefly but sincerely, the just encomiums which fell from the three leaders when we adjourned the debate on the admirable speeches of proposal and seconding which fell from my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lord Glenarthur. This debate will be responded to by my noble friend Lord Belstead and, as he will by that time know what it is that noble Lords will have said, I hope that any questions of detail may be dealt with by him at that point in the debate.
  We open our debate on the gracious Speech, with all the width of what we were told is a debate about home policy. That may seem at first sight rather an odd way of beginning, since we shall be having separate debates on foreign policy and defence and on economic policy respectively, and one might think that to discuss home affairs in such circumstances is rather like trying to put on Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. But of course that is exactly how Hamlet begins. In a sense, all plays begin with the necessity to paint in a background, and the battlements of Elsinore, against which our debate on home policy has to be measured, is a backcloth which, at least in my opinion, is one of an increasingly disturbing situation abroad and an economic situation which requires increasingly urgent attention.
  About 20 years ago a rather clever American said that Britain had lost an empire and had not yet discovered a role. At the time I resented that remark, but I wish to return to the subject now. The questions that we have to decide in the course of this Parliament, perhaps in the course of the present Session, in home, economic or foreign policy relate to this underlying problem: what role do we wish our country to play in the remaining years of the 20th century?
  Being a Member of Parliament, of no party, or of any of the three great parties, is only one of a variety of different ways of being British. Each party has its own distinctive personality and ethic, its own habits, customs and constitutions. But each has purpose and character only in so far as it stays within the common entity, which is what we refer to when we call ourselves British. I am sorry if at first hearing that sounds a little platitudinous or even tendentious. But in this world of the sensational and the perverse it is often only the obvious and the truth which stand in need of publicity. To my mind at least what stands in need of publicity in home and social affairs, and for that matter in industrial relations, is not so much our matters of difference, as the fundamental identity of interest which individual groups ought to recognise as existing between their members inside the family, inside the company, inside the divided house of the Christian Church, inside the nation between classes, and I would add, outside the nation between nations and languages, as members (as we all are) of a common species, the human race, threatened

  25
  as perhaps never before by the hideous destructive power of modern military technology, of which the nuclear range of weapons is, alas! only one, and not necessarily the most lethal.
  Many years ago, just after the end of the war, I wrote a book called The Purpose of Parliament, and I should like now to re-emphasise the main message which I then sought to convey. The purpose of Parliament is not the struggle between the parties, it is not the exercise of power, it is not the mutual hostility, it is not the class war, but its avoidance; it is the discovery through frank discussion of underlying identities of interests, the identification of common problems, and the discovery of mutually acceptable solutions.
  In this House I have again and again drawn attention to the paradox, or the seeming paradox, whereby the defeated and occupied nations of Asia and Europe—Japan, Germany, the Benelux countries, even France, in rather a different way—rather than the triumphant Anglo-Saxon and communist powers have made the best showing economically, socially and industrially since 1945. On reflection, I do not myself find that quite so surprising as it might seem at first sight; and I find the explanation of this apparent paradox very largely in what I have just been trying to say.
  The fact that the communists are at the bottom of the social, political and economic league, despite their being on the winning side in 1945, is due I believe to the fact that they are commited to a theory contrary to human nature and the facts of life. They are committed to a theory which has never been prepared to recognise the limitations inherent in state power as such; that is, the principle of compulsion which goes along with state power. The result is that even in vast agricultural regions such as Russia or Poland, there is always a shortage of food, however good the weather, and after bad harvests there is a famine. There is always a shortage of goods, and a plethora of queues, in the shops. There is always a natural tendency on the part of their inhabitants to try to emigrate from their social and economic prison when they begin to realise what other countries are like and what the people in other countries enjoy which they themselves lack. There is a corresponding tendency on the part of the authorities in those countries to try to prevent their peoples from knowing what other countries are like, and there is a recurring urge to take refuge in aggression against others, in sabre rattling as a substitute for freedom, pluralism, social justice and economic efficiency.
  At the other end of the league table, the astonishing success of the defeated and occupied powers—Japan, Germany, Benelux and France—has been due I believe, first, to a sense of community engendered by common suffering in defeat, and, secondly, by the acceptance of the values of a free and plural society as the best road to social justice and economic prosperity.
  But what of ourselves—intermediate between the two extremes—the Anglo-Saxons, as General de Gaulle would persist in calling us, despite our largely Celtic origins. Our position is certainly paradoxical. We have done better than the communists. We have done worse than the losers. Why is that? I believe that the answer is two-fold. Victory is intrinsically divisive. To adapt the French proverb, nothing fails
  26
  like success, because everyone is always disappointed after victory. We have failed to regenerate through the recognition of common interests, which is the only way by which regeneration can come. Under the influence of, I believe, false ideas, we have regarded freedom as a perpetual state of confrontation, an everlasting jockeying for position, and a continuous squabble between conflicting sides; and I believe that that is a philosophy which is the opposite of the true function of freedom. In the second place I believe that we, too, in the triumph of victory, have tended to over-estimate the intrinsic potentialities of state power and to under-estimate the value of freedom as a parameter in the equation of social and economic progress.
  We now face, as I believe, a crisis in our fortunes. We are in fact deeply divided—why deny it?— on important issues. But we have nothing to gain, have we, by continuously imputing blame to one another, still less by misunderstanding or misrepresenting one another's view points? We need to concentrate upon our assets, and recognise the lessons forced upon us by our failures.
  Let us also—and I think this is important for the morale of our people—not overestimate the inherent difficulties of recession. Despite the growing figures of unemployment (which concern us all, differ as we may about the means of cure) let us not talk about a return to the 'thirties; or, if we do so talk, let us recognise that the only road in that direction would lie by way of national bankruptcy, and not by any policy in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government. Like some of the other older Members of this House, I was a young man in the 'thirties. In those days the total national budget was in the neighbourhood of about £800 million a year—in the currency, of course, of that time. Whatever the result of the Chancellor's statement yesterday, whatever the shape of his Budget in April, Government spending will be nearer £80,000 million than £70,000 million, in the money of today. That is the whole public sector. Whatever cuts we may or may not make, we shall be spending about £18,000 million on social security alone; and next year we shall he spending on our social budget more and not less in real terms than we shall be spending this year. This may be good or it may be bad. I read in one newspaper today that there are many members of my party who think it bad. But whether it is good or bad it is still a fact, and it is a fact that we neither can, nor wish to, return to the past. We are living in a totally different world.
  It is sometimes suggested that Government policy is dictated by some general theory. So far as I am concerned, at any rate, that is not in the least true. I am agnostic, if I may say so, about almost everything except religion. It is dictated, so far as I am concerned, by the facts of life. The facts of life, as I understand them, are that the national debt, in its broadest sense, has about doubled in five years. The facts of life, as I understand them, are that before we can spend a single penny on social services, education, health or defence, we have got to service that debt; and except for the social security payments, which are about twice the figure, I think it comes to the largest single item in our national budget—about £10,000 million in the coming year. The facts of life are that

  27
  if we did nothing whatever about it we should have to borrow, instead of £10,000 million, something like £13¼ thousand million to cover our expenditure next year. That is on top of the figures that I have been discussing; and the facts of life are that we cannot go on acting like that.
  An asset which we possess and which other industrial nations do not all possess—certainly which neither Japan or Germany possesses—is North Sea oil. That is another fact of life. It is a wasting asset, but if we are to use it we must use it as an asset, and not as a placebo. It is vital that we divert a sizeable proportion of our national income away from consumption and debt service into investment. This is as much in the interest of the old age pensioner as it is of those in work; it is as much in the interest of those being educated at school or in university as it is of those of full age; it is as much in the interest of the unemployed as it is of those in full employment; it is as much in the interest of the workforce as it is of management. I do not believe this to be a dogmatic or ideological statement. I believe it to be common sense; and I may add that it is as much in the interest of the starry-eyed social reformer as it is of the hard-headed business manager. Economic credibility is the condition of social, no less than of economic, advance.
  Our social policy must also be seen, I think, against the background of what at least to me is, unhappily, a deteriorating international situation. There have been two world wars in my lifetime, and the fact that our own nation has not perhaps suffered so much as some others is only a measure of the magnitude of the suffering of all. To prevent another calamity of this magnitude must be of all the most sacred of the responsibilities of any man of my generation who, in the inscrutable wisdom of Providence, survived the last conflagration. But, my Lords, neither of the two wars in my lifetime were brought about by British military strength. Neither of them was brought about by aggressiveness or militarism on our part. Indeed, either might have been prevented had we been more far-sighted in foreseeing the dangers ahead and better prepared, so that aggression might have been deterred. If not caused, the wars were contributed to by Britsh weakness, and not by British strength. Our social policy, therefore, must be framed against the necessity to deter aggression, no less than the need to invest in prosperity.
  It is generally agreed, I believe, that our last Session was too heavily weighted with legislation, and our programme too lopsided in favour of Bills first introduced into another place. I hope, therefore, we shall have a more reduced volume of legislation this time to deal with—a volume of legislation less biased in favour of introduction in the Commons than of introduction in the Lords. At the same time, I do not think that many idle days lie ahead of us. I am glad that, for instance, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided at last to grasp the nettle of nationality, which has been proliferating its noxious growths since 1948. It will not of course be uncontroversial, and it will not be short; but it is also good news (and I hope it will be less controversial) that he is going to improve the criminal law and pursue his proposals for dealing with young offenders.
  28
  My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will take the opportunity to improve the law relating to road safety, and tidy up the rather disreputable jurisprudence of the breathalyser. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be legislating, as your Lordships have aready heard from his representative in this House, on wildlife and the countryside in a Bill which appears to have considerable diversity. I am sure that he, and we, will be relieved by a spell of absence from the dreary, if important, waste of controversy about local government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already announced useful plans for training and retraining, and assistance to, the unemployed. It will be said that these plans are inadequate. So they are. The only adequate assistance for the unemployed will come from the regeneration of the economy.
  I am glad to say that I myself have two Bills of imposing magnitude and considerable importance but not, I hope, of a controversial nature. The first, which your Lordships heard me introduce a few moments ago, relates to the law of contempt and the other, the contents of which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord who is to follow me will probably know almost as well as I do, concerns the Supreme Court of Judicature. There are no constitutional Bills in the Queen's Speech, apart, of course, from the manifest possibility that Canada or Northern Ireland will provide them in an unpredictable form. None the less, I should like, I hope without offence, to say something about constitutional matters; and, particularly in your Lordships' House, I should like to say something about this House.
  It is a complete myth that the House of Lords is dominated by its theoretical majority of Conservatives. I once said about a million years ago when I was leading this House that there was nothing more conservative than an independent Peer but that there was nothing more independent than a Conservative Peer. When we were in Opposition last time we made it then a general rule of thumb not to vote against the Labour Government unless we thought that we could carry with us either the Liberal Party, for whose help we were always glad, or the Cross-Benchers or some Labour dissidents—and preferably all three. Nevertheless—and I do not know whether I am sorry; but I record the fact—the Labour Government did not hesitate to invoke the Parliament Acts against us. In the first Session of this Parliament—and, indeed, in previous Governments—we have never threatened the use of the Parliament Acts against this House despite frequent Government defeats, sometimes on important matters. So far from being an embarrassment to Labour Governments, this House, in my experience, is far more militant and, I might add, sometimes far more embarrassing, when a Conservative Government are in power. For my part, I have a ministerial duty to prevent Government defeats if I can and to deplore them when they occur; but I have a constitutional and philosophic bias in favour of the independence of the Lords' Chamber.
  Far more serious than this is the effect which the abolition of this House or—which is the same thing—the nullification of its few remaining powers would have on our constitution as a whole. Our constitution,

  29
  we must remember, is a most sophisticated instrument and it is impossible to tinker with one part without altering the balance of the whole. The House of Commons is already overworked. No one who has been in it would deny that. It could not undertake the work which we in this House at present perform without entirely disrupting its own character. Of course, that is what some elements, I believe, in the Labour Party want. They want not merely to abolish the House of Lords. Make no mistake about that! The plot—for it is a plot—would have as its effect to abolish the House of Commons as we have always known it. It would make Members of Parliament puppets at the end of a string first by retaining, to the chagrin of the Liberal Party, the present method of voting, "first past the post", while making each Member of Parliament permanently at risk of dismissal at the hands of his constituency Party, infiltrated if possible from the Left by a few unrepresentative activists, and dominated by a card vote in the sovereign body, led by a leader elected by a college of unrepresentative electors incapable even of commanding the support of their own MPs. In other words, the plot is to destroy parliamentary democracy by substituting an Eastern European-type republic dominated by an omnipotent supreme soviet contained in a single Chamber with an unelected party machine consisting of apparatchiks in control of the whole. I hope and pray that the moderates of the party opposite will fight and light again to save the party which they love; and, if they cannot see the true blue light of conservatism, which, I suppose, is too much to hope, at least let them recognise the red light of "Bennery" for what it is before it is too late.
  I am also intensely worried by the continued anti-Common Market stance in the party of Opposition. I believe it to be doing untold damage to this country. The full discussion of this issue is, of course, more germane to the economic and foreign affairs aspects of the matter rather than to home policy; but it has an inevitable repercussion on home affairs as well since our internal policy is very largely determined against the background of the new developments in the world since 1945. When the American commentator, to whom I referred, said 20 years ago that we had lost an empire and failed to discover a role, he was as much talking about the future of Britain as a national society as of Britain as a member of the international community. When we opted out of the Far East, rightly or wrongly, and then out of Aden, we made it quite certain that Africa and Asia would become unstable and preys to anarchy and Soviet imperialism. Our relationship with the United States, which is a Pacific no less than an Atlantic power, has inevitably been diminished as a result of our withdrawals from the Indian Ocean. Fortunately, the English language remains where we have withdrawn and, fortunately, our relationships with Australia and New Zealand, although somewhat shaken at times, are still basically intact. But no country is an island unto itself. Our relationship with Europe must steadily become more important as our status as a world power has diminished. Critics of the Common Market seem to me to suffer from a common fallacy. They fail to realise that the Common Market would still be there even if we withdrew. The only difference would be that we
  30
  would not be there any longer to influence policy. Not only would new tariff barriers arise to render our own social problems probably insoluble; but other policies would be pursued equally detrimental to our internal interests. Worse still—and this is the point to which I come—infallibly the fabric of Western civilisation would become thereby the poorer. If being a member of the political parties is, as I have claimed, only one of a number of individual ways of being British, so being British, I believe, is only one—one of the most important but still only one—of the ways of belonging to a common culture. It is to the furtherance and preservation of that common culture that, in the end, all British policy, foreign, defence, economic and home, must equally aim.
  It is not only in connection with the EEC that I want to end by stressing the importance of the European dimension in home and social policy. By "the European dimension" I do not mean only the Common Market but the wider if more indefinite Council of Europe whose centre of gravity is in Strasbourg. It has been known to your Lordships for a long time that I have favoured the entrenchment of certain basic rights in our national law. I favoured for that reason, both in Opposition and now, the legislation promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who has introduced his Bill again (I think for the fourth time) this Session.
  For reasons which I was quite unable to understand, there was some speculation in the press as to whether we would renew the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights. I do not claim to be wholly uncritical of that Commission or of the Court. One of my noble friends on my right at Question Time today deplored its delays. I think also it has tended to interest itself too much in trivialities. It was designed to prevent, or make more difficult, the kind of oppressive government or legislation which disgraced the Third Reich and European fascism and communism generally, and not to enter too much into the trivialities of domestic legislation. Nevertheless, I am quite convinced that there never was an alternative policy to subscription to the convention. My only personal regret is that we have never found it possible to incorporate it into our national or municipal law. But when I said that being British was only a way of belonging to a culture, I meant that it is only a specific, and indispensable, way of belonging to a community of nations devoted to the common ideal of liberty under law.
  I care not by what name that community of ideals is labelled. We can call it Western civilisation. We can call it European civilisation. In another context we call it Christian civilisation. For some purposes it is each and for most purposes it is all of these. It is founded on a set of values rooted deeply in our history, in the culture and religion of three small cities, and none of them at the time of their greatness as large as a modern conurbation: Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. It has had its shameful incidents, its bloody episodes, its reverses, its dark ages and its periods of success and expansion. But in the end I believe it to be the essential gospel on which mankind must order its political and social affairs.
  Why do we need freedom? Because we say that man is made in the image of the Divine. Why do we need law to restrain us, then? Because man's

