Sitting of 13 May 1981

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

    Blizzards (Losses to Farmers)
    Mr. Langasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the losses to farmers in southern Scotland caused by the blizzards of 23 and 25 April; and what consideration has been given to the payment of compensation.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): It is too early for a final assessment. A preliminary survey indicates that the bulk of the Scottish hill farming industry has escaped relatively unscathed, though there are reports of heavy losses by individual farmers in the south-western and border areas. I shall consider the matter further when I have fuller details of the losses.
    Mr. Lang: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although it seems that the overall situation may not be as bad as one feared, does he not agree that some individual farmers, especially in my constituency, have suffered badly? Can he hold out any hope of aid towards recovery for them under one or other of the funds under the common agricultural policy? Will the Government add their weight to such an application?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Information that I have received suggests that some farmers have suffered severe losses, as they have in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and in Ayrshire too. In the past assistance has been received from the European Community disaster fund for this sort of occasion. I understand that the National Farmers Unions are considering whether to put a case direct to the Commission. My officials will be available to help in preparing any such case.
    Mr. Milian: There were some reports that the Scottish Office had turned down the suggestion of making financial recompense. Are those reports inaccurate? Is it not true that the initiative to the Common Market should come from the Government, not from the NFU?
    Mr. Younger: I did not see such reports, but if there were any they were inaccurate. The Scottish Office has not turned down such a suggestion. It is normal for organisations to apply to the Commission, but my officials will help in doing so.
    Mr. Grimond: Although my constituency did not suffer heavily from those storms, when the Secretary of
    750
    State is considering the condition of agriculture in general will he bear in mind the poor economic returns that it is suffering? Will he consider some general help to the industry?
    Mr. Younger: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he will appreciate, the decision to be made is whether there has been such a large-scale national disaster that special aid is required. I agree that agriculture has had a difficult time generally but the Government have done all they can to help.

    Secondary Schools (Expenditure Per Pupil)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in each of the past three years at constant prices.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Local authority current expenditure on secondary schools at November 1979 prices, excluding items such as meals and milk, was £778 per pupil in 1977–78 and £786 in 1978–79. The provisional figure for 1979–80 is £813 and the provision made in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81 was £825 per pupil.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that those attending secondary schools in Scotland are benefiting fully from the extra expenditure on their education and that the extra money is not being wasted on more administration?
    Mr. Fletcher: I take my hon. Friend's point. We are satisfied that sufficient provision is being made in our secondary schools to give the school population a first-class education. We are constantly urging local authorities to ensure that the expenditure is used in that way and not wasted on unnecessary administration.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be increases and decreases of expenditure to keep up with the times? Will he accept that there is widespread appreciation of the Government's increase in funding for microcomputers in schools? Is he aware that already in Madras college in St. Andrews there is to be a demonstration within the next fortnight of the work that pupils have done in programme development?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am pleased to hear that. I have seen examples of the splendid use being made of microcomputers in a number of schools in Scotland. Children take to the new technology with great ease. It is therefore most important that the Government's programme should be introduced now so that the younger generation will not grow up with fears of modern technology.
    Mr. O'Neill: Surely the Minister is not being frank with the House. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot condemn local authorities for overspending and at the same time—
    Mr. Speaker:Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister tell the House what level expenditure on education by authorities would have reached had his guidelines on rating been followed? He cannot claim high levels of expenditure and at the same time condemn local authorities.
    Mr. Fletcher: We condemn local authorities which wastefully spend the funds made available. We do not

    751
    condemn local authorities which make proper use of the funds made available for education—for example, the funds that I was happy to announce to the House this afternoon.

    H. D. Lee, Greenock (Redundancies)
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to provide employment services for those declared redundant at the H. D. Lee factory in Larkfield industrial estate, Greenock.
    Mr. Younger: All the normal employment services of the Greenock jobcentre are available to the redundant workers. In addition, a team of employment advisers from the Manpower Services Commission's employment service division is ready to visit the factory to offer advice on alternative employment and training opportunities.
    Dr. Mabon: Is the Secretary of State aware that this firm, unlike most firms in my constituency, is behaving badly to its employees, who have reacted by having a sit-in for nearly 15 weeks? I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the company and to ask it to explain why it has acted in this way towards my constituents. I would at least hope that the Secretary of State would turn to the Scottish Development Agency and seek to find another firm in this activity to sustain employment in the area for these loyal and hard-working people.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The employees concerned must be upset to have their employment terminated. The circumstances were no doubt particularly upsetting to them. We are ready—from the SDA or other sources—to assist any new viable project which it may be possible to devise for this factory or the area. However, the decision to discontinue production is for the firm.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that this problem has been going on for many weeks in Greenock? Is he telling the House that, as Scotland's industry Minister, he has done nothing to try to resolve this problem on behalf of the workers at this factory in Greenock?
    Mr. Younger: There is nothing that I can do if the workers concerned feel strongly enough to act as they have been acting. Nor can I do anything to make more pairs of jeans, or whatever else, at that factory. It is a commercial decision for the company. I have given all the help that I can to the employees.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to do his best for Greenock. As the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the hon. Member must ask a question.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Minister with responsibility for industry to visit the factory and discuss with the workers the possibility of getting some alternative means of keeping the factory in production?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. As I made clear, we are ready at any time to assist with or advise on any new project for the factory. The company has decided that it cannot continue to
    752
    manufacture jeans at this factory. As a matter of interest, other companies in Scotland manufacturing similar products seem to be carrying on.