  31
  nature is flawed; because, unlike the animals, he has from childhood an uncanny capacity for muddying his own face, breaking his own toys and inflicting harm on his fellows. Twice in our lifetime in great wars we have seen infinite calamities brought down upon not the primitive races of mankind but some of the most refined and civilised societies that the world has ever known. They have descended on some of the most sophisticated, prosperous and cultured of nations, revealing once more that men must be ruled by law which has freedom as its purpose, a law which places some restraint on our disruptive instincts, but a freedom which is the inherent right of every human creature or else man will become the victim of the tyrant or of the explosive forces not far beneath the surface of the best educated among us.
  I said that freedom was rooted in three ancient cities; but in its modern and most characteristic expression through the centuries in modern times it has been rooted in those nations which either occupied the continent of Europe or recognised Europe as their origin. We of that civilisation have much to answer for in this twentieth century. Our quarrels have inflicted much needless suffering on one another and endless calamities on the rest of the human race. Before the twenty-first century dawns, we owe it to ourselves and to one another to build together through free institutions such as ours a human society so harmonious, so self-disciplined, that even those who began by doubting our intentions or ridiculing our aspirations will find themselves unable to deny the splendour of our achievement.
  I say this knowing that we are about to enter a Session of renewed controversy. We are about to enter a Session of unavoidable hardship outside, of difficult decisions among ourselves. In this vale of uncertainty it never can be wrong to lift our eyes occasionally to the stars. My Lords, let us do so here.
  3.35 p.m.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I regret that I must begin my speech with an apology: that I shall not be able to be here for as much of the debate as I should have liked. As treasurer of my Inn, it is my duty and pleasure to call 87 students to the Bar tonight. I hope that I shall be forgiven for my absence. I am particularly sorry as I shall be raising a number of questions in the field of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is to reply to the debate, as the noble and learned Lord has told us. I have endeavoured to give the noble Lord some notice, knowing as I do how well he endeavours to assist the House on all occasions in the course of our debates.
  We have listened with great interest to one of the characteristic speeches of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: wide ranging, a tour d'horizon of history, philosophy and constitutional considerations. But, with great respect, I shall seek a more humble target: namely, to discuss the Queen's Speech.
  We are today discussing home affairs. But, as the noble and learned Lord said in his speech on the Address at the beginning of the last Session—that interminable, unendurable Session—way back in May
  32
  1979, public affairs are not neatly divided into compartments. They are a total spectrum.
  I agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said—that it is essential, so far as we can, to eliminate elements of division in our society and in our world. Sadly, our domestic scene has darkened and the divisions in our society are—alas!—deepening. In my speech on the Address in May last year I quoted some of the wisdom of the Welsh, the Mabinogion, where it was said, "Avo Pen hid Pont." That means, "He who leads must be a bridge". We have seen too much dividing, too little bridge building in recent times.
  Our debate today is taking place against a sombre background of decline in our national prosperity. As the noble and learned Lord has said, as a people we are as fine, able and talented as any in the world, and we have considerable resources. Yet at this time we are entering upon a winter of deep anxiety for hundreds of thousands of families in our community.
  The position in the industrial field, for instance, is that there is legitimate fear that our nation's very industrial base is being permanently undermined. By August of this year manufacturing output had slumped by 13·1 per cent., in the course of the previous 18 months. Investment—to which the noble and learned Lord referred—has fallen 6 per cent. since March 1979, and is estimated to be likely to fall still more. The number of company liquidations has almost doubled in that period, and about 100 companies are going bankrupt each week.
  Mounting and massive unemployment is the grim symptom and consequence of this economic decline. Since we met in May 1979 unemployment has gone up by nearly 40 per cent. It is less than comforting to realise that across the EEC countries the increase in the same period has been only half as great, despite the fact that we have been cushioned from OPEC price changes by North Sea oil. Unemployment is now well over 2 million and is expected to rise to 3 million in the course of next year. The waste of people and resources is enormous. The Exchequer is losing £6 billion in reduced tax revenue and increased benefit payments; and the sadness is that it is the weakest who suffer most.
  Some regions are worse than others. Unemployment is approaching 16 per cent. in Northern Ireland: it is nearly 12 per cent. in Wales. Three months ago the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the majority of whose numbers were Conservatives, issued a stern warning, which I shall read:
  "The Committee warns Parliament of the risks of serious social disorder if chronic levels of unemployment endure, particularly among the young, and stresses that if condemned to suffer the worklessness of the 1930s, Wales is unlikely to respond with the apathy and despair of those days".
  For generations Wales has been a law-abiding country and I pray that what the Committee warned against will not come to pass; but the danger, I believe, is serious.
  Two sections of our population have been specially badly hit; the young and the racial minorities. The level of youth unemployment generally is a social calamity. In July of this year 40 per cent. of unemployed men and 60 per cent. of unemployed women in Britain were under 25. We on this side of the House welcome the special employment measures to operate

  33
  in 1981–82, announced by the Government a few days ago. How adequate they will be will no doubt be examined by noble Lords in the debates on the Address. We shall watch anxiously to see whether or not they are mere palliatives, as many suggest they are.
  One of the grave consequences of unemployment has been a serious deterioration in race relations. Unemployment among coloured workers has risen four times as fast as in the working population as a whole. The chances of a black teenager obtaining a job are three times worse than those of a white teenager, although he too is now facing bleak prospects.
  The Government claim that their general inner city policies on economic incentives and other matters directed to that area will automatically deal with these problems, which, as I have suggested, have a heavy and disproportionate effect on coloured communities in inner cities. But the impact of the Department of the Environment's public expenditure cuts, added to yesterday's announcement, has fallen precisely on those inner city authorities which have a disproportionate concentration of coloured people.
  The consequences are going to be grave not only for the black minorities, but, I fear, for society at large. Already there is a feeling of alienation growing in a significant proportion of the white and black youth of our inner cities as regards the claims of law and order and the democratic way of life. We are not necessarily winning the battle of ideas among youth today. I believe that the vast majority of the youth of our country are as good as any earlier generation of the young and are just as capable of public-spiritedness and willingness to help those in need. The numerous voluntary associations that many of your Lordships will be connected with are abundant proof of this and of the part which youth plays in them.
  The facilities now available to evil men to recruit youths of 12 to 18 for their organisations and to propagate the Nazi and racist views which brought mankind near to the abyss between 1936 and 1939 are deplorable. I believe that one of the dominating questions, both domestically in our multiracial society and in international relations, is whether we can live in harmony with men of all races and colours as neighbours. I became deeply conscious of this in my year at Nuremberg during the trial of the Nazi war criminals.
  Only 40 years ago, in the very centre of European civilisation, millions of men and women and their small children were being herded into gas chambers or machine-gunned to death by the SS Einsatzgruppe firing squad. They wore the very Nazi insignia worn on Sunday by the skinheads alongside whose ranks the police—to their intense discomfiture, I have no doubt—were required to march. Those youths—and why they have reached that stage is a problem for examination—are openly pro-Nazi, apeing the techniques and habits of Hitler's SA. They wear swastikas, they give Hitler salutes, they scream anti-semitic and anti-black slogans. On the very day a synagogue was bombed recently in Paris, four synagogues in London were daubed with swastikas. Last Sunday about 600 of those young Nazis were escorted by 3,000 policemen, with a helicopter overhead, as they marched through Paddington shouting "Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil!" No doubt they chose that area for their march because it
  34
  is well known that there is a large coloured minority among the population there.
  I understand that the Westminster City Council, the Churches and various community groups all called for the banning of the march: they did so in vain. According to the Sunday Times, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner takes the view that it is easier to control marches in the streets than to police attempts to defy prohibition. I myself feel that the police themselves are in danger of being wrongly regarded as allies of the skinheads—which of course they are not—as they walk alongside them.
  But are law and order really reduced to this pitch? —and at a time when, according to the same report in the press, community workers throughout London have noticed an unprecedented increase in the violence against blacks. I ask, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister may be able to reply to this: was the Home Secretary consulted about last Sunday's march? If not, why not? There is some comfort in the fact that, due to the presence of thousands of police officers, the amount of violence was limited, for of course when these marches take place other violent elements join in on the other side.
  Concern about these matters led the Government in April of this year to publish a review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation. The foreword by the Home Secretary stated that—
  "The disorders which have occurred over the past few years and their damaging consequences have persuaded the Government that a thorough review of the law on public order is necessary".
  I ask: what has been the outcome of that review? What has been done in the schools and via the media, about the problems that I have felt it my duty, somewhat sombrely, to raise before your Lordships today? The whole community is involved in this challenge: the schools, the Churches, the trade unions, the local authorities and of course the Government, although the Government alone cannot solve the challenge. We are all involved.
  The importance of reducing racial tensions rather than increasing them makes proposals for changes in the law of British nationality, to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, sensitive and difficult. A new law of citizenship would affect all in our country, and not only immigrants. The Government's White Paper, however, seems to build nationality law on the present immigration provisions, whereas a rational system would work the other way round. What it proposes is immensely complicated. If they prevail, those proposals will result in there being no less than five kinds of British nationality. One—the proposed category of British overseas citizen—will have, so far as I can see, no rights at all attached to that status. One paragraph of the White Paper—paragraph 110— has what seems to me a somewhat ominous quality. After discussing the rights attached to national status, such as the right to vote, eligibility to serve on a jury, to take certain employment in the public services and to hold certain ranks in the armed forces, it provides that the Bill, by establishing a British citizenship,
  "will make available a ready definition by which those duties or entitlements may be redefined in future".
  Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will explain what that means.

  35
  On the state of law and order generally, we on this side of the House welcome the proposal in the Queen's Speech to repeal the suspected person offence. The outmoded Vagrancy Act has done much to bedevil good relations between the police and the ethnic minorities. The Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs denounced it in clear terms. They said,
  "It is not in the public interest to make behaviour interpreted as revealing criminal intent, but equally open to innocent interpretation, subject to criminal penalties … We do not consider that the public interest is best served by an offence which inevitably leaves a significant proportion of those convicted, with a sense that their conviction was unjust".
  So we are happy to learn of the intention to get rid of this, but we shall wait carefully to know, and to be told, what is to be put in its place.
  We shall have to wait and see and follow the famous Asquithian advice on that, as on the other law reform measures, such as the company law proposal and the Contempt of Court Bill—although the debate that we had some weeks ago, in which the noble and learned Lord indicated his proposals, suggests to me, at any rate, that that is not likely to be a highly controversial measure. The White Paper refers to the developing of plans to implement the Government's White Paper on young offenders. Does that mean that we are to have legislation on young offenders this Session?
  One of the biggest problems in our penal system, which we considered in detail in the House when we debated the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act recently, is the sheer pressure of numbers of those receiving custodial sentences. Many young adults are in prison rather than in young prisoner centres. It is disappointing that the Queen's Speech contains no reference whatsoever to prisons, and no proposal for parliamentary action to reduce the pressure of numbers in our prison system, by, for example, introducing for short-term prisoners a conditional release scheme at half sentence, of the kind which has operated in Northern Ireland since 1976.
  I understand that later this week we shall be debating the order to renew the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act so I will certainly not enter into detail on that matter now. But I am sure that the House is becoming impatient to know what exactly has been going on in the prisons since we passed that Act. Are negotiations taking place between the Home Office and the prison officers? What has been the outcome of them? What has happened? Is the work of the courts being interrupted or disrupted by the actions of the prison officers? The press today reports a breakout of eight apparently serious criminals from the temporary provisions under the Highbury Magistrates' Court—provisions which, I suspect, were never intended to house prisoners on serious criminal charges. What is happening to prisoners who are in prison custody, but not in the gaols? There are a large number of questions of this kind which we can go into later in the week.
  The disappointment which I am bound to say I feel is that there is no indication of a policy to take out of the prisons those who should never be there at all. In a debate in March this year my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner quoted a statement which he said had been made by the Home Secretary at a
  36
  Conservative Party conference at Bournemouth. The Home Secretary said that in the next four years he would take 4,000 prisoners out of the gaols—1,000 a year: the drunks, the mentally subnormal and the inadequate offenders who are no real threat to anyone, except possibly themselves, and would fine defaulters, including prostitutes. What progress has been made in the carrying out of that intention? This is a very important matter. I do not think that I need apologise for the sombre note that I felt it right to adopt in this debate today. We are, in many ways, at a watershed in the affairs of this nation and I pray that we hold together.
  3.57 p.m.
  Lord Wigoder: My Lords, it is quite inevitable, in these difficult days, that the main thrust of any debate on home affairs should be over our economic and industrial policies, which we are going to debate at some length on Thursday. We shall then have an opportunity of analysing, the unhappy consequences of the Government's policies, and the equally bleak alternative presented by the declared policies of Her Majesty's Opposition. That debate will concentrate primarily, therefore, on the standard of life. This debate, I suggest to your Lordships, really concentrates more on the quality of life and on the measures that can be introduced into Parliament, in the course of this Session, in order to improve that quality.
  I cannot for one moment seek to match the philosophical breadth of the observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and I would not seek to do so. All that I propose to do is to make a few observations about the relationship between law and order and the freedom of the individual, in so far as that relationship will be affected by legislation that is now proposed in the gracious Speech.
  We on these Benches, of course, believe in law and order. It is unfortunate that it has become something of a phrase that is, in a way, the monopoly of the hanger and the flogger. In fact, of course, all of us who believe passionately in individual liberty know perfectly well that without law and order there can be no such liberty. It is, perhaps, equally unfortunate that all of us who believe passionately in civil liberty find, only too often, that there have leapt on to the same bandwagon people who are not in the least concerned with liberty, but who are, in fact, concerned with creating a state of anarchy.
  The measures that are proposed in the gracious Speech that touch on this problem are several. There is, first, the measure which has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to abolish the offence of suspected person. We, too, entirely welcome that. Indeed, not very long ago in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Avebury introduced a Bill to that effect, which was rejected, if I remember rightly, on Second Reading.
  The suspected persons offence has become archaic; it has become outmoded; it has become capable of abuse and of being used in a discriminatory way by the police, though I doubt very much whether the degree of abuse is anything like as great as it has been made out to be. Beyond any question, as an offence it has now come into disrepute in our magistrates' courts. I think it is true to say that convictions for that offence

  37
  now are as rare as acquittals were many years ago, in the days when I first began at the Bar.
  If that offence is to be abolished—and I am glad that it is to be abolished—at the same time I am sure the Government recognise that there is a form of criminal conduct which at this moment is caught only by the suspected persons legislation and by no other laws. I have in mind particularly the gangs of people—they are familiar to all of us in the criminal courts—who roam about on London Transport and who operate together, particularly at the expense of women passengers, jostling them quite deliberately in order to steal, when they are distracted, from their handbags and shopping bags.
  At the present moment that behaviour, which is rife, if it is unsuccessful can only be dealt with under the suspected persons law. If the police are to have powers to detain people who, quite clearly, are behaving in this way time after time, at bus stop after bus stop or at underground platform after underground platform, it does seem to me to be idle to pretend that the police must be left in the situation where they can take no action until a particular effort turns out to be successful. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could indicate whether it is proposed to deal with this problem by way of amending the law of attempted theft, which would be one way of dealing with the problem, or of legislating in some different way to deal with what is a very real menace and irritant, particularly, as I say, in London.
  I welcome, too, the proposals in the gracious Speech to implement some of the measures in the White Paper on young offenders. The proposal to repeal Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 is particularly welcome—it must be so to your Lordships in all parts of the House—because your Lordships have passed an amendment to that effect on more than one occasion. I am in no doubt that there are at this moment young people serving sentences of three years' imprisonment who are so serving only because of the existence of that section of the Act, which has made it impossible for the courts to pass the sentences which they think are appropriate, of 12 or 18 months' or two years' imprisonment.
  I welcome, too, the proposal to strengthen the powers to make residential care orders. We have all observed, all too often, that orders putting children into the care of the local authority turn out to be totally ineffective because the local authority simply returns the child to its parents at the earliest possible moment, and no further action is taken.
  I note also the proposal that parents should be responsible for paying fines imposed as a result of their children's behaviour. I can see the point of that, in the way of indicating to the parents that it is their responsibility. I hope equally that the parents will find a way of ensuring that they recover the money in due course from their children, in order to make quite certain that the children realise that in the last resort it is their responsibility as well.
  Equally in the realm of law and order I put the fact that all of us are entitled to go about our way as pedestrians or motorists without being either maimed or slaughtered by drunken lunatics driving lethal weapons. I note that the Government are proposing to introduce measures to strengthen the existing Act. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord on the
  38
  Woolsack said, indicating in effect that the law has become impossibly technical over the use of the breathalyser. However, I cannot help but reflect that that is not the fault of the draftsmen, or of the breathalyser system, or of the law. It is the fault, in the last analysis, of the politicians who took the decision that we were not on any account to have random tests in this country.
  I speak, I say at once, for myself alone—so far as my Party is concerned, certainly not for them—on this issue. However, I am bound to say that I doubt very much whether the artificiality of the concept that a motorist can lawfully be stopped and breathalysed only if he has in some way or another committed some other form of traffic offence is wise. I cannot help thinking that we ought to look very seriously at whether random breath tests, despite the objections which will be raised by innumerable vested interests—I know that perfectly well—would not in the long run prove to be a very much more realistic deterrent and therefore a very much greater safeguard of human life.
  The only other matters in relation to law and order are two questions which I should like to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. First, could he give any indication as to whether the Government are proposing legislation on the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Report on Offences against the Person, which would be very widely popular in many quarters? Secondly, could the noble Lord indicate whether any action is proposed as a result of the review of the Public Order Act which was widely circulated recently and upon which discussions were invited? I believe that some fundamental rethinking needs to be done in this area.
  Of course, there is a right of protest and free speech and there is a right to hold public meetings to protest about whatever it is that one wishes to protest. However, I think it is time that we began to consider very seriously whether there is any natural or legal right for people to assemble together in large numbers in an area where they know they will cause the greatest possible provocation, in order to block up the highway and march along waving offensive banners and shouting obscene slogans. I doubt very much whether there is any right to demonstrate or to march in that way. I hope that we shall take another look at that matter when the review paper is considered.
  I have referred to some of the matters in the gracious Speech which appear to show the emphasis upon law and order. May I look at the reverse side of the coin just for one moment—at two measures which reflect, I think, very much on our civil liberties. The first is the measure which has been referred to already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—the proposed nationality Bill—which it is indicated will follow the lines of the White Paper. This is a subject which is bedevilled by its interlocking relationship with the whole of our immigration policy. I sometimes get very depressed when I hear those who ought to know better making observations which appear to indicate that they have no knowledge whatsoever of the vast contribution which immigrants have made throughout the centuries to our culture and to our civilisation, and who appear to indicate that there is something noble in itself in keeping out the foreigner at all costs and by every possible device.

  39
  When we look at the nationality Bill, as we shall with very great care, we shall look particularly to see whether it has cured some of the defects in the White Paper where it appears to us that there is a very real risk of discrimination on the grounds of sex and colour. If in the course of the debates on that Bill we uncover, as I believe we may do, such areas, we shall seek to expose them and to attack them as fiercely as we can.
  The other proposed measure—indeed it is now a Bill which has received its First Reading—is of course the Bill on contempt of court. This is a Bill which I hope will come, to some extent at least, to the assistance of the press by clarifying the law. I hope it will make it clear—I have not yet had the chance of seeing a copy—that in future there will only be strict liability, so far as the press are concerned, for contempt of court where there is really serious prejudice to the administration of justice and I hope that lawyers will not be too over-sensitive or too pompous about what amounts to interference with the course of justice.
  I hope, too, that the Bill will make clear precisely the moment from which this strict liability may result. If one picks too early a stage, the result will be to cramp the freedom of the press in its investigative journalism, which is so often of the greatest possible value. Of course, if one leaves it too late, one may prejudice by comment in the press the fairness of the trial of an individual. When I read the White Paper it seemed to me that the compromise solution suggested was a sensible one and I hope it is the one that is revealed in the Bill when we see it.
  That is one measure that is being produced to assist the press, and as the distance gradually diminishes between Fleet Street and Carey Street perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether in addition to that measure there are any other measures proposed which might be of some assistance to some parts of the press. I have in mind particularly action on some parts of the Faulks Committee report on defamation and the Younger Committee report on privacy, which would bring some definition into an area where definition is sorely needed. Although after their experience of last Session I would not expect the Government to introduce into your Lordships' House yet another Bill dealing with freedom of information, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, might perhaps be able to indicate that the Government do recognise the importance of open government and of revealing, wherever possible, all information to the press.
  I think those are the main measures in the gracious Speech which deal with the relationship between law and order and individual liberty. The only other observation I should like to make is to echo perhaps what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about the necessity for common ground. Of course there is that necessity. Equally it seems to me and, I am sure, to my noble friends on these Benches that there is an appalling absence of common ground in our political life at this moment, perhaps to some extent aided and abetted by a divisive electoral system. It seems to us that the two principal parties are growing steadily further apart and the common ground at the moment is almost wholly unoccupied. My noble friends on these Benches see it as our duty to try to
  40
  create that common ground and to try to encourage people from all parties to come and join us and to help to build those bridges. In the course of this Session we shall seek, with the Bills that are proposed in the gracious Speech, to approach them all in a critical but constructive way in the hope of doing something towards building that common ground.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I must ask the indulgence of the House, and especially of the noble Lord who will reply, if I am not able to stay to the end of this debate. I hope however that your Lordships will feel that I am using my time profitably later this evening even if I am not in this House, for I shall be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in an effort to raise money for Crisis at Christmas, that admirable organisation inspired by her late husband. Indeed, she would have been present at this debate had she not had to spend this afternoon in organising the festivities, where I shall be present later this evening. It is not easy for me to follow three of the most distinguished legal minds in this country, and I am very sorry and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, because I was not able to be here to hear what was obviously a very distinguished speech. However, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the lead and the inspiration that they have given us in this debate on home affairs.
  Nor indeed do I find it easy to speak on home affairs when we have to do so against a background of national and of worldwide recession. The gracious Speech reminds us of the further unpalatable medicine that it may be necessary for us to have to swallow before the disease is cured. Certainly the medicine has already proved to be very hitter to the taste and it is not for me to make it any more difficult for those who have the responsibility of government at this present time. Nevertheless, at this time we should not lose sight of the immediate impact which the steps that are having to be taken to meet the crisis are having, for unhappily the painful consequences fall most harshly upon those who are least able to bear them. It is upon the homeless, the poor, those with little money and large families, the unemployed, the one-parent families, that the burden is bearing most heavily. So even in this time, when we are having to apply such unpleasant measures, we must be on the alert to do all that we can to aid immediately those who are at this time unable to fend for themselves, and we must ensure that when we begin to emerge from this recession it is again the weak and the helpless who are the first beneficiaries of the improved situation and not those who are well able to look after themselves.
  I hope that we shall be able to see the situation in which we find ourselves from a rather wider perspective of recent history. I think it is true to say that post-war development, especially as regards local development, has been based upon the assumption of a growth economy and this has encouraged spending by local authorities on a grand scale. In the last 20 years or so we have seen planning projects of a very large and expensive nature; we have witnessed the building of lavish town halls, the provision of museums and of concert halls and so on. These things are all to the

  41
  good and it was to the good when we thought we could afford them. But recently, and especially in this present crisis, the attitude towards state funding and local authority planning has been thrown completely into question. Local authorities are having to re-examine their total commitment to the welfare services on the broadest front, and in consequence the voluntary agencies and the charitable trusts, which have been the background of so much that has been done, are being forced to re-examine their role within society.
  In the past it has often been the voluntary societies and the individuals who have been the innovators. It is they who have seen new needs, they who have started new ventures, and they have often created a status for the work which they have been doing voluntarily to such an extent that the state has had to take over and to accept, as an essential part of a civilised community, those things which, in their imaginative approach, they started. Education, the care of the sick, poor relief, the probation service, are all instances of voluntary efforts created in society which have become now so necessary to our life that they are an essential part of the community spending.
  The crisis in which we find ourselves now has revealed again the immense debt which, even in a welfare state, the community owes to voluntary agencies and to charitable giving. We take so much for granted. We seldom question where the money in great charitable trusts comes from, the service of voluntary agencies. Some of these are important, wealthy, large organisations which are voluntary in character but which are able to employ skilled professional staff. Others are small, very often purely voluntary organisations, but very effective in the things they are providing for the society in which we live. We have only to think of the many agencies to appreciate our debt to them—War on Want, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Help the Aged, Save the Children Fund, Church of England Children's Society, Dr. Barnardo's, various societies devoted to research into various diseases, Child Poverty Action Group, housing associations, the Churches, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, the great charitable trusts.
  They are all doing for us voluntarily things which we could not possibly do without. And the situation which is now developing is requiring all these charitable activities to review their situation and to consider what their contribution will be in the days to come. Are they to continue this tradition of being the initiators, of looking out for areas where their service is needed and funding it from voluntary agencies? Are they still to be the sort of topping up agencies which back the spending by local authorities and by the Government in the great social services, or are they to find themselves more and more having to take full responsibility for those things which once were the responsibility of the state? These are matters about which we must think and about which we must not be forgetful.
  I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I return again to one subject which we have debated very recently in this House, but which has no mention, so far as I could see, in the gracious Speech. I speak of the need for housing. I make no apology for returning to this subject, first of all, because in the debates
  42
  which we had in July and August I reminded the House then that there is a kind of euphoria whereby people think that we have conquered the housing problem and that we have no further need to have this matter on our conscience. The Housing Bill has come, but still the problem of miserably bad housing is with us.
  Secondly, I return to it because recently there has been criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of a number of Bishops who accepted an invitation from various housing associations to see the work that they were doing and to have explained to us what in their view would be the consequences of the funding policy of the Government towards them. Indeed we were criticised in a letter to The Times written by a Member of another place. I can assure your Lordships that we were not taken for a ride, that we are not quite so naïve or so easily hoodwinked as the writer of that letter suggested. We do not adopt a political stance in this matter and have no desire to hand out blame in any particular direction. But we were ready to be informed of the likely consequences of the financial situation in the immediate years, and what we saw would I think have been enough to move the hardest heart.
  I myself visited a street in Paddington not more than two miles away from the place where we are here sitting and debating. It is a working-class street built about 130 years ago. The houses were built very simply but were of good craftsmanship and construction. They were all desperately in need of reconstruction. Some of them at very considerable expense have been so reformed, and I saw houses where old people were living in the greatest comfort and in a very decent state. But we saw some that have lost their roofs and very soon will, though the effect of the weather, be beyond redemption. We also saw houses in which people are living in which I would not put my dog if I had one. That is the sort of thing that can proliferate all over the country, and it is a matter about which we dare not be indifferent.
  The facts are that the cash limits that the housing associations must accept will result in the fact that much essential work cannot be done, and many people will have to continue to live in houses which are terribly substandard, or else they will be unable to find suitable housing, and young married couples will have to continue to live in the houses of their parents. I would make a special plea for London, for I know more about the situation there than elsewhere else. The unemployment figures for London are masked by the fact that they are included in the more favourable figures for the whole of the South-East of England, and so it is that there is an impression that there is less unemployment in London than elsewhere. So the process, with which we are all familiar, is continuing, with renewed force, of young people who are looking for work coming from other parts of the country to London thinking that they will find it here.
  I wonder whether it would not be possible to publish the figures of unemployment for London separately from those of the South-East, for I think we should then receive a very considerable shock. What is quite clear from the evidence of charities and voluntary associations is that the demand for short-stay accommodation in London is increasing very greatly and

  43
  that there are not the proper means to meet that great demand.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may break in for a moment, not in any form of advertisement but to supplement and support what has just been said by the right reverend Prelate, as chairman of a centre in central London for young people which is very well known to the right reverend Prelate, I would point out that we have found that the number of people attending our centre has doubled in the last year.
  The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for indeed underwriting the point I was making. The outcome of all this, I would suggest, is that it is increasingly important that charities and voluntary associations should receive every encouragement and help that they can get in order to be able to do this essential work for our people. I know, of course, that charitable organisations get tax relief, but is it not very unreasonable that so many of them should have to spend so much money in paying VAT for work which is being done for purely charitable purposes? Again, I know that there has been a relaxation on covenanting, but here again if there is a change in the standard rate of tax there are not many people who will readjust their giving so that the charities are not out of pocket. I hope that serious consideration can be given to the help that the charities and the voluntary organisations need in order that they may increasingly be able to do their work.
  I return to my main thesis. Whatever sacrifices must be made at present, let us make sure that, as far as possible, they fall on those who are able to bear them, for that, I fear, is not the case at present. When the burden is lifted, let us be sure that those who are in greatest need receive the first help. Let us make sure that it is those who have suffered most who will be the first to have restored to them the conditions of life which are essential to their dignity as human beings.
  4.31 p.m.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I too must ask for the indulgence of the House as I have an engagement, made some time ago, which will preclude me from being present at the end of the debate. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
  I should like to take up two points in the gracious Speech. The first point arises from the White Paper concerning young offenders which was published in October this year by the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. My second point concerns Special Needs in Education—the White Paper based on the Warnock Committee Report.
  On the question of young offenders we are all, on whichever side of the House we sit, concerned at the rise in juvenile delinquency: it has risen threefold in the last decade. It should, of course, be remembered that adult crime has also risen, and that the rate of crime has risen in not only this country, but in Europe and the United States. Of the young offenders, just 3 per cent. are found guilty of indictable crimes which
  44
  are concerned with sex and violence and violent robbery. In my view we must call that 3 per cent. the hard end of juvenile delinquency; the other 97 per cent. are what one might call the soft end of juvenile delinquency.
  In the White Paper there are, in effect, two parts. The first part deals with the non-custodial treatment of offenders found guilty and the other with the custodial treatment of children found guilty of an offence. In the non-custodial sector there is a new kind of programme of help called intermediate treatment, which is intermediate between leaving home and having a programme of education and activity in the community. Indeed, that treatment was in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and has never been properly developed. If intermediate treatment had been properly developed then perhaps we should not be in so much trouble as we are today.
  Everyone asks, "What is intermediate treatment?" It is a programme of help for a child or young person while that child or young person remains in the community. Let me give an example. In Pontefract the rate of delinquency was so high that there was complaint from the people of Pontefract, and a voluntary organisation—Barnado's—collected together the youth (all those under 17) who wished to take part in a project which involved building themselves a club centre. That centre was staffed, when it was built, by qualified social workers who on the one hand had a programme of counselling to each child or young person and on the other hand a programme of activities. Those are the kind of projects that we hope to develop alongside the use of community service on the part of young people to hospitals, the elderly and so on.
  Also under the heading of community help to young offenders are attendance centres and supervision orders by social workers and probation officers. It has been said that help to young people within the community and therefore not in custodial care is a soft option. Well-run intermediate treatment is not a soft option; it is a method of dealing with the children and young people at the soft end of delinquency who, as I said earlier, comprise 97 per cent. of the total.
  We therefore welcome the White Paper. We welcome the part of the White Paper which underlines the importance of the care of the child or young person in the community. Apart from anything else, it is cheaper. For 140 children a week to be helped in the community is equivalent to the cost of one child in custodial care. Surely that also, while not the most important factor, is one of the important points to take into account.
  I come to the hard end of delinquency, to the children and young persons who are given custodial sentences. Here, I must say that I think that the White Paper is less than disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has referred to the residential care orders which magistrates will be able to make if a law is passed in such a way. Already there has been an agreement between the directors of social services and the Magistrates' Association that children, where a care order is made, should not return home. The main reason, among one or two other reasons, is very often that there is nowhere for the child to go. I should like to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and say that a number of voluntary

  45
  organisations are having to close very good projects within the community and in children's homes, first because of VAT, which is hitting very much at the voluntary organisations, and, secondly, because local authorities are not now using the voluntary organisations as they did in the past, and I think that the children are the poorer for it.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene to clarify a point? When the noble Baroness said that she thought that the part of the White Paper which dealt with custodial matters was "less than disappointing", did she not mean that it was "more than disappointing"?
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I should have said "more than disappointing". I apologise and I thank the noble Lord for drawing that error to my attention. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Belstead would have wished it the other way round.
  On the question of custodial care, it is disappointing that we have kept children and young persons within the penal system. We shall continue to spend money on detention centres—as at Send and Newhall. Those organisations and statutory bodies that have dealt with delinquents down the years know that the detention centres which were set up in 1948 under the Criminal Justice Act have not proved satisfactory or positive. Indeed, the figures show that 82 per cent. of children and young persons sent to detention centres have committed offences within two years of having left the centres.
  The cost of keeping a child or young person at a detention centre is £102 a week. In view of research and experience of the past, is that really the wisest and best way in which to help the child? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that he who leads must be a bridge. We took part in a programme on Granada Television called "You, the Jury", which was concerned with whether or not detention centres were a good thing. By the end of the programme 60 per cent. of those present had swung away from agreeing with detention centres towards agreeing with a different form of care for juveniles. Can it be that the general public do not really understand what is behind juvenile delinquency and how best those delinquents can be helped?
  I have not given notice to the Minister of this next question, but I should be grateful if he could explain by letter paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which talks about detention centres. It says that they are considered not to be suitable for the physically or mentally unfit; that these people are more likely to serve their sentences in accommodation in adult prisons, in much the same way as young adults who are currently sentenced to up to six months in prison. Surely those most in need will be those in the worst conditions. If I could have an answer in writing from the Minister, I should be most grateful.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack talked about starry-eyed social reformers. I am not starry-eyed; and, while I hope that I am a reformer, I am a realist based on experience of dealing with delinquents down the years. I would make a plea to the Govern-
  46
  ment that the soft end of delinquents—that is the 97 per cent.—should be helped, and should have a programme of help within the community and not in custodial care. I would make a plea that those who are at the hard end of the delinquent field should not be helped so much in the penal system, but in a system that will give them education, help and counselling.
  I should like to pass to one point which is not mentioned in the White Paper, and that is staff. In order to deal with delinquents under the age of 17 one must have experience, qualification and maturity. With the present methods of organisations and of the social services departments, we have the older, experienced social workers in administrative posts and they do not deal direct with the cases that need their help. I make a plea to the Government that notice should be taken of this very difficult point.
  I should like to say just a few words on the Warnock Committee Report, dealing with special needs in education. With great diffidence, I congratulate the Government on seeking to adopt the proposals and precepts of the Warnock Committee Report. It is certainly fitting that in 1981—the Year of the Disabled—attention should be given and paid to physically and mentally handicapped children. The report does away with the classification of "handicap" and states that the choice of schooling should be based on the needs of the child and the choice of the parents. In the White Paper there are one or two points which are concerned with this matter, with which I shall not keep your Lordships' House now. I simply say that we very much regret that education is not to be continued for the older children, for those over the age of 16. We are pleased that education is to be given to the handicapped under five. May I say how glad we are that the Warnock Committee recommendations are to be implemented—if not fully, at least we are facing in the right direction.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that I refrained from speaking today because I thought that our case would come so much better from the other side. I congratulate her on the way she has made it.
  4.46 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to speak on education. There is one sentence specifically on education in the gracious Speech:
  "Legislation will be brought forward to facilitate the education of children with special [educational] needs".
  We can all welcome that, and, as the noble Baroness has just said, the fact that action is being taken on the Warnock Report; that it has not suffered the fate of many reports in being ignored for a number of years or, indeed, indefinitely. We must, of course, await the production of the Bill, but we can assume that it will follow pretty closely the Government's proposals as outlined in Part III of the White Paper, Special Needs in Education. This paper has been described to me by the secretary of a society for the disabled as:
  "A null document, having taken out of Warnock all that was positive, and lacking any sense of urgency or bite. It gives"—
  he said:—
  "little evidence of Government intention vigorously to promote any serious advances in special education".

  47
  As I say, we shall have to wait for the Bill, but I go along with a good deal of that.
  However, one can still welcome some of its proposals. It is good, if true, that expenditure in real terms up to 1983–84 will not be reduced on these children. I should like confirmation from the Minister on that. It is good that the Government recognise that it is time for a new, more general, definition of "handicap" to cover the number and variety of handicaps from which a child may suffer, but it is time to adapt the law to encourage good practice and innovation.
  One welcomes the statement that most children with special educational needs will be indistinguishable in law from the majority of the school population and will be in ordinary schools. One welcomes the comments on the training of teachers, noting also the phrase "as resources permit", which is a phrase that occurs a good many times. One welcomes the acceptance of the value of nursery education, and nursery education at an early age, and the need for coordination of the education, health and social services; the hope that Section 26 of the 1980 Act, whereby the LEA can provide teachers for day nurseries, will be made use of. That being so, it is odd and to me very unfortunate that the Warnock recommendation that the LEA should also provide teachers for adult training centres and day centres is not accepted.
  As for further education, which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful', has just touched on, pious hopes are uttered about it. I think that it is universally recognised—and I quote from paragraph 52 of the White Paper—that:
  "It is a weakness of the law governing further education that it makes no specific reference to the needs of handicapped students".
  But, apart from recognising the need for expert careers advice, the White Paper makes no specific proposals, excusing itself by saying that a wider review of further education is being initiated. When, then, will the law be revised? If this opportunity is lost, we may have to wait a very long time. I hope that the Government will think again. I would deplore attempts at "concentrating or rationalising facilities" as suggested in paragraph 34 if they lead to arbitrary allocation of students to certain universities or further education establishments without due regard to individual choice or the suitability of the course.
  I am surprised that the Government have not accepted the recommendation that such independent schools as have been approved for the education of "recorded" children must have governing bodies. Certainly some independent schools which do provide for handicapped children that I have had exeprience of would be very much the better for having governing bodies. They do leave something to be desired.
  I am sorry but not surprised that the recommendation to set up a new national advisory committee is not to be implemented. A Government so opposed to quangos could perhaps do no other, but it need not have cost anything besides running expenses and it could have become an independent, expert and committed body disseminating good practice, promoting new thinking and acting, as George Cooke, the Vice-Chairman of Warnock, said, "as the conscience of the Government and of the nation". But he went on, "We all know
  48
  how inconvenient a conscience can be", and the Government evidently prefer not to have one.
  What I suspect and what I fear is that insufficient resources will be put into implementing Warnock, and that is a great pity. Some pilot studies and experiments could certainly have been initiated at not enormous cost. But at a time when education is suffering so desperately from cuts in the service so that morale is very low—low among local authority members; low among local authority officers; and low among the teaching profession—we can expect little else from this Government. When there are to be fewer teachers in the schools, a diminished curriculum, authority after authority wiping out the school meals service, fewer books in the classroom and in the libraries (a million less school books have been sold in the first quarter of 1980 compared with the first quarter of 1979, according to the Educational Publishers' Council) how this Government can pretend that they care about standards I do not know.
  In 1979 in the gracious Speech at the opening of the first Session of this Parliament there was the statement:
  "The quality of education will be maintained and improved".
  The Government have not had the nerve to put that in this time. What is so extraordinary is that in the selfsame proposals for legislation that include "special needs", and in the climate of massive cuts, the Government can suggest à propos of young offenders that more residential care orders can be made. This is not only contrary to the present trend against shutting people away in secure or semi-secure accommodation—we shall no doubt soon be being asked to renew the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act—but can be excessively costly.
  I have looked up some figures. In community homes and hostels for adolescents the cost is £130 a week; in observation and assessment centres, £230; at Kingswood School, a special unit, £270; at St. Charles and Glenthorn Youth Treatment Centres, £500 a week. Are this Government really prepared to pass legislation to make it easier to shut children up, with the vast sums involved, when cutting down on education, on teachers in schools, on youth tutors and leaders, and on community tutors? These cuts will mean less attention to those in the schools who particularly need it, probably more exclusions from schools, and probably more court appearances. We have to look at the two together. Prevention is surely better than so-called cure, whose effectiveness is at best highly dubious. In fact, all the evidence shows the ineffectiveness of custodial measures. Money spent on intermediate treatment rather than residential care would be more wisely spent and of much greater profit. I endorse everything that the noble Baroness said on that subject.
  It is a strange omission from the White Paper on young offenders that no mention is made of ethnic minority groups. There was an extremely interesting article in yesterday's Guardian about West Indians giving evidence to the Committee of Inquiry into the education of minority groups. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has stressed this, so I do not think that I need to go into that more now.
  No mention is made in the White Paper of the rise in delinquency among young girls. There is no reference to the fact that the economy is in decline;

  49
  that youth unemployment is rising week by week; that young people in the dying areas of our inner and large cities will be in the sort of desperate mood that led to the St. Paul's riots in Bristol. Young women offenders are mentioned in one paragraph, paragraph 25, which ends in really the most extraordinary way. Listen to this, my Lords.
  "Because of the relatively small number of women in custody it has not in recent years been considered necessary, or desirable, to enforce a strict segregation between the various age groups. Indeed, it is generally considered to be positively beneficial for younger women to share facilities with suitable adults. This practice, we believe, should be continued where appropriate".
  I ask myself who are these suitable adults? Prostitutes? Drunks?
  So much for legislation mentioned in the gracious Speech. Again what is interesting is the omissions. I had hoped that the Burnham Committee's comments on the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 might have had some attention. They are outdated. Conditions of service should surely be looked at at the same time as pay. It seems ridiculous that people teaching 16 to 19 year-olds in further education establishments should be treated differently as regards salary scales and conditions of service from those teaching the same age group in schools, and that further education and school regulations for that group should be different—even if some establishments do follow Hamlet's advice and honour those regulations more in the breach than in the observance.
  This leads me to the Macfarlane Report, awaited with interest and expected to be published by now. I understand from articles in the national and educational press, which, unlike members of your Lordships' House, appears to have had a preview of the report, that there has been a difference of opinion between Ministers on the proposals. The report did, it seems, favour a tertiary solution for 16 to 19s as giving the greatest educational choice of courses, vocational and academic. The noble Baroness the Minister of State, who alas is not with us today, and Dr. Rhodes Boyson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, as one might guess, favoured sixth forms in schools. I had hoped that the fairly definite financial advantage of the tertiary solution, getting rid of tiny sixth forms and tiny teaching groups, would have made it acceptable to this Government. But then they have their moments of being spendthrift, as with the assisted places scheme, and maybe sixth forms in school will fall into that category.
  From the Times Educational Supplement I learn that the report is expected to end up as a relatively short document which skirts the main controversial issues, and that its main message, a call for much closer collaboration between all the schools and colleges serving the age group, is already being largely pre-empted by other more incisive studies. Another opportunity missed by this Government. Since the Government have approved a new exam for post-16s proposed in the Mansell Report, I should have thought that some further mention of a new deal for this post-16 group might have been included in the gracious Speech. These are the young people about whom we should be most anxious, most concerned, in the current disastrous economic situation.
  What, my Lords, I want to know, is the Department of Education and Science doing about these young
  50
  people? What solutions, what new proposals, are they offering? The answer, it would seem, is nothing. They are leaving it to the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment. It was Mr. Prior who announced that the Government would fund 200 more posts in the careers service. The move away from using local education authorities and local government and the move towards giving more power to central Government is something I suppose that we should have got used to having gone through the Local Government and Planning (No. 2) Act, in spite of all the protestations that came from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Prior, from his proposals announced on Friday, is trying to do something, and I believe he is genuinely concerned. These extensions of MSC YOP schemes, et cetera, are what were forecast in the gracious Speech where it was said that the Government would proceed urgently with an expanded programme of employment and training measures for the unemployed, particularly the young. I hope that these measures will not be mere palliatives, as my noble and learned friend said earlier. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply whether the training the young will get on the YOP schemes will have a real educational content; whether they will get a real training and acquire definite skills in trades, crafts, or whatever will make them more capable of getting jobs, and more capable of enjoying their perhaps enforced leisure. Mr. Prior said in his Statement:
  "What we are trying to build up is a system whereby 16- and 17-year-olds will be better equipped for a working life".
  "Preparation for working life", that oft-used phrase, now sounds a bit hollow. I hope the magnitude of the problem has been grasped by the Government. We in our age group in this House have been very much brought up to believe in the work ethic; I think we shall have to be shifting our views.
  It is an interesting and horrifying fact that the £1,500 million cut which the Government propose to make in educational expenditure in the next three or four years will not go to produce an overall cut in public expenditure; that amount and more will be used for unemployment pay. And the £200 million that was cut off Labour's programme for the Manpower Services Commission is now going back to it, and more. This does not look like good planning. Are the cuts in the administrative staff at the Manpower Services Commission to be restored? If not, how are the new and expanded programmes to be organised?
  I have a specific question concerning unemployment and training courses for the not quite so young, the 18s to 25s, and I apologise to the Minister for not having given him advance notice of this question; if it is difficult for him to answer during the debate perhaps he will write to me afterwards. I am encouraged to ask this question because of something Mr. Prior said in the debate in another place on Friday. He said that Mr. Patrick Jenkin would be putting proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for modifying the regulations to provide rather more scope for work to be undertaken without loss of benefit. Last week I received a letter from the welfare officer of the Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology from which I quote this one paragraph:

  51
  "I know you are aware of the present position regarding young people and supplementary benefit, which is vicious and unnecessary, a waste of people's ability on the one hand and public money on the other. It is possible, in very limited circumstances, for someone to draw benefit and to undertake a part-time course providing that they are willing to give this course up should a job become available. I have no quarrel with that. In practice, however, it is unusual for a person to qualify because (1) there are restrictions on the sort of course he can do and (2) he must be unemployed, normally for a period of 12 months, before the beginning of the course and in receipt of benefit during this period. With the upsurge in unemployment over recent months there have been many inquiries regarding the possibility of doing courses in this way from people mainly in the 18–22 age bracket but only one to my knowledge has actually met the department's requirements. The Government is thus paying these people, who have talent and ability, to do nothing rather than to gain knowledge and qualifications which would benefit both the people and society—yet it would cost them no more to alter the rules. It is beyond my comprehension".
  I hope something can be done about that. We await a response.
  The Government's plans are clearly off course. They are having to increase public spending because of the appalling unemployment their policies have caused. But the suffering, misery and poverty which their policies have caused are with us now. I plead particularly for the young that the Government should show some imagination and change their course now.
  5.4 p.m.
  Lord Hunt: My Lords, I must confess myself yet another of the defaulters among the speakers today in not being able to stay until the end of the debate. I will not seek to earn myself a halo by giving the reason why a previous engagement takes me elsewhere, but I gave my reason to the Government Chief Whip and offered him the opportunity of striking my name off the list of speakers should he not think that reason adequate. I find my name still on the list and I am grateful to him. At this stage in a debate of this nature it is almost impossible to enter entirely new ground or ground that has not already been touched on to a considerable extent by others, and I am afraid I shall be touching on such ground, though I hope more briefly and in other words.
  As with other speakers, I propose to confine my remarks to those matters in the gracious Speech which bear on the young generation. There are two specific references, both of which have received mention this afternoon, and there is another area of the Government's declared policy which has a very definite bearing on the whole question of young people. The two specific references are the measures to deal with the problem of the large-scale and prolonged—one could almost say indeterminate—unemployment of school leavers, a matter which may equally be germane to the debate on the economy which we shall have shortly; and the other matter is of course entirely germane to this afternoon, namely, the reference to the Government's intention to implement the measures outlined in the White Paper Young Offenders, which has received considerable attention today.
  Those two references are closely associated—indeed, I would say they are inseparable—so I hope it will be acceptable to your Lordships if I speak briefly in a way which links them, and I will speak first on the matter of law and order as it affects young people.
  52
  I join gladly and strongly with all those who take the stand that youthful crimes and juvenile delinquency, and especially vandalism and hooliganism and most particularly those offences in which resort is made to violence, cannot be condoned. As the noble Earl said when moving the presentation of a humble Address, and I agreed with him, speedy and effective punishment must be available to the courts. I also agreed with him in what he said next, but I would qualify it, in that in very exceptional cases it may be necessary to impose punishment which could be construed as harsh.
  But the question is: what penalties are most likely to prove effective, to use his adjective? For my money—and I am using the noble Earl's words—and I believe for everybody else's money (and therefore on strictly pragmatic grounds of expenditure) it is ineffective and unproductive to lay the emphasis on punishment in the great majority of cases of juvenile delinquency and youthful crime, and there is ample proof of that. I therefore hope the Minister when he replies—and of course I shall read his speech with great care and deference—will give the firm assurance that while pursuing a policy of firm deterrence in regard to serious offences, the Government will give full and effective support, in terms of resources, to those measures referred to in the White Paper which are not primarily punitive and which do not involve incarceration or removal from home and neighbourhood.
  The measures I have in mind were so adequately dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that I do not propose to repeat them. Prevention is far better than any hopefully effective remedies imposed after the damage has been done. I therefore hope the Government will give such practical help as they can to all and every initiative taken in the community by ordinary citizens of their own volition to organise activities to occupy the time of young people which are broadly covered by the generic title "intermediate treatment" but which do not have to be applied to people who have offended against the law. There are quite a number of these initiatives and they deserve the maximum support we can give.
  I come to the question of unemployment among the nation's youth. It is a situation which creates a seed-bed of troublemaking and crime and it is on those grounds that I am delighted at the scale on which the Government intend to develop their Youth Opportunities Programme, the Young Industries Scheme and Young Enterprise Programmes. Those are enlightened, interim measures. Of course there remains the question of whether there will be real job prospects at the end of the various preparation and training courses. Let us not close our eyes to the fact that already there is a good deal of scepticism among young people about that matter, in particular among young black people, as referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
  However, I for one should like to congratulate the Government. I was especially pleased to read what Mr. Prior said in his statement on the special employment measures. I should like to quote from his Statement. He said:
  "We are trying … to work towards the point where every 16- and 17-year-old not in education or a job will be assured of vocational preparation lasting … up to his or her 18th birthday."—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/80; col. 205.]

  53
  I wish also to refer to another, equally significant, part of Mr. Prior's Statement in which he said that the MSC (the Manpower Services Commission) and the education services will
  "— accelerate the extension of vocational preparation schemes over the next three years for those who have jobs but [receive] little or no systematic training or further education."
  Taken together those two statements give real grounds for hope of a better deal for our young people if—and I postulate two "ifs"—we were really to develop such a policy in its entirety, and if that programme were to include an element of preparation for responsible citizenship (for want of a better expression) and not just training for a job, nor merely further education in the three Rs. Then—and here I return to the matter of law and order—there would be far less juvenile delinquency and crime. It is a policy that some of us have been advocating in one model or another, in one degree or another, for a number of years.
  However, the focus on youth cannot fairly be confined to their misdeeds. To a large extent these are symptomatic of shortcomings in a wider range of policies, which concern several departments of state. For that reason in concluding I should like to make a cursory reference to another matter—also already touched on—which is at the heart of the Queen's Speech. It is the reference to
  "… the need to restrict the claims of the public sector on the nation's resources."
  No one, unless he is senseless, would quarrel with that as a general statement of policy in present circumstances. But central to that policy is expenditure on the social services and in particular those cuts which have the effect of making life even harder for parents and children living in appalling social conditions in some of our cities which were referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Cuts of that nature do a disservice to young people. They do a disservice to the efforts of our education service. They do a disservice to the maintenance of law and order, and they do a disservice to the development of those youthful attitudes to work and to the society in which they are growing up which are so central to the question of a healthy economy. I understand the "facts of life" presented to us by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I would say that the sum of those disservices does not add up to the way in which to build a more productive and a more enlightened nation.
  5.14 p.m.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, these three days of debate are so wide ranging, dealing with so many vital issues, that like other noble Lords I must be most discriminating, and so I intend to confine my remarks to matters relating to transport. First, I am certain that there will be general satisfaction that measures are to be introduced to improve road safety and to deal with the serious problem of drink and driving. When it is appreciated that 1,400 persons are killed and tens of thousands of others seriously injured each year as a result of drink being associated with driving, one sees the problem. The RoSPA has stated that drink plays a part in a third of the total of motor accidents. Therefore proposals to deal with the problem will be
  54
  welcomed, but the legislation will have to be looked at carefully to ensure, first, that it is adequate, and, secondly, that it does not in any way act unfairly.
  Furthermore, I am sure that there is general concern regarding the increasing number of accidents to motor cyclists. In this respect I understand that in 1979 there were 70,000 casualties and 1,100 fatalities. Half of the casualties were under 20 years of age. Whatever legislation is introduced to deal with motor-cycle accidents, I am certain that it will be necessary to supplement it with intensive publicity through every type of organisation that is associated with young people; otherwise the legislation might be ineffective.
  The Government intend to introduce measures
  "to replace public involvement in transport industries with further opportunities for private investment."
  I hope that your Lordships will take note of the word "replace". This side of the House accepts that we must have a mixed economy—and we mean that. But sometimes I feel that noble Lords on the other side often pay lip service to the mixed economy and do their utmost to denigrate public ownership, hinder it, and prevent its development.
  When the Statement concerning the sale of British Rail subsidiaries was made in the House, with other noble Lords I complained of the lack of information. Frankly, apart from little titbits from the press, which may or may not be right, we still do not have much information, and so we must await the actual legislation. However, there are some questions that must be asked. Will British Rail have a majority holding in any holding company? What happens when the separate undertakings are built up? Will the outcome of the build-up be their sale to the private sector? Will there be a British Rail holding in the subsidiaries when they are built up? Will there be a majority holding, or will it be another case of asset stripping? Will any receipts that accrue be made available to British Rail for its much-needed development?
  We understand from the Government Statement that four subsidiaries are to be transferred: Seaspeed Hovercraft, Sealink, transport hotels, and property holdings. One argument for introducing private capital is that it is in order to prevent a publicly-owned monopoly. However, in the case of Seaspeed Hovercraft and Sealink that argument cannot be used. Seaspeed Hovercraft competes with other hovercraft undertakings. Sealink, with its 51 ships, has to compete with other shipping undertakings. It has to compete even with hovercraft, including its own hovercraft service. Therefore, that argument does not apply in that case.
  Above all, what justification is there for the Government's intention to dispose of the British Rail property holdings? The British Rail Property Board is responsible for a total estate of 200,000 acres, and it has great experience in handling a massive number of rents of all kinds. The board has handled sales of land and has put through very important developments on British Rail land. In fact I understand that there are now in the pipeline commercial developments covering a total area of 3·7 million square feet. Therefore, no one can say that the British Rail Property Board is holding things back.
  Why should British Rail lose this income? Surely in future years it is likely to increase as the value of

  55
  property appreciates. Yet assets that produced some £29 million from property holdings in 1979 will no longer be available to British Rail. Incidentally, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply may be able to tell me how the proposal to deal with the British Rail property holdings fits in with the Local Government Bill, to which we paid so much attention in recent weeks, because there is a section there which gives the Secretary of State power himself to dispose of land held by statutory undertakings, and that includes British Rail. So one wonders how these two items of legislation are going to fit together.
  One cannot deal with transport policies and the need for transport policies in a complete vacuum. They relate to other factors which will be debated at length on Thursday. Some say that Keynesian principles are now out of date. I am convinced that today more than ever those principles are needed in our economy. Surely, if anything, Milton Friedman has been proved to be a ghastly, tragic blunder, which is leading us into the mess we are in today. In a Written Answer on 12th November the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in cols. 1464 to 1470 of the Official Report, gave your Lordships some very helpful information on the financial cost to the Government when a married man with two children becomes unemployed. Time does not allow me to go into it in detail, but, briefly, through loss of revenue the average is some £254 monthly and the costs to be paid by the Government by way of benefits, rebates and so on would be £246 monthly. That makes about £6,000 a year; and we have to bear in mind that the average wage of a male worker is, I believe, £124 or £134 a week, which is almost equivalent to the £6,000 a year cost to the Government when a married man with two children falls out of work.
  With half a million unemployed, I make that to be the sum of £3,000 million. I must ask, because this affects what I am going to talk about on transport policies: Have the Government really got down to estimating what would be the effect of doing something constructive with that £3 billion, instead of merely paying for the waste of men's enforced idleness? Put it to constructive work—say railway electrification and development by replacing worn out rolling stock, or maybe housing schemes. What would be the effect of this? Surely it would require the supply of materials and equipment from the private sector, and this would have a multiplying effect which would help the recovery and regeneration which so many people, myself included, are talking about.
  But what do we find proposed in the gracious Speech by way of transport policies? Except for the few words to which I have referred, I can see nothing. But there is report after report in the press and other media of the growing financial problems of British Rail. I think most noble Lords will agree that over recent years British Rail have made efforts to modernise itself and to tackle some of its serious problems; but now that the recession has caused a drop in the number of passengers and a drop in revenue—and this is increasing almost every month—to balance the books there are calls for fares increases. Surely that will lead inevitably to a further loss of passengers, and so the problems will multiply. I hope noble Lords will have seen the British Rail
  56
  advertisement in the Press the other day dealing with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on commuter services, and I hope many noble Lords might have read the message that is contained therein.
  I can see no proposals for the development of British Rail. Have the Government any real idea of what they want from our railway system? There is surely need for the Government to define their objective for British Rail. What we do know is that of 10 European countries Britain is second highest in proportion of total costs and capital financing which is met from revenue—to the great credit of British Rail. But it has problems, because there is no money available for the other essential development work. Also, of the same 10 European countries Britain spends least per train kilometre. I wonder whether the Government have taken note that certain countries which allowed their transport services, particularly their rail networks, to decline are now spending vast sums of money in order to catch up, realising the necessity to do this.
  There was a leader in the Sunday Times of 5th October referring to British Rail's lack of investment. It said:
  "But the squeeze on British Rail's investment also reflects the Government's muddled approach to investment in the public sector.…
  "The Government's mindless approach to such investment creates the impression that it is undesirable. But if it is good to invest for greater efficiency and higher productivity in the private sector, why is it bad in state industry?".
  We know that Sir Peter Parker, British Rail's chairman, has said that 30 per cent. more investment is needed merely to stand still in order to replace existing assets.
  Lord Hawke: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for just one minute? As one who lived on Lord Keynes' staircase at King's for seven years, I am perfectly certain that he would have exposed Professor Friedman, as he exposed the Versailles Treaty, if he had been alive today. But I am perfectly certain he would never approve of borrowing thousands of millions of pounds at anything between 10 and 15 per cent. He would have regarded Government investment in all these things at 5 per cent. as appropriate today.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I will not deny that. This may be an issue which can be dealt with on Thursday, although unfortunately, because I have had to be discriminating, I shall be unable to take part in that debate. We now have the problem that most British Rail regions are having to look at the possibility of cutting services, along with the increase in fares to which I have referred, and that can only bring further problems.
  I want briefly to refer also to the problems of the bus services, of the road passenger transport services. Undoubtedly the Government will propose nothing new, because it would appear from statements by Ministers that they are relying upon the Transport Act 1980, on which your Lordships spent some time. But we now have a situation where, again, report after report, having dealt with British Rail's problems, is now dealingwith the problems of many of the 30 subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. Men are having to be put out of work, services are having to be cut and fares are going to be increased, again due to the drop in the number of passengers because of the recession. This

  57
  sort of policy is going to make it very bleak for many of the users of road passenger transport, particularly those in the rural areas and those on the outskirts of big cities. We find the same position in many of the public transport executives. County councils are finding that they themselves are being squeezed financially, so they are having to cut down grants for bus services.
  So we get into this vicious circle, with problems having grown in our rail transport system and problems now starting to grow in our important bus undertakings. 1 repeat: What are the Government's aims for our public transport services? The gracious Speech is silent on those points. Tomorrow this House will be debating the question of defence. On the grounds of defence alone, surely this country needs an efficient up-to-date service. After the recession, if our industrial base has been grossly weakened and our transport services have deteriorated, then what is the position with which this country is going to be faced?
  Lastly, may I refer to one other item which occupied the attention of some of us during the Transport Bill debate? Presumably the Government measures will include the new procedure for testing heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. We can only gather this from the press, but we understand that this is what the Government intend to do, despite the fact that they issued a policy paper on which they asked for comments. Having got the comments, they appear to have disregarded those comments totally, because not only is the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport, which represents 95 per cent. of the bus and coach operators in this country, opposed to the proposals, but so is the Road Haulage Association, so is the National Freight Association, so is the British Rail Board because of its connection in relation to its lorries, so is the Sand and Gravel Association, and so are the three institutes of traffic administration, road transport engineers and traffic managers.
  Why did the Government ask for comments on their policy documents and then apparently completely ignore what was said in those documents and go ahead with a new system? All these responsible organisations want the present system to stay—and these are people concerned with traffic administration and traffic handling in the private sector and the public sector. They all want the present system to stay. They have complete faith in its high standard of efficiency, professional competence and impartiality and what they say is its non-commercial approach which is vital in the question of testing.
  That issue is not political at all; it is one of common sense. If the Government are shortsighted enough to bring forward this proposal, I hope that your Lordships will deal with it accordingly. This is an issue where we should not have divisive policies on something which it is unnecessary to introduce. The Government must listen to those involved in the operation of road transport, and this goes for the general question of transport and rail. The Government must listen before it is too late.
  5.31 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a moment only to ask for clarification of a passage towards the end of the gracious Speech.
  58
  Before I do so, may I apologise for the fact that I could not be here at the start of the debate. It is true that it was entirely the fault of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I could not be here and it is true that I have been similarly delayed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in the past. Nevertheless, I am very sorry not to have heard their speeches and I trust that they will acquit me of discourtesy. The passage that I was referring to reads:
  "Measures to improve the law in Scotland relating to education and to local government and to protect wives' home rights will be laid before you".
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in his splendid speech in support of the Address, I have read that as referring to two Scottish measures; and I thought that the third measure would be the Matrimonial Homes (Rights of Occupation) Bill which it was the intention of the Government to introduce in the last Session. But I understand that that is a misapprehension and that the third Bill is a Bill that has been drafted by the Scottish Law Commission.
  When some 18 months ago your Lordships debated the English Law Commission's third report on family property, which had drafted and annexed three Bills, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that it was the intention of the Government to introduce the one I have just mentioned; namely, the Matrimonial Homes (Rights of Occupation) Bill. That was intended to be introduced in the following Session; that is, the Session which has just been completed. The noble and learned Lord said last Session, when we were debating another measure that was annexed to that report, that the Bill had been unfortunately squeezed out of the last Session's programme. I wanted to be assured that it comes within the last paragraph of the gracious Speech; namely, the other measure that would be laid before Parliament. I know that the noble and learned Lord himself has a very heavy legislative programme but that particular measure is one to which the married women's organisations are looking forward very eagerly. It is a start on the implementation of the recommendations of the English Law Commission and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance.
  5.35 p.m.
  Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, this debate on the Address covers a very wide field and many subjects are discussed. I listened with great interest to what Lord Underhill had to say and I wished that I could have joined in—for I suppose that I use the railways more than anyone in the whole House. However, I refrain from entering that discussion for I do not know enough about it, except to say that I am one of the most consistent customers that the railway has. But I should like to speak briefly on some of the subjects which have been mentioned already by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The passage in the gracious Speech which begins:
  "My Government, recognising the hardships and worries of … unemployment …"
  deals with one of the matters about which I feel most keenly and which I consider to be one of the greatest possible importance.

  59
  Before saying my few words about young people in unemployment, I should like to stand up as one who supports the Government in their many efforts to stop inflation. They have been much criticised for this, but in private life we all try not to run into debt and in public life the same principle holds good. It is very difficult. I admire the courage of the Prime Minister and the Government in facing up to these problems. I think they are beginning to be successful. I am concerned particularly about young people. For all my life I have worked in youth organisations and I should like to make a small contribution to this debate following very much on the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
  How can we help the unemployed young people? I think there are ways in which we can do so. Obviously the first is to encourage them to stay at school, to train for technical subjects that will be of value and of use to them, to go to technical colleges and technical schools which are available in every part of the country and—something which I am always being told by so many people when discussing this matter—to try to meet this terrible shortage of trained young people ready to go into the kind of industry, whether simple or complicated, which are needed in this country today.
  The other thing that we should encourage—and this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—is the development of a community service concept for the training and help of young people. In many communities certain developments will not take place unless they can be carried out by volunteers or by trainees or by people who are engaged in the Government training programmes in the job creation section of the Ministry of Labour or the young opportunity developments which are known by such different names as Voluntary Service Overseas, Task Force and Young Volunteers' Foundation. All these organisations have been working for some time and I believe that, with encouragement from the Government and local authorities, they could do more.
  I have had experience of volunteers. For many years, I was chairman of the youth club movement and I know how easy it is if one gets encouragement from the local authorities or the community councils or any local group to undertake community projects of different kinds. There are the community projects in the field of social work: the visiting of old people, helping with Meals-on-Wheels, helping with play groups, working in residential schools and day centres for the handicapped.
  Now a new concept has arrived because there is so much development in the inner city restoration projects. The other day I happened to be in the city of Glasgow (which I knew extremely well at one period) and the centre of Glasgow was a terrible slum area with probably some of the worst overcrowding and worst slums in the country. It was cleared and all the people were housed on the periphery. As we all know, in many areas that has not been a success because it means that people are taken away from the area they know and they find themselves in a sense isolated although they are surrounded by other people.
  Now in that city, and in many others, they have begun inner city developments which can be a great help, which are wanted and which could absorb,
  60
  under the supervision of trained people, a number of young people who are training for different jobs. There is even one organisation called Inner City Farms, a project which I believe is highly successful. How one farms in the middle of a city I have never quite discovered, but I understand that in those areas where it has been carried out it has been successful. In those urban areas where dereliction is all too obvious, if we can use young people and some of these organisations to revive and redevelop those areas, it can be useful.
  For instance, in the world of the arts, restoring empty buildings to be used for community arts, drama, painting, theatre workshop projects, and so on. I have had some experience of that in one of the very small and beautiful little theatres in the north of England. In Richmond, Yorkshire, some interior reconstruction has been carried out almost entirely by job creation assistants, by trainees, and has been an enormous success. Improving the environment, helping in the national parks, improving amenity value in those areas, and in many other ways young people can be brought into the community and the community can help them.
  I do not think this should all be done for nothing. But a grant would be very much less than paying unemployment benefit, and it would lead to training. That is surely a very much better investment of our money and, above all—because I am not thinking about it from the money point of view so much—it would assist the training and encouragement of young people. I think somebody said—and it is so true—that young people with nothing to do wander about and feel absolutely useless, whereas if they can be brought together and help, under supervision, one can do a great deal for them which will be of value in the future. I urge the Government to enlist the support of all the youth organisations. The National Association of Youth Clubs has a big scheme with the Government at this moment. These schemes are so much better and so much more valuable than just waiting about wondering where one is going to get the next job.
  There is one other matter on which I entirely support the Government in what they are trying to do: the endeavour to reduce the increasing expenditure of local government. I have left local government. I was on a county council for 29 years. I suppose it is easier to criticise from outside than when one is inside and trying to do things. I am disappointed because I backed the reorganisation of local government, thinking that it would be something that would economise in administrative expenditure. I am afraid it has not turned out to be that, and it is most disappointing.
  I entirely support the efforts of the local authorities themselves, but particularly those of the Government, in trying to see that some economies are made. I was told the other day that in the health organisation to-day there are so many committees, all of them manned by paid personnel. Originally there was the one health authority and then the health committee that dealt with the hospitals, and that was all. Now there are health councils and another number of organisations which I am told are quite unnecessary. Someone told me that they had resigned from one of these committees because it was quite unnecessary; it cost money and did nothing.

  61
  There is another committee which I heard had been started in an area that I know very well called Recreation and Leisure. During all the years that I was on the county council leisure was organised by the young themselves, and recreation equally so. If one has to have people to organise football, cricket or whatever within a local authority, that is something that could be done by volunteers, by voluntary services, and by people giving their time at weekends to help in these matters.
  I support the Government very strongly in their efforts to try and cut down unnecessary expenditure. The measures which are being undertaken are very difficult. I fully appreciate the problems that are before the Government and I support their efforts. I hope that they will succeed. I hope that in the future when we get some of these Bills referred to in the gracious Speech they will lead to improvement regarding delinquency and young people, and the measures that other noble Lords have been talking about today. I hope they will be successful.
  5.47 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. This debate is accelerating and I should like to move it on to new ground and say something about Northern Ireland. Earlier this autumn I visited Ulster and I spent some time there. I was received—as always—with a wonderful welcome and marvellous hospitality which is really very heartwarming and makes one keen to return. I noticed very much less army activity and a much greater police presence. We are all happy that this should be so, as we are indeed happy that the number of violent deaths has fallen once again this year. It is of course disappointing that the current round of political talks seems to have reached standstill, and therefore I hope that the "usual channels" will find a way of arranging a general debate on Northern Ireland in the fairly near future.
  I should like to take as my starting point something that was said by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Hume, in a recent public statement. He said:
  "Pray that the fear and intolerance which prevent a political solution may give way to mutual understanding and forbearance".
  We would all say a most hearty "Amen" to that. I believe that it behoves us to ask why there should be such very deep fears—fears that seem to paralyse political progress.
  I believe that there are two reasons. The first is the almost total absence of a liberal tradition in Northern Ireland. The second and perhaps more important reason is that political, cultural and religious attitudes there are very closely aligned and aligned in what I almost would call tribal ways. This, I believe, would be dangerous in any case; but it is especially dangerous in what has been described many times before now as a "double minority" situation.
  What do we mean by "a double minority"? Simply the fact that in the north of Ireland the Protestants make up something like two-thirds of the population—a very substantial majority—while in the south and indeed in the whole of Ireland the Roman Catholic population is in a still larger majority. This situation leads to deep fears of the abuse of power by whichever
  62
  majority it happens to be. Bishop Hanson, formerly of the Diocese of Clogher and now an assistant Bishop of Manchester, in an article in the October number of Encounter magazine, has put this much more clearly than I could, and I should like to quote what he said:
  "Catholics are afraid of the political power of the Protestants. They are afraid that Protestants will use both political power and the social influence their majority position gives them to push Roman Catholics into an inferior position, to make them second-class citizens who come at the end of the queue in such things as housing, jobs and the control of local government. The Protestants, on the other hand, are afraid of the religious power of the Roman Catholics. They are afraid that, given the opportunity, the Catholic Church will use its authority to dominate society as it has to a large extent dominated society in the Republic of Ireland, and will introduce an ethos and a climate of opinion expressed in such things as legislation about marriage, and divorce, which is unacceptable to the Protestants".
  I believe that description is an accurate one of very real and very deep-seated fears. If people are not prepared to take it from me or from Bishop Hanson, this Analysis is confirmed by a report made to the United States Department of State in September 1979 by Dr. Crenshaw, entitled Political, Social and Cultural Factors of Irish Terrorism. This document is available in your Lordships' Library.
  I think we have to accept that the fears I mentioned are not simply emotional and historic ones; they are also to some extent reasonable and logical fears. To see why that is so, one has only to look, for instance, at the recent behaviour of some local authorities in Northern Ireland and also at the recent legislation on birth control and family planning in Southern Ireland.
  What can be done to help to remove some of these fears? As a Catholic, I appeal once again to the Catholic Church in the whole of Ireland, and I would ask them to stop behaving in such a way that many Protestants have reasonable cause for fear. I would ask the Catholic Church to take to heart the words of a distinguished West German nuclear physicist, Dr. Karl von Weizsacker, when he said:
  "Getting rid of the enemy relationship means acting in such a way towards the supposed enemy that it no longer fears us or is tempted to hate us".
  I was very much encouraged by what Cardinal O'Fiaich said at the Glenstal ecumenical meeting earlier this year. He remarked:
  "As the Roman Catholics are the largest community in numbers, so we should be the largest in generosity".
  That, I think, was a splendid thing to say, and I hope and pray that it will be translated into practice when the time comes for implementing in Northern Ireland the Astin and Chilver Reports on certain aspects of education.
  There is much that could no doubt be said about the Protestant Churches in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether I am the person to say it, though I can claim many stalwart Protestant ancestors. I think we all long for all the Protestant churches in Northern Ireland to free themselves from sectarianism. By this I mean the deliberate fomenting of hatred and mistrust in the name of religion. As Bishop Hanson has so clearly put it,
  "any hopeful policy on Northern Ireland must address itself to that identification of political and religious issues and convictions which creates conflict and breeds self-perpetuating hatred".
  I turn now to Her Majesty's Government, because I believe it is within their power to do a great deal to

  63
  remove the fears I have been discussing. In passing, I would say that the fears of parents with handicapped children would be very much eased if the Warnock Report could be implemented in Northern Ireland at the same time as and in parallel with England and Wales. But perhaps more importantly than that, I hope that in the sector of education the Government will promote a coming together of children across denominational barriers. We know that by and large the Northern Ireland schools are segregated on religious lines; yet I feel there is great scope for schools to come together for such things as sports, drama, debates and many other youth activities.
  Secondly, may I put it to the Government that I believe it would be very helpful if the Northern Irish Grand Committee could sit for two weeks every year in Belfast. There is so much that it could discuss, there are so many financial matters it could look at, and so many grievances it could try to redress. It would be very helpful if organisations of all kinds and sections of opinion could lobby that grand committee sitting in Belfast.
  In conclusion, I should like just to mention that I met the mother of a large family in Belfast who had personally resisted the attempts of three men sent to intimidate her out of her house, to the point where she actually took one of them by the collar and shook him till his teeth rattled in his head. A day or two later I met a sub-postmaster who, in the most casual tone of voice imaginable, told me that no less than six times had his post office premises been either bombed or burned down. Nevertheless, business was continuing as usual. It is instances such as these and it is the remarkably unbitter comments—the forgiving, charitable and compassionate comments—of people who have suffered personal loss and injury to themselves and their families that give one heart to go on pursuing the politics of forgiveness and reconciliation. These I commend to the Government. I support what they are doing and I hope they will find ever greater success in Northern Ireland and in relations with the whole of Ireland.
  5.58 p.m.
  Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, just now. Some of us who try to follow events in Northern Ireland find it very difficult to understand what is going on. I have learned more from his speech today than I have from reading newspapers for a very long time about the troubles in Northern Ireland, and I should like to thank him for it.
  To return to the Queen's Speech, what I like about it more than anything was the beautiful delivery; the beautiful voice and the clarity with which Her Majesty delivered the Speech. I come now to speak about what one can expect from the Conservative Government which, from the day it was elected, cut the taxes of the richest people in the country and proceeded to follow that up by cutting the benefits of the poorest in the country. So, looking into what is happening and what has happened in the last 18 months, I find that, after two Budgets and over a year in Government, Mrs. Thatcher, the Prime Minister, is further away from any solution to our economic
  64
  difficulties, and there is every reason to suppose that things that are already bad will get worse.
  In one of our first debates on the economy I said that this Government were the most hard-hearted and short-sighted Government of this century. I have no reason to change my mind, when I look into what is happening to the social security services. Except for helping the retraining of young people, I cannot find any solution put forward by the Government which, for example, will deal with the poverty trap.
  The income tax and the national insurance contributions are so complicated—I challenge anybody to understand them—and they force the low-paid to depend on means-tested benefits. The effect of such legislation is that some workers stand to lose money if they increase their earnings. Is that not an extraordinary anomaly? It is never mentioned by the Government. When that happens, they lose social security benefits, which include family income supplement, rent rebate, rate rebate and so on.
  A year or so ago, David Donnison, who had just retired as chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, pointed this out in an article in the Sunday Times. Apparently, a family with four children is better off if the father earns £45 a week than if he earns £85 a week. This is because he can claim more of the means-tested benefits which are available to bring the family income above the poverty line. To put it quite simply, the family is thus trapped in poverty. Together, the high unemployment trap and the poverty trap have the effect of hampering the proper working of the country's economy.
  So the Conservative Party, who are always claiming to be the champions of the family, have brought about a situation where, in a three-child family, a farm labourer on the basic wage of £58 a week will have the same money to spend as a miner who has a weekly wage of £81 or even £94. This does not make sense at all. I quote from New Society of 9th October. Also, skilled workers earning, for example, £110 a week will find themselves only £6·73 better off than unskilled workers on £70 a week. These figures are very complicated and I hope that I have got them right. They seem to me to be so senseless. Perhaps the Minister will say that I have got them wrong, but I have obtained them from very reliable sources. I have not made them up.
  The tax system today seems senseless. Jonathan Bradshaw said this in New Society:
  "For most working class families with children it does not really matter what they earn!"
  Both the unemployment trap—and everyone predicts 3 million unemployed next year—and the Conservative Government, while professing a commitment to restoring incentives and helping families, have brought about a situation where self-reliance is undermined. The combination of the effects of the tax system—that is, income tax, national insurance contributions and excessive dependence of the low paid on means-tested benefits—the unemployment trap and the poverty trap has the effect of impeding the proper working of the economy and undermining self-reliance. The excessive dependence of the low paid on means-tested benefits, which are withdrawn as income rises, is the reason for this.

  65
  The low paid pay more in tax today than they have ever done. We must increase child support; not reduce it as we are doing now. Child support is necessary for parents, whether in work or not. We must reduce the dependence of those in need on means-tested help. We need to go back to Beveridge, instead of mutilating the Welfare State, which is what the Government have done. The practice of concentrating cuts on national insurance benefits and child benefits does not make sense at all. Despite all that has been said about what the Government are trying to do, I cannot see any hope at all, until they change course in this respect and realise that 3 million unemployed is absolutely a disaster and a tragedy.
  6.8 p.m.
  Lord Miles: My Lords, we all listened with great interest and some apprehension to the gracious Speech outlining the measures which Her Majesty's Government will be presenting in the forthcoming Session. I myself turned hopefully to the words which concluded the Speech:
  "Other measures will be laid before you".
  In this connection, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the present plight of the British theatre, and whether they have any constructive proposals for alleviating it. Surely it is time to put a stop to the fatuous debate about the Arts Council and its contribution to the national wellbeing. The facts are quite simple. As a direct consequence of the formation of that agency 35 years ago, and for a total investment of only £400 million-odd between then and now—an average of around £11 million a year—British theatre, opera and ballet have risen from comparative mediocrity to pre-eminence on the world's artistic scene; in other words, the biggest success story since the war. If this noble House were accustomed to breaking out into unbridled applause, that would be its cue!
  Until 1940 we had the old-fashioned weekly, and occasionally fortnightly, "rep", learning and rehearsing the next play while performing the current one, mostly West End successes vamped up for what were thought to be none-too-discerning provincial audiences—like the place Hughie Scanlon comes from, and others, where they really didn't know much about it—eked out by an occasional GBS or Shakespeare and the perennial life-saving Christmas panto: supplying one's own wardrobe from pitifully meagre personal stock, the same furniture borrowed week after week from well-disposed local dealers in exchange for a mention in the programme, strip lighting, including long outmoded footlights, and many a switchboard with old-fashioned water dimmers frequently boiling over, old church and chapel halls pressed into service, dirty and uncomfortable seating, back stage and front of house lavatories frequently unmentionable and certainly unusable, and never a bathroom in sight.
  And so on. I know, because my wife and I went through it—and we remained married through those trials—at Kew, Sheffield, Brighton, Windsor, Birmingham, York, St. Leonard's-on-Sea and, later, on the music halls, working as I did as actor, stage manager, carpenter, property master, electrician—I do not want to boast!—scene painter and director. It is true that many magnificent performers learned their trade in
  66
  this kind of set-up but always in spite of, never because of, the fearful conditions, and always for pitifully low salaries. How different from the theatre of today.
  Within a brief 35 years, thanks largely to the inspiration of Jennie Lee and of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, we have achieved world ascendancy—third cue!—with untold rise in the standards of writing, acting and presentation. We now have a network of some 40 regional theatres, much of their work rivalling the best that can be seen in London, or indeed anywhere. We have become world beaters.
  A few years ago an American friend of mine on a six month sabbatical from his university sought my advice as to how he and his wife might get the fullest possible vision of the British theatre. He proposed basing himself in London and making raids on regional centres within a radius of 50 or 60 miles. I advised a different procedure. "Fly into Prestwick", I told him, instead of Heathrow, get yourself a skinful of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Perth, then motor southwards, covering, on the way, the whole superlative network of landscape, language, history, architecture, theatre, ballet and music". He took my advice, following Scotland with Carlisle, Liverpool, Bolton, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Leicester, Oxford, Stratfordon-Avon, Bristol, Exeter, Southampton, Guildford, Leatherhead, ending with 10 weeks in London sampling the glories of the National, the RSC, the two great opera houses and a wide range of commercial product, topped up with a good sprinkling of cellars and attics where the grass roots are being so vigorously nourished.
  In what other country would that be possible? He had seen a rich assortment of productions in a running showcase of European theatre, had visited the Roman wall, Vindolanda, Dane's Dyke, 20 or 30 of our finest cathedrals and castles and great stretches of our unrivalled landscape. Many influences have been brought to bear upon the present situation in the theatre. Young university directors grappling with the text, the burgeoning of the new English drama, Osborne, Pinter, Wesker, Arden, Robert Bolt, Simpson, Bond, Stoppard and others; the loosening up of the theatre structures by the abandonment of picture frame, orchestra pit and galleried auditorium, the injection of the Stanislayski method which drives actors to dig down into character and background, the determination of writers, actors and directors to make our profession part and parcel of the national conscience, not merely a form of harmless titillation.
  This revolution is the direct fruit of high dedication, remorseless study, unwavering inspiration, blinding hard work and, above all, the golden opportunity provided by the Arts Council for theatres to stay afloat after one or two inevitable box office failures. This is crucial to the whole situation.
  Moreover, it applies not only to subsidised theatre but to theatre as a whole, for most actors who get on to the West End stage have at one time or another been through the regional mill in which subsidy is the rule. And this phenomenal rise in standard washes over the television scene as well. No one who has summoned up the courage to watch television in foreign lands—I pause for a laugh there—can doubt that both in content and standard of presentation, Britain leads the world. It is all part of the same picture. Thus the Arts Council has an all-pervading influence for good,

  67
  not just a localised one. It works not only in terms of hard cash but by general example, by the raising of overall standards, by the stimulation of competition and by persuading local authorities to play their part, however modest, in footing the bill.
  Thirty-five years ago who would have dreamed that two ballet companies, cradled in Notting Hill and in the wilds of Islington, would have coalesced into one of the great ballet companies of the world? Who would have dreamed that British singers would be held in such high esteem in New York, Salzburg, Bayreuth, Milano and other great musical centres of the world? But so it is, and this again stems directly back to the sustained funding by the Arts Council of Great Britain, of whom we have every reason to be very proud.
  There is of course, and always will be, plenty of sniping and cavilling. Bird brained jealousies are aired, pitiful objections raised, the critical and artistic woodwork is suddenly alive with Dutch elm disease. Well, if you examine his career with a microscope and with a certain amount of even Churchill can be found wanting. But who will suggest that he was not one of the giants of world history?
  It would be a thousand pities if an achievement which has enhanced the word "British" throughout the world for so tiny an investment were now to run out of steam for want of a few million pounds. After all, the Treasury are not being asked to back an ailing industry but to boost a rocket which is already well and truly in orbit. The theatre is not a utility; it is not something you eat, or wear, or ride in, or cook with. It is part of our national substance, an extension of our unique language and all our noble history. It is a very frail growth, subject to a multitude of hazards. It would be tragic indeed if all that has been achieved were now to be lost. I trust, therefore, that the few undoubted facts which I have ventured to enumerate may in the coming year find their way into the forefront of the Government's considerations and that those considerations will include a gradual increase in the Arts Council's grant in aid. I thank noble Lords.
  6.19 p.m.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what a great pleasure it is to hear a success story amidst all the gathering gloom. The pity of course is that the Arts Council is part of public expenditure. That is the peril which they are in. However, I am sure that your Lordships are deeply appreciative of the fresh air that the noble Lord, Lord Miles, has brought into the Chamber with his maiden speech, Mark II. At least, I hope I did not miss hearing him speak. It is obviously a great pleasure for the noble Lord to address your Lordships' House, but he has come to the wrong place if he is expecting applause. The theatre would have gone out of business if it had come here to give its first performances. As for the noble Lord's multitude of occupations—actor, manager, stage manager, dresser, carpenter, scene shifter—all I can say is that he must have had a closed shop all to himself. It would not be so easy these days with lines of demarcation.
  I am glad that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is in his place because I want to refer to
  68
  two matters that he raised. One was that the Labour Party still wants to abolish the House of Lords. That may be, though some of my anxieties on that score were relieved after listening to Lord Denning's Dimble-by Lecture. Indeed in my former constituency the other night, in the presence of the present Conservative Member for Sowerby, I told the audience "You are lucky to have two Members of Parliament for Sowerby—the man who was and the man who is, but the one who was is now feeling more secure after the Dimbleby Lecture than I believe the present one is".
  We shall have to wait and see, but the more immediate matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred was the common ground and this I think is very important. He said that there was a lot of common ground, even today, in Britain. I believe that to be true. He said "If you seek it, you will find it". I believe that also to be true. Unfortunately, politics is not the place either to seek it or to find it in present conditions, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the trouble was that the common ground today was largely unoccupied. I do not think we shall find the common ground unless the Government of the day are prepared to move into it. I believe that under our present electoral system almost every party Government is likely to be unrepresentative of the majority of the electors: they can become representative only by moving in to the common ground. If the unrepresentative Government are unwilling to move towards the centre they will become unpopular and will lack the authority to govern. If the two political parties from which in turn our Governments are formed, drift widely apart and leave a deep divide in our political, economic and industrial life I do not think the nation can prosper or indeed possibly even live together in any sort of social contentment. If the noble and learned Lord becomes converted to electoral reform for Westminster as he was to electoral reform for the still-born Parliament in Edinburgh, then we are on the way to the common ground and I look forward to his further contribution to that debate.
  I shall now turn to the back page of the gracious Speech where usually the most interesting items are to be found. The first part of the gracious Speech has to be largely written to reassure our friends in the Commonwealth and overseas that Britain still lives in the world at large. The parliamentary work prescribed usually comes towards the end.
  I was delighted this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, introduced the Bill referred to in the gracious Speech to promote the conservation of wild life and the countryside and, after listening to the catalogue of enactments to be repealed and amended, which seemed almost interminable, we certainly got the impression that this was going to be a very comprehensive measure indeed. We are very happy that a Bill so suited to the experience and the outlook of members of your Lordships' House is going to start here. May I express the hope that one or two matters that some of us are keen upon either will be in the Bill or can be put in the Bill? One thing, surely, is to ban the use of snares. I think that has virtually been promised as part of this Bill. The second is perhaps not uncontroversial—to banish the sale of strychnine for use in destroying any form of wild life. The third, having regard to recent developments

  69
  regarding our badger population, is that more protection is needed for the badger outside the areas of infection and destruction. I think we must now fully protect the badger outside those danger areas.
  I now come to something which is probably hidden in the reference in the gracious Speech to legislation to improve road safety. I refer to drink and driving. In 1965 I was chairman of the Home Affairs Committee of the Labour Cabinet and after a very long debate we decided to propose the introduction of the random test even at the outset of the use of the breathalyser for the purposes of checking on drink and driving. We put that in a White Paper, but unhappily the general election of 1966 intervened. We then had a larger majority, more legislation was pressing upon us, there was a change in the Ministry of Transport and the Labour Government wilted. In the end the selective test was introduced. Probably some sections of the community 15 years ago were not ready for the introduction of the random test. There were anxieties about the relationship between the public and the police; there were problems of enforcement and we had not tried the breathalyser at all, so there was a natural caution about making it too severe to begin with.
  But when the selective test was introduced—that is to say, the police officer had to have reasonable suspicion that a person had been drinking or, of course, a driver was apprehended on a road offence—a promise had to be given that the place where one could have reasonable suspicion of people having been drinking should not be under observation by the police, and that was the car park of the public house. The police were not to go there to pick out those who could be reasonably suspected of having been drinking. Well, the public house car parks are bigger than ever. There is more drinking, there are more cars and there is more drunken ness, and I really think it is about time that we grasped this nettle, because, if we are going to observe the same lenient conditions for the continuation of the selective test, I do not think we shall get to the root of this problem of drinking and driving.
  Seat belts surely should be brought into this new legislation. That is another nettle that I think we have to grasp. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, introduced a Bill this afternoon and it may be possible to have the matter of seat belts brought into the transport legislation. I hope that we shall not shilly-shally over that one much longer.
  The next matter to which I wish to refer was not in the gracious Speech. It is the question of smoking. There has been an announcement in recent days about the new voluntary agreement reached with the tobacco industry on advertising cigarettes. As I said, I was in the Cabinet in 1965. The first voluntary agreement was being discussed at that time—15 years ago. How slowly we move! That was the first attempt that we made to get a warning on the packets of cigarettes. Can your Lordships imagine anything more hypocritical than putting on the glamorous cover of a packet of cigarettes a warning that smoking the contents may be injurious to your health? It is humbug, and now apparently we are to have that warning brought to the front of the packet instead of the back. Is that how we are going to tackle this grave evil?
  70
  It really is deplorable that we go on with large numbers of people dying of chest conditions of various kinds, and lung cancer is not the only one by any means. Our health service is busily employed treating people who, with some restraint, would never need the attention of the health service at all. There are more avoidable deaths, time lost at work, fires, all being caused by smoking. What I think makes the situation very much worse is that we have been subsidising the building of new factories in certain areas for the manufacture of cigarettes; tens of millions have been given to the tobacco trade for the development of new factories. So I really do think that in 1982, when the present agreement is apparently to expire, we should be strong enough and resolute enough to tackle this question in a much more determined way.
  Finally, I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, what has happened to the Government's promise to update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. I ought to apologise to your Lordship's House in advance and give you prior notice of the fact that I shall have three Bills on animals to introduce on Thursday. But this will not be one of them. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will be reintroducing the Bill which was passed by your Lordships' House just before the summer recess—the outcome of six months' consideration by a most diligent and competent Select Committee. We blazed the trail. We could modestly claim to have been the pathfinder of the sort of legislation that should update the 1876 Act. But the Government are holding back, and I know why they are holding back: because there is a convention under consideration by the Council of Europe, and no doubt considerations of protocol or of courtesy demand that the Government should not move on while there are still further conversations going on in the Council of Europe.
  But, my Lords, I tell you now that that convention will be wishy-washy; it will be of virtually no value to us in our deliberations on our own legislation because it is being watered down every time the Council meets. The committee of which I am chairman has recently addressed a strong protest to the Home Office at the way the draft convention is being washed away at each successive stage. The real trouble is that the people who are negotiating this convention are all bureaucrats; they are not animal welfare advocates, they are not even elected representatives, so far as I can discover. They are bureaucrats, and bureaucrats are cautious and want to get agreement, and we shall finish up with a common denominator which, from our point of view, will be worth very little in our subsequent deliberation.
  I know that poor old dogsbody, the Home Office, have got a lot on their plate; all the things that other departments do not deal with they get, and most of them are controversial, but I do hope that the Government are going to take their own pledges seriously and let us see some legislation on this subject. That, I think, will do to be going on with, my Lords.
  6.34 p.m.
  Lord Milverton: My Lords, I wish to say how good it is to hear the intention expressed in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government intend to bring before your Lordships legislation to

  71
  preserve wildlife and the countryside. This is very pleasing, and the Government, I am sure, will have our full support regarding this important issue. There is a need to appreciate nature and the life of the countryside as something more than a place of work or as a retreat from life, but as a place where we learn the meaning and purpose behind the wonder of nature; the harmony and peace will come as we take part in the work of growth. We will want to treat nature and the countryside with care and sensitivity so that in everything the right balance and proportion is kept. We wish to have a beautiful countryside to look upon, with no litter, as my noble friend Lord Westbury said in his maiden speech. The unkempt wastes of derelict land need to be used, and put away as an eyesore. Our greatest energy must be put into this matter.
  One important aspect of this subject is, of course, people and buildings. They need to be blended into the life of the countryside since they are part of the conditions which are related to rural settings, as townspeople are to towns. One needs to have a variety of people in the rural areas and country areas rather than the predominance of one group or another. Especially we need the situations which will enable young people to stay in the countryside. There are some who would like to stay but find the housing costs are too high. This one hears from many young people. The conditions need to be created that enable a wide variety of people to live in the countryside. This could help in improving the quality of life in many ways. Naturally buildings are important to blend with the countryside, and a way must be found to use disused schools or other large buildings for community work or activity. There also should be old people's bungalows for those who would like them. The tricky problem of transport costs for people in the countryside needs to be solved, especially for pensioners and possibly even disabled people. Life is expensive, more so in many ways for the country dweller than for others.
  I said that a variety of people is a necessity for the life of the countryside. May I suggest one possible development from the idea in Her Majesty's gracious Speech that could be a way to encourage such variety; in fact the Government's plan to help combat unemployment. I quote from Her Majesty's gracious Speech:
  "My Government, recognising the hardships and worries of those suffering unemployment, will proceed urgently with an expanded programme of employment and training measures for the unemployed, particularly the young"
  Human beings cannot be fulfilled without work—however substantial the unemployment pay. Could not aid and assistance in setting up facilities for arts and crafts industries in the countryside, using empty buildings and land, help to combat this problem. This has been shown to be excellent where it has happened; for instance, where one reads that old crofts in Scotland have been used for this kind of thing, or even in quite an opposite way down in Wiltshire, where one has read in the local paper sometimes of arts and crafts being started in rural settings in disused buildings and suchlike. This could be put forward in many places. Could it not be attempted?
  72
  The disabled must not be left behind in these matters, as, indeed, in any others. The Minister for the Disabled in the Department of Health and Social Security was reminded of that by Mr. Hannam during the Conservative Party Conference. Mr. Hannam stated that, so far as he personally was concerned, the sacrifice to be made by disabled people was perhaps that they would not make a great deal of progress in the next few years, but certainly that they should not be expected to suffer extra hardship or a decline in their position. We wish Her Majesty's Government all success with these measures and others which may be coming. May they be done for the good of the people and of the country, and so help, indirectly, our foreign responsibilities. May I heartily agree with the hope that success in finding that which is common may happen, and may the Churches be blessed to help in that regard.
  6.42 p.m.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, what a multitude of sins seems to be covered by the heading "home affairs". Perhaps just another one to differentiate may make a little more variety, if that is possible. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his remarkable and erudite tour de force in introducing today's debate, very rightly underlined the fact that the last two major wars were not caused by our defence but, if they were caused at all, because we were not seen to have defended or to be prepared to defend ourselves and the civilisation to which he referred.
  A vital part of our defence is civil defence, on which your Lordships might remember I introduced a debate on 5th March last. Civil defence is the responsibility of the Home Office and, therefore, I presume that it would come under the heading of today's home affairs debate. As we know, it was abolished in 1968—the Government of the day having as good as abolished home defence the year previously. The Conservative Party promised in its manifesto to right that wrong, but it took over a year to make even a statement.
  Your Lordships will remember that it was put off and put off—first it was before Easter, then after Easter, then June and July and just before we packed up for the Summer Recess we had a Statement. It was rather woolly and the nuts and bolts were promised in a Home Office directive which we were to have had the following month, or the month after, or the month after that. Indeed, I do not think that we shall get it this month. How can those people who are working to do something for their country in this line continue, if the worst should happen, if these delays are holding up all their planning and everything else that is involved? I hope that the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate will be able to give us some information on this matter. The rumour is, of course, that it is held up by the County Councils Association, but I do not know about that.
  We now have another firemen's strike on our hands. After the last firemen's strike I asked an Unstarred Question regarding what lessons the Government had learnt from that strike. If they have learnt any, they have not passed them on. Where are the auxiliary fire services which were abolished when civil defence was abolished? Out come the green goddesses again,

  73
  but not for the London to Brighton Old Crocks run; no, no, they come to do duty. What better way to occupy the young, especially if unfortunately unemployed, than to encourage them to become proficient in matters that help their fellow countrymen by becoming involved in the Red Cross, civil defence and auxiliary fire services?—there is a whole host of such organisations.
  I was talking the other day to a young officer in a TA regiment of which I am honorary colonel. He is a schoolmaster by trade. He blamed a lot of our problems on education. He said that there are some schools which seem to encourage their pupils when they leave school to think that they are owed something by the country, whereas they should be taught to think that they owe something to their country. While on the subject of schoolmasters, a retired headmaster from a north country comprehensive, talking again about the firemen's strike or the possibility thereof, said that if we went back to the good old-fashioned piece of chalk and a blackboard instead of all these highly sophisticated teaching aids which are only used once or twice a year—and he spoke from experience—local government could save plenty, enough to give the firemen anything they want. The main thing that I wish to do today is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Be!stead, whether he can give us any encouragement in the reply he is to make.
  6.47 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, after the remarkable send off from the Woolsack it was inevitable that this debate should range far and wide. We have heard a moving appeal, for example, for a less sectarian and more Christian approach by both sides in Northern Ireland, an appeal to preserve the theatrical profession, the grass roots of which, as I understand it, apparently blossom in attics. But, having said that, I want to come back to what I thought was a fascinating and diverting speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It was fascinating because of the breadth and height of the canvas on which he painted. It was diverting, I think, because it diverted your Lordships' attention from what was in the Queen's Speech, or, more importantly, what was not in the Queen's Speech. I was not very surprised that at the end he exhorted us to lift our eyes to the stars, but, of course, coming from a rather old-fashioned country—Wales—I know that when we do not like the look of what is before us we lift our eyes unto the hills; but I suppose it is more difficult to do that in the metropolis. Of course, if the noble and learned Lord assumes that we look heavenwards only at night then, in fact, one can understand his exhortation to us to look to the stars.
  However, I want to deal with one or two of the remarkably reflective passages in that speech and in particular that part where the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that we look for consensus. In that suggestion I recognised his own philosophy, but I am bound to say that I could not recognise the philosophy of the Government and there is a very clear distinction between the two. Of course, there is a great deal of common ground in this country. That is why we have been enabled to keep together for so long. The tradition of this country is to have a Government and Opposition and to have creative conflict as a result. And, out of that creative conflict,
  74
  emerges a progression which I suppose satisfies the generality of opinion in the long run.
  The great danger of our day is, of course, that the two sides no longer agree about certain basic values and basic needs of the country. I think that this is why the search for consensus is much more important in this age than it was in previous ages. We now have a Marxist philosophy which does not want to change, modify or improve, but it wants to revolutionise society. My noble friend Lord Wigoder was right when he pointed out the importance of proportional representation in this context. It seems to me that people do not appreciate that one of the great contributions of proportional representation is that it makes the achievement of the finding of consensus so much easier. For example, if one envisaged a great political swing in this country, unless we have greater constitutional safeguards than we have at present, it would be possible to change the whole basis of this country and to abolish this House—Lord Denning notwithstanding—and to do the whole thing in a period of about five years.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also referred to the statement of the ex-Secretary of State in the United States that Britain had lost an empire but, up to that time, had failed to discover a role. I agree with the sentiments of that statement, but it showed a lack of appreciation. I do not think that this Government have been seeking to discover a role. One can only fulfil a role. Whether or not we are able to fulfil the role which history opens up for us—and we never know at what stage it changes and modifies that role—depends upon our social and political condition and upon our economic condition.
  I now turn to the second point raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; the search for economic credibility. My party has never allowed me to speak on economics. I am going to take the opportunity to do so now. I am rather a heretic on this, as I am on certain other subjects. I want to fix on that sentence which the noble and learned Lord said when he referred to oil:
  "We must use oil as an asset".
  He pointed out that it is a wasting asset. I entirely agree with him, but I do not believe that this or any other Government have actually used oil as an asset. What is happening at the moment—and let us be quite frank about it—is that the taxation of North Sea oil is subsidising our dole queues. That is exactly what it is doing.
  When one looks around the world one sees that certain countries in South-East Asia are doing very well on the manufacturing side. What is their peculiar advantage? —it is that they have skilled, adaptable and, above all, cheap labour in relation to the rest of the world. Let us look at the Scandinavian countries. They have hydro-electric power which they have developed and used and are using to develop their own industry. We see our country in great danger of having a process of de-industrialisation. How on earth you keep a population of 50 million happy in a country like ours without a sound industrial and manufacturing base I do not know. Whatever Liberal purists may say, I should have preferred to use our great asset of energy—North Sea oil, North Sea gas, and, above all, the great coal measures that are available in this country

  75
  and which are infinitely more important in the long run—to re-establish a proper industrial and manufacturing base for this country. It seems to me that that can be done only by using it and having a cheap energy policy within this country, thereby restoring our industrial and manufacturing base.
  I happen to believe that many of the restrictive practices of the trade unions and the refusal of British investors to invest in our industry are not the causes of our decline; they are simply symptoms of it. It is symptomatic of a lack of confidence, with people unable to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I am quite sure that there are no impediments to the development of this policy. We can negotiate various agreements with out Common Market partners and so on to enable this kind of policy to be followed.
  But we must face the fact that in our country at the moment the superstructure of the ship of state—if I can so describe it—is too top-heavy for the economic hull which bears it. This is particularly so since some of the so-called reforms of local government, the Health Service, the courts, and the water industry came about in the early 1970s and which, to be quite fair, were conceived at a time when it was thought that world oil prices would have stayed at their previous level. Then the whole thing was transformed. However, the truth is that we are carrying a huge administrative superstructure. We have not enlarged the economic hull and we need to do both processes—reduce the superstructure and increase the economic hull—at the same time.
  I should like to turn to home affairs because I was rather fascinated by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said from the Woolsack, for he did not dwell at any great length on the matters contained in the Queen's Speech. But when referring to the European Convention of Human Rights, when he was putting right fears that the Government might in some way seek to abolish the right of individual appeal to Strasbourg, he said that he regretted it was not possible to incorporate that into our national and domestic law. I do not know why we cannot do so. I hear—I do not know whether I am intended to hear it—an explanation, but I do not understand why a Lord Chancellor of such eminence and such influence in the Cabinet cannot get his Government to introduce a Bill, which should be contained in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps one of those other measures to be introduced will cover this matter.
  This has been a very wide-ranging debate, covering many subjects, so I shall not try to cover the various points raised. However, I should like to raise one or two practical matters. The noble Baroness, Lady David, seemed to me to put forward a very practical suggestion. It must be very difficult for young people drawing unemployment benefit to find that they can in no way improve their situation or their learning by following an educational course. It is monstrous that we pay out so much money and then by regulation, as it were, prevent people who, through no choice of their own, are idle from improving their situation with regard to their future. I should have thought that a small change of regulation could perhaps accommodate this. It is a very practical matter that has been raised.
  76
  I should like to turn to what I regard as the cinderella of many of the services, the prison service. It has very few spokesmen and as I, in the course of my professional life, have often come across prison officers, visited prisons, spoken to prison medical officers and governors, I should like to say something about the prison service at present. I am very disappointed that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about this, because I think that the recent unrest in the prison service and the manifestation of it through the industrial action is not because of concern about a specific issue; rather, it is symptomatic of a general feeling of unease which has persisted for years. It is my personal view that the Prison Commission should never have been reduced, as it were, to a department within the Home Office.
  Let us face the fact that a pretty sizeable bureaucracy has been built up which, no doubt, is very well meaning and well-intentioned—as most bureaucracies are—but which is remote from the reality of day-to-day life in our prisons and borstals. Sometime I should like to know the ratio of officials within the administrative side of the Home Office, which deals with prisons—from the lowly messenger to the senior Under-Secretary—to the staff of our prisons today. Very often they are inarticulate people, but they carry out a very difficult job. They are highly experienced. I have come across many people within the prison service—governors, deputy governors, prison officers, many dedicated medical officers, and so on—who have a great understanding of the problems. I wonder whether, in fact, the May Committee and Parliament generally have not paid far too much attention to the much greater articulated views of the civil servants who control the prison service remotely and far too little to the views of those engaged in the day-to-day servicing of our prisons.
  The self-interest of certain career civil servants, perfectly understandable, is fairly obvious, but have we paid too little heed to those who serve in prisons and borstals, and so on? After all, in the main they are dealing with devious, inadequate, and sometimes violent individuals. Of course they are not all like this at all, but there is need for greater insight in the understanding of their problems.
  I feel that the prison service at present is in a state of great discontent. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord in his capacity as Lord Chancellor must have seen this process for years. I remember some of the speeches, which were among the best he ever made, when he was leading for the Opposition between 1966 and 1970 in another place on home affairs. He showed a great understanding of the difficulties of the then Home Secretary in getting money to improve our prison, borstal, after-care service, and so on. They are always the Cinderella. There are no votes in them at all. But for a civilised country we have a system now which is in danger of becoming a national disgrace. It is time that something was done about it, and this House in particular is in a position to take the initiative in this matter. Something must be done fairly urgently if we are to have a satisfied prison service.
  I do not wish to make any further comments on what is in the Queen's Speech. I am rather disappointed at the things left out. I perfectly well therefore understand the exhortation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to lift our eyes unto the

  77
  stars, because what is immediately before us is not very satisfying.
  7.3 p.m.
  Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I am happy to say that there are no questions that I want to put to the noble Lord the Minister who will be replying. If inadvertently I appear to do so let me make it clear that I am not expecting any reply. I was much encouraged by the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who seemed to me to try to get what I think we are all striving for, and that is an understanding of our responsibilities. I was sorry that his contribution had to be made on an occasion such as this, because it would be a good thing if we could debate what man's responsibilities to man really are. It is because of that that I want to try to follow in the noble and learned Lord's footsteps.
  My concern, as your Lordships know, is with health and social security. The Government's future policy as outlined in the Queen's Speech conceals far more than it reveals, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has just made. In the circumstances, bearing in mind the Government's plans outlined yesterday by the Chancellor, it is probably a good thing that the Queen's Speech did conceal more than it revealed, because I think it would put Her Majesty in an unenviable position if she had to read what in fact has transpired since implementation of the Government's policy.
  This is the first week of a new Session, and having regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intentions for the future as expressed in the Commons yesterday, I think we need to take a look at what has transpired over the last 18 months. I want to try to persuade noble Lords on the Government Benches and, if I may, those on the Cross-Benches that the Government have taken the wrong road economically. I do not think it is unfair to the Government to say that the economic views held by them have produced a certain amount of chaos. I think it would be true to say that, while there is a steadfast determination not to do any U-turns, they have tended to go first in one direction and then in another, and then retrace their steps and go in another, to such an extent that if one were to try to plan it it would look more like a spaghetti junction than a carefully prepared plan.
  One of the schools I attended had a motto. I apologise in advance to the noble and learned Lord, who is a classicist, if my pronunciation of Latin, learnt many years ago, is wrong. I also ask your Lordships to grant me the indulgence of interpreting that motto rather generously. The motto was respice prospice: to look back on things done when you are looking forward to doing other things. This is what I want to do tonight: to look back before deciding the way forward.
  I have here a detailed account of the effects of the Government's economic policy, and the cuts those policies have imposed on local authorities during the last 18 months. It is an enormous document of something like 95 pages which sets out clearly, without comment, the actions taken by 90 out of, I think, 120 local authorities. It shows that the most vulnerable members of our society have been the ones who have suffered as a result of Government policies. This
  78
  report has been prepared by the Association of Directors of Social Services. I do not suppose that many, if any, noble Lords opposite or, for that matter, noble Lords behind me have seen this document, or have even read it, but it really is an indictment so far as the Government's actions are concerned.
  It shows, as I say, that the most vulnerable members of our society were the ones who suffered. It sets out in detail the effects of the cuts upon children, children's homes, children's services; the effects that they have had upon the elderly, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped, and the mentally ill. It shows how community care has been substantially reduced as a result. Home helps have lessened. Meals on wheels have suffered. Children boarding out have suffered. Aids and adaptations for those in the community who need them in order to try to live a reasonable and normal life, sheltered housing, day care and day nurseries, intermediate treatment, day centres especially for the elderly and the physically handicapped and the mentally ill, as well as day services for multi-purpose employment, have suffered very substantially. I know—because we have discussed these matters on other occasions—that many noble Lords opposite have a real concern about what is happening. I ask them to get a copy of this booklet; it will cost them £1·50 and it needs to be read clearly to appreciate what is happening.
  There have been cuts in the number of social workers and specialist social workers. There have been substantial cuts in the grants to voluntary bodies, and we know how much we depend on the voluntary organisations. Take away the voluntary organisations in this country and our social services would be at a very low ebb. Training has had to be abandoned in some places and the maintenance of buildings has had to go. I have details of the closure of services, facilities and centres all over the country. I want tonight to try to persuade noble Lords opposite to take a good look at the past 18 months and into what has really happened, because the message from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—although he did not put it quite like this, I do not think I misunderstood him—is that we are our brothers' keepers.
  In fact, the Secretary of State said at this year's Conservative Party conference:
  "We believe that it is the duty of the strong to help the weak, and that is why we seek to help the most vulnerable in our society. These words are not just pious platitudes. Look at the record".
  That is precisely what I have done. I have looked at the record and I must say, because I believe it, that in the last analysis the people in our community who can least afford to suffer cuts are the ones who have in fact suffered them.
  I wish to comment briefly on the role of the National Health Service in our society. Hospitals are closing. I read recently that Cardiff is thinking of closing perhaps six hospitals simply because it has been forced, as a result of the cuts, to do so. Wards are cut and facilities are deteriorating. I am not saying this is new. The last thing I would suggest is that everything in the garden was lovely until this Government came to office. It was not. Let us be perfectly honest about it, the NHS left much to be desired. Nor do I suggest for one moment that this Government are the sole cause of the present difficulties. However, I am saying that if a country, a society, must look at its

  79
  expenditure and of necessity must make some drastic reductions in finance, it must see that the reductions are made in areas where they will not impoverish people who are already impoverished.
  The present Government are not as committed as we are and are not as committed as they should be either to the NHS or to people who are in need of constant support. A working group on inequalities in the Health Service was set up in 1979 by the former Secretary of State to review information about differences in health and other matters between the social classes. It is not easy to get a copy of the vast report produced by that research working group, although it is issued by the Department of Health and Social Service. It is not obtainable in our Printed Paper Office and very little publicity has been given to it. True, there are upwards of 400 pages, but one should read it and it is an enormous indictment of the inequalities in the NHS. I wish also to make it clear that these inequalities have existed for decades; they have not just appeared.
  Reading from the foreword by the Secretary of State, he says:
  "I must make it clear that additional expenditure on the scale which could result from the Report's recommendations is quite unrealistic in present or foreseeable economic circumstances, quite apart from any judgment that may be formed of the effectiveness of such expenditure in dealing with the problems identified. I cannot therefore endorse the Group's recommendations".
  Nevertheless we have this tremendous problem of inequalities in the National Health Service and something will have to be done about it in the not too distant future. I am not unmindful of the difficulties this country is facing financially, but are the people who can afford to make sacrifices being asked to make them? My noble friends and I feel they are not.
  I remind the House that when I spoke on the effects of this Government's first budget I quoted from the Guardian of 25th March 1979 as follows:
  "Of the £3,500 million handed out in tax cuts in the first budget last June, about 40 per cent. of it went to 5½ per cent. of taxpayers. For the £30,000 a year man, this meant a cut of £4,000 in his tax bill, and for the £20,000 a year man, a reduction of £2,000".
  It may well be argued that the Government did not know when they came to office what the real financial position of the country was and felt under an obligation to fulfil an election promise that immediately on taking office they would cut taxes. But that £3,500 million could have been better used. We are looking for £1,000 million, £2,000 million or £3,000 million to, as it were, balance the books, and I want to suggest that there is no real evidence at all that any serious attempt has been made to look at what one section of the community could do to alleviate the misery, suffering and poverty of another.
  It has been known for some time that there is little sign of health service inequalities disappearing, and it is quite certain that the Government will do very little about the recommendations of the report to which I referred earlier. This is the kind of situation we are faced with at present: I have before me a cutting of a report referring to a woman who was hoping to have an operation, but, says the report, the consultant will have to have another lottery before deciding which
  80
  patients can have operations. The report goes on to say that the woman was one of five patients who lost this week when they arrived at the Mill Road Hospital in Liverpool for operations for which they had already been waiting for some months. The consultant found that he had only four beds available for nine women. So he had to put their names in a hat and draw out the names of the four who were to be successful. The consultant said:
  "For weeks now I have been having to send women home because their beds have been needed at the last minute for emergency cases. We are being asked to cope with a number of beds totally inappropriate to the needs of women in this city. We have lost about a sixth of our gynaecology beds and we did not have enough even before the cuts".
  That is due to the fact that Liverpool is having to save £4½ million in health service costs; and I suggest to your Lordships that that is neither a fair nor a reasonable thing to do when it impinges on the comfort and the lives of other people.
  It is possible to tell the same story in a large number of health areas. One of only seven National Health Service hospitals devoted to the care of the dying has to be closed simply because the Kensington and Chelsea Area Health Authority has to save about £1⅓ million on its bugdet. This kind of thing is happening on a much larger scale than I believe most people realise. I do not want to appear unkind to noble Lords opposite when I say that I suppose that not for one moment do many of them realise what is happening. As I say, the kind of situation that I mention exists on a much larger scale than most people realise. Yet we see no curtailing at all of the private sector. Private hospitals are not closing. The building of private hospitals is not suffering in any way. Private hospitals are still going up; I have recently seen a number of them.
  If we really feel that the strong should look after the weak—and I am fully prepared to accept that the Secretary of State is quite sincere when he says this—then a much more determined effort must be made to see that the needs of the weak are met by the strong.
  I want to say a word or two about social security. It was stated in the Speech from the Throne that
  "pensions, war pensions and other social security benefits will be increased on 24th November"—
  yesterday—
  "and reviewed again next year".
  I do not know what the term "reviewed" means. I want to put the best possible construction on it, but I think it a very unusual word to use in the circumstances. During the passage of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, which is now an Act on the statute book, I dealt with what I then considered, and still consider, to be the disgraceful decision to reduce by 5 per cent. unemployment, sickness and injury benefits. When worked out it means a substantial reduction for a married couple, approaching £80 a year. The proposed cut next year of 1 per cent. in benefit increases, that we learned of yesterday, will mean that an elderly couple in receipt of a state retirement pension will suffer a reduction of about £22·60 in a year, which will not be covered even by the Christmas bonus, if it is paid.
  If the Government really wanted the more fortunately placed to help the less fortunate, then they would have imposed a tax on bank profits, which have risen considerably

  81
  during the last year or so. Banks are doing very well out of the level of minimum lending rate; in fact they have made an enormous profit. If the Government are really sincere in their desire to see that the "haves" do something for the "have-nots", then they could at least consider a 25 per cent. tax on bank profits, which would yield over £400 million—and the banks would still have 75 per cent. of their profits.
  The increase in the national insurance contributions will in fact be a form of income tax which will affect those who at present do not pay tax because their income is too low. Quite a substantial number of people in work who today do not pay income tax are to be asked to pay higher national insurance contributions, and that, as I have said, is equivalent to a form of income tax.
  Last week I listened to the Minister, James Prior, speaking on television. One can be only impressed by his sincerity. He was talking about the importance of seeing that on leaving school young people either have a job at the end of six months, or are found a place in a training centre. He said that that must be done; otherwise there will be a toll of bitterness. My Lords, there is already a trail of bitterness, and what some of us are afraid of is that it might get out of hand. There is every indication that it may well do so. I think we are too tolerant at the present moment about a situation which may suddenly overtake us.
  We are living in a society where, on the one hand, there appears to be an enormous amount of money and yet in a society where, on the other hand, there is very little money; a society in which too many people, I believe sincerely, have too much and where there are too many people who have too little. It appals me that week after week I can see advertised in the glossy magazines, even in the Radio Times or the TV Times, or the Sunday magazines, as I saw this last weekend, a man's watch costing £2,750 and a woman's watch costing £1,950. Do your Lordships realise that £2,750 is more than is received by an unemployed man in order to keep his wife and children from 1st January to 31st December? It is estimated that in social security and other such ways we spend something like £2,000 a year on every unemployed person. My Lords, £2,000 in a year, and yet watches are being sold—obviously being sold—for £2,750!
  Do not let us talk about one section of the community not being in a position to make sacrifices. Noble Lords opposite will tell me, I am sure, that they have suffered as a result of the recession. But it is a relative suffering. Anybody who has any experience of America will know that when things are all right they are at a high level and when they are experiencing a serious recession it falls to about the middle, but it does not fall down to the bottom. I think this is the position with a number of people in this country. As a community we cannot go on having, shall I say, too much wealth walking side by side with too much poverty.
  I live in Oxford, on the borders of the city, and we have there some of the classiest kennels for dogs in the country. I read now what they get. They breakfast on Wheatabix, tea and toast, and they are served every morning with the Daily Telegraph. I make no comment about that. Dinner ranges from steak and soft boiled eggs to cakes and custard and cream.
  82
  I could tell your Lordships the names of a number of people who use them, but I will not. It costs £35 a week. I can understand it being said that such people ought to be shot. That is not the way to deal with it, I accept that; but I can understand people feeling that way. When this sort of thing is known, and when a man has to keep a wife and family on considerably less, perhaps, it does not make for a good community relationship.
  What I want to do tonight—and, for me, if I may say so, I have been fairly subdued—is to say this. I want to ask noble Lords opposite to look independently at the effects of the Government cuts; to get hold of this report of the Association of Directors of Social Services, and to look for themselves. We know that there is considerable feeling within the Conservative Party about what is happening. There is nothing that we on this side can do about it, but I do suggest that if noble Lords were to look at what really is happening they will have to think again before they support some of the things which will come before your Lordships' House and another place in the very near future.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been in hospital recently, it is more than a mere politeness to say that it gives me great pleasure to be following the noble Lord and to recognise that no one is better qualified than he is to speak of care for those who are in need. But I must follow the noble Lord's speech by making the point that I think it is fair to say that almost every one of the problems that your Lordships have spoken about today depends essentially upon the health of the economy of this country.
  The noble Lord adjured us to look at the individual services which are being affected by the economic situation. Because schools, hospitals, the probation and social services, prisons and the police, not to mention voluntary organisations, depend so much upon people, so these services are bound to suffer especially if inflation is rising and if the costs of each service are outstripping the resources available. In the whole field of home affairs, compassion alone is not enough. Thus, today's debate is bound to be set in the context of the economic situation, and I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for recognising, as I think she did in her speech, that the only way of achieving many of the services that we want for our country is to get a permanent reduction in the rate of inflation; and the Government are determined to pursue policies which are achieving that objective.
  None the less, it has proved possible to make sub stantial progress in pursuit of the Government's commitment, which is repeated in the gracious Speech, to the maintenance of law and order. The serious losses of police manpower of a few years ago have been reversed and, at 116,582 in England and Wales, the strength of the police service of this country stood at the end of the month of October at the highest total ever. However, at a time when all public services are reviewing their expenditure, it is all the more important that the police should use their resources as effectively as possible, and this is something to which I know chief constables are giving increased attention.

  83
  There has also been a welcome increase, your Lordships may be interested to hear, in the number of police officers drawn from the ethnic minorities. Ten years ago there were only 33 black and Asian police officers in England and Wales, of whom eight were in the Metropolitan Police. Now there are more than 280, of whom 100 are serving in London. Indeed, the number of all applicants to join the police service is very encouraging, because ultimately it is from the support of the community that the authority of the police is derived.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—I think he would wish me to refer to his speech in his absence—spoke on the subject of those who do not give the support of their particular community to the work of the police, and he mentioned in particular marches of the National Front and other extreme groups. I share the attitude of the noble and learned Lord to marches of all extremist groups, but I think your Lordships will know—and we should be under no illusion—that there is not a simple and easy response to this problem.
  The noble and learned Lord asked me a specific question, which was whether the Home Secretary was consulted about the recent march, to which he referred. Of course, my right honourable friend is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police, and he is kept in close touch with these matters. But the Public Order Act 1936, the governing statute, provides that it shall be possible to ban a march only where the chief officer—in this case, of course, the Commissioner of Police—apprehends a threat of serious public disorder which no other measure can avoid. In framing the 1936 Act in this way our predecessors struck a balance between freedom to demonstrate, on the one hand, and the interests of the majority in a peaceful and orderly society, on the other hand. The conflict between those two competing principles lies at the heart of the Government's current review of the Public Order Act and related legislation. We are still getting responses to that Green Paper and I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord in his absence and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that we are considering the comments on the Green Paper carefully alongside the recent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place on its review of the law on public order. As soon as we have reached a conclusion we shall report to both Houses.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at the beginning of the debate spoke about the prison service. The need for emergency powers contained in the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act still stands; and the House will be having the opportunity to debate a renewal order shortly. Therefore, all that I would say on the present situation is that discussions are taking place between the Home Office and the Prison Officers' Association on the introduction of a new duty system for prison officers which would eliminate the anomalies which lie at the root of the current dispute. If agreement can now be reached on its introduction, on the terms which we have indicated to the POA, the new system will bring real advantages to prison officers in their conditions of service as well as to the management of prison establishments.
  84
  I listened particularly to two points which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made in his speech. The first was the noble Lord's assertion that the prison department is, in some ways, remote. Of course, we take to heart—and I know that the prison department of the Home Office take to heart—any remarks or criticisms made by somebody with such experience of the law as the noble Lord; but I think it is right to remind the noble Lord that the re-organisation which my right honourable friend undertook during the summer was to try to make the prison department more directly accountable, headed, as it is, by a Director-General who is untiring in the hours of work that he puts into his tasks and supported, as he is, by a Deputy Director-General who is a very distinguished representative of the governor grades of the prison service. The other point the noble Lord made in his speech was the need for action soon to rectify the years of neglect in the past. To that, in agreeing, I would say that, of course, we need to get on with the review of staff training recommended by the May Report and the development of régimes of prison industries which was also recommended. It is a little short of tragic that this positive work should be interrupted by the Prison Officers' Association's action and I very much hope that this dispute will soon be resolved so as to enable us to get on with work of that kind and, incidentally, work next year, which includes the start of two new prison establishments.
  I turn to the Young Offenders' White Paper about which many noble Lords have spoken. The preparation of the necessary legislation to implement this White Paper is, as the gracious Speech made clear, now being carried forward. But with an eye on the parliamentary timetable we have not committed ourselves to legislation this Session. However, the instant response to the White Paper has created some misunderstandings and, if I may, I will refer to them. The White Paper does not encourage the use of custody in dealing with young offenders. Underpinning our proposals in it is the need to ensure that custody is a last resort for serious offenders. The courts already have a wide range of non-custodial alternatives; and the important thing is to encourage their use. The noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked what progress is being made in the development of alternatives to custody and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when in the House, asked that the Government should give practical help in this respect. The number of attendance centres has been substantially increased from 79, when the Government came into office over one year ago, to a total of 104 today. We are starting now on the build-up of senior attendance centres also. The community service order has proved very successful, we think, for the 17 to 21-year-olds, and we believe that a valuable alternative in community service can be found for the 16 year olds; and legislation will propose a reduction of the age of eligibility for community service in that respect.
  The main change where legislation is needed which the White Paper proposes in relation to young adults is the replacement of borstal training and imprisonment by the new sentence of youth custody; and the restriction of section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 will be removed. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for giving his approval that the courts, by this move, will be enabled to fix the length

  85
  of sentence according to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. We shall also enable the courts to impose shorter detention centre sentences than they can now.
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, was critical in her speech of the residential care order; but perhaps the noble Baroness had not entirely taken account of the relevant passage in the White Paper. Our proposal in this respect is designed to enable the courts to deal with a child who is already in care for offending and who re-offends. If a child has been left at home, the only way in which a court can remove him from the environment in which he is repeating offences is to send the child to custody. The residential care order is designed to prevent that happening. This is an order which will only be made by a court on a youngster already in care for offending and there will be a discretion left to the local authority as to the placement of the offender.
  Baroness David: My Lords, if I might intervene, I hope very much that this is what will happen; that there will not be more custodial orders. But the legislation, if it goes through, will make that possible and it could happen with some courts.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying. I was trying to point out that very often without such an order, there comes a moment in the career of a youngster who re-offends when there is no alternative but to send that youngster to a very different sort of custody. May I come back to what is, I think, common ground in your Lordships' House—that it is far preferable to deal with juvenile offenders in the community. The Government very much agreed with my noble friend Lady Faithfull when she drew attention to the importance of intermediate treatment. An important proposal in the White Paper is that the courts should be able to order an agreed programme of intermediate treatment activities. This will renew the courts' confidence in supervision as an alternative to custody. Finally, may I say that fundamentally—and I think that we would all agree on this—the influence of the family is the thing which determines the development of young people. The White Paper therefore proposes that the power of the courts to order parents to pay fines imposed on children under 17 should be strengthened and that the amount of the financial recognisance which parents can be ordered to forfeit should be increased when an undertaking given to the court to take proper care of, and exercise proper control over, a juvenile is broken.
  There are three pieces of legislation included in the gracious Speech which it will be the responsibility of the Home Office to introduce. One will be the legislation to repeal the suspected person offence, commonly known as "sus", in Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned this, so that I shall content myself on this subject with answering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The answer to the noble Lord is that this legislation will involve reform of the law of attempt; and I have no doubt that when the Bill comes to this House, your Lordships will wish to debate it very thoroughly.
  The second piece of legislation which also falls within the scope of my right honourable friend's
  86
  department is the European Assembly Elections Bill, to which reference is made in the gracious Speech but to which no reference was made in this House this afternoon. As that Bill has now been introduced in another place and is published, again I shall, unless there are any questions on it, content myself with mentioning simply that it now exists.
  The third piece of legislation which was mentioned with approval by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was the legislation which we now foreshadow to build upon the White Paper on British nationality law which was published last July. I should like to add to my noble and learned friend's words that I think it is widely accepted that the present citizenship of the United Kingdom should be replaced. The existing citizenship does not give a clear indication whether or not the holder has the right of abode in this country. Along the lines which I sought to outline to your Lordships' House a few months ago, we shall now be bringing legislation forward on this particular and most important subject.
  May I for a moment turn to the speech which the noble Baroness, Lady David, made in which she said that she could not understand how the Government could not be concerned about the standards in education, and that in her view morale in the education service was low. I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that. By concentrating our resources where they can be of the greatest benefit, the Government have done a very great deal in this field during this year—
  Baroness David: My Lords, may I intervene again? I have recently been talking to people in the education service and they tell me that morale is extremely low.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am now going to express the reason why I think that the noble Baroness has been misled. In the Education Act 1980 we have implemented our parents' charter to give parents the right to express a preference for a school for their child—I do not know to how many parents the noble Baroness has been talking—and to provide for the appointment of parents to governing bodies. We have strengthened the position of the denominational schools regarding admissions and the composition and powers of their governing bodies. We have established an assisted places scheme and we have embarked on a major reform of the exams taken mainly by pupils at 16-plus in a way which, if I may say so, is a considerable improvement on the plans of the previous Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is undertaking a review of the curriculum which I believe has been widely and warmly welcomed.
  I would rather go along with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who gave a warm welcome to the educational content of the gracious Speech, which is the forecast of legislation on the Warnock Report, as it is called, on special education. As the White Paper on this subject which was presented to Parliament in August said, it is intended to reform the law to reflect the modern concept of special educational needs, extending to a wider group of children than are now ascertained as handicapped. Here again, I do not want unnecessarily to cross swords with the noble Baroness, but in her speech

  87
  she represented the White Paper as being no advance at all in this field.
  I worked for a short item in the education service, and I remember 10 years ago we were all discussing trying to do away with categories of handicap. I am delighted this evening to be able to record that it was my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who set up the Warnock Committee; and now, as a result of it, we are able to bring forward this particular recommendation to try to streamline the arrangements in this particular area of the education system. We hope in this matter for an early Bill. Its introduction this Session will be particularly propitious, as its passage will coincide with the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981.
  When I first started to work there, I remember a member of the Home Office telling me that when she had begun work there some years before—she was a woman civil servant—she had been told that one of her responsibilities would be various hazards otherwise unallocated. In answering a debate of this kind, I feel that I must deal with two or three questions—and I am afraid it is not all of them—which were raised. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked about the Government's intention regarding the Law Commission's reports on family property. The Government at this stage cannot promise their own legislation on any of the matters dealt with in the Law Commission's third report on family property. That would not prevent the introduction of a Private Member's Bill in the same way as the noble and learned Lord did last Session, though that Bill was, in the Government's view wisely withdrawn pending the report of the Law Commission on the Lord Chancellor's reference to it on the implications of the decision in your Lordships' House in the case of Williams and Glyn's v. Boland and Brown.
  The position regarding the second part of the Law Commission's report is, however, rather different. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in July last year that he would like to see the Bill about rights of occupation of the matrimonial home enacted quickly, and that remains the Government's desire. The Government would therefore be favourably disposed in principle towards the introduction of a Bill on the lines of the Law Commission's draft about rights of occupation. With it could perhaps be combined the draft clauses annexed to the Law Commission's report, Law Commission No. 99, published in February of this year, about the court's powers to order sale of matrimonial property following divorce proceedings.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me about the Criminal Law Revision Committee's recommendations regarding offences against the person. Consultations are now taking place with a wide range of interested organisations which have been asked for their comments by the end of the year. The Government will look carefully at the views expressed and then consider what action should be taken.
  I found exceedingly interesting the speech which my noble friend Lord Hylton made concerning Northern Ireland affairs, particularly as my noble friend had recently visited the Province. Whether the need which my noble friend identified to bring together the segregated
  88
  schools is one which could be a cause or would be a consequence of an end to violence in Northern Ireland, I am not prepared to say; but I think that the various aspects of my noble friend's speech will repay study. I will draw the speech to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
  The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked me a question specifically about bringing forward legislation to up-date the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. I have said on behalf of the Government before in your Lordships' House that that is most definitely our intention. But the noble Lord's apprehension that I will reply that we are awaiting the European convention is of course correct. The full committee at Strasbourg is due to meet next in May of 1981, again under United Kingdom chairmanship. By then we expect to have a clear idea of the obligations of the convention. We shall also have the benefit of the views of the Home Secretary's advisory committee on animal experiments, which is studying the framework of legislation, with particular reference to recent proposals before both Houses of Parliament, and the convention. It is against this background that we feel we should wait in order to carry forward our commitment later next year.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, asked me for a word of encouragement to those who work and have worked for so many years—since 1945—and so often for so little recognition, in the field of civil defence. Following the Statement which my right honourable friend made to the House of Commons and which was made to your Lordships' House on 7th August, good progress has been made in preparing the further public advice on domestic shelters which has been promised for the turn of the year.
  The allowances paid to volunteer members of the Royal Observer Corps and to the volunteer warning officers of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation have now been approved. Further detailed planning work has been undertaken in order to make further improvements to wartime headquarters, emergency communications and wartime broadcasting which were announced by the Home Secretary. Highly important and almost disregarded in so many ways—in public discussion at any rate—in previous years, we have initiated an examination of the demand which would be placed on industry in crisis and conventional war.
  Of course it is vitally important that volunteer effort should be properly encouraged and coordinated. The noble Lord himself gives an excellent example in relation to the Devon Emergency Volunteers, for which he is in many ways responsible. We shall, I hope, be in a position to announce the appointment of Co-ordinator of Volunteers in England and Wales, which was promised on 7th August, in the reasonably near future.
  May I finally return to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He drew attention to particular problems in the National Health Service. He was absolutely fair in saying that many problems have existed for some time, and indeed I can, I think, recall occasions when the noble Lord answered questions on this subject from the Government Dispatch Box about difficulties and shortages in previous years.
  I cannot see that it can be of any service to our children or any support for the elderly and for those

  89
  who are ill or in need, if we refuse to live within our means. We have been down that road before. At a time of world recession, a policy of really broad expansion of public expenditure, which is advocated by some members of the Opposition, would lead once more to the International Monetary Fund. The Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday is, I would submit to your Lordships, a recognition that only by living within our means can we continue—as we ate doing—to reduce inflation. That is the only way in which we can achieve those things we want for our country, and that it is the only sure way to set our course.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Greater Manchester Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House, That (pursuant to the Resolution of 4th November last) the Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declarations of the agents: Bill presented; read 1a, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.

Committee of Selection
First Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.