    Unemployment (Strathclyde)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to lower the level of unemployment in the Strathclyde region.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In addition to the expansion of the West Central Scotland special development area my Department has, since May 1979, offered selective financial assistance to more than 200 projects in Strathclyde. We have continued the development of the new towns and the Glengarnock task force, and we have taken special initiatives such as the enterprise zone at Clydebank. "Locate in Scotland" is actively promoting the region and the Scottish Development Agency is committing substantial resources there.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the Manpower Services Commission's projection, published this morning, that long-term unemployment will continue to rise dramatically, people in Scotland will find his answer dangerously complacent? Is it not time that the Government changed their policies and started to invest money in public projects, particularly capital projects, to get the people of Strathclyde back to work?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind when he accuses me of complacency that since May 1979 more than 200 projects have been offered selective financial assistance. They involved around 23,000 jobs, and the total associated investment amounted to more than £400 million. There is nothing complacent about that.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that the Government are concentrating a far higher proportion of Government aid on Strathclyde than did the Labour Government and that Strathclyde has been helped particularly by the massive aid that the Government have given to the shipbuilding and steel industries?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Last year, the Government made available £1,121 million to the steel industry, much of which is in Strathclyde. This year, the figure is £730 million. The shipbuilding industry has also received substantial support.
    Mr. Milian: When will Ministers stop making optimistic and misleading statements about all the wonderful new jobs that are coming to Scotland and instead face the reality that unemployment in Scotland will soon go beyond 300,000? There is no support for the Government's policies in Scotland. It is down to only 15 per cent. in the public opinion polls. Unless there is a complete reversal of the Government's policies, the outlook for Scotland will continue to be extremely grim.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should reverse our policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of reducing inflation and interest rates?
    Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance in Strathclyde of employment and employment prospects in the defence establishments at Coulport and Gairloch? Does he agree that the anti-nuclear posturing of a portion of the Labour Party, plus the striking civil

    753
    servants at Coulport, does not help to bring to the defence establishments in Strathclyde the investment that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wants?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Labour Party is famous for its posturing. The point made by my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Defence jobs are important in Scotland. The opportunities that new jobs provide should be welcomed, not criticised, by the Opposition.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that, despite all the initiatives that he has named today—many in my constituency—unemployment in Cunningham is still more than 21 per cent.? Last week, Beechams advertised 70 new jobs in the local press and there were 2,800 applicants for them.
    Is the Minister further aware that people in Ayrshire believe that the only way to solve unemployment is for the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to resign and for the Government to call a general election?
    Mr. Fletcher: Nothing could be more dangerous for the Scottish economy than for the Labour Party to come back into power. I know that there is high unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere. However, if the Labour Government had been realistic and taken heed of the need to reduce inflation and to tackle Scotland's economic problems at their root, unemployment would not be as high as it is today.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide long-term employment is to create jobs manufacturing goods that customers want to buy and that capital projects, however desirable, do not produce many jobs?
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. For example, the oil industry has created 90,000 new jobs in Scotland in the past 12 years, and there are 40,000 jobs in electronics, and more coming.

    Courts (Industrial Action)
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken as a result of the effect of the Civil Service industrial action on the Scottish courts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The sheriffs principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh, where there is strike action, continue in consultation with the Scottish Office, the Scottish Courts Administration, the sheriffs and court users to see how to increase the amount of work which sheriffs, without the assistance of supporting staff, can undertake. Emergency cases continue to be dealt with, and I am glad to be able to say that a limited amount of other business has been possible, but the courts will not be able to achieve anything near normal working until staff return to duty.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the time is overdue for the introduction of legislation similar to the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1979? Does he not agree that the time has come for meaningful negotiations with the Civil Service unions so that there may be an end to that dispute?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the Government thought that emergency legislation would bring back normal working to the courts, we should introduce it. However, sadly, that is not so. The greatest service that the hon. Gentleman
    754
    could do in this regard would be to stop making the kind of inciting speeches that he made in Cumbernauld earlier this month, when he encouraged civil servants to escalate their action and thereby bring hardship to old-age pensioners and others on pensions and cause disruption to the general public.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who work in the courts have an overriding duty to sustain and promote the administration of justice? Will he take an early opportunity to remind those people who are hindering justice by industrial action that that duty is greater than their desire for personal gain?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is, of course, correct. It is fortunate that on this occasion, unlike the last occasion under the Labour Government, the industrial action has been restricted so far to the Edinburgh and Glasgow sheriff courts, whereas last time it affected every sheriff court in Scotland, the High Court and the Court of Session.
    Mr. Dewar: Do we take it from what the Minister said that there is no need for emergency legislation to preserve individual rights? Does the Minister accept that public confidence in the administration of justice has been badly shaken, in that the busiest court in Europe has been effectively closed since 23 March? Although he may think that inaction is a plausible posture for this Administration, will he accept that most people in Scotland think that it is time that we saw some signs of life from Ministers?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will know that the provision of discretion to the courts to extend what would otherwise be time-barred civil cases, introduced under earlier legislation, has dealt with the problem that could not be dealt with at the time of the last industrial action under the Labour Government. Normal working can return to Glasgow sheriff court not by emergency legislation—sadly, it would not have that effect—but only by those who normally work in the courts recognising that their real duty is to the public and thus returning to normal working.

    Insulating Grants
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the uptake of domestic insulating grants in Scotland; whether he plans a further advertising campaign during the summer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: Despite extensive publicity last autumn, the uptake of domestic insulation grants in Scotland has remained relatively low. However, the extension of the scheme in August 1980 to provide 90 per cent. grant for the low-income elderly, and a small increase in the maximum rate of grant for other applicants, has resulted in some increase in the number of grants given in 1980–81 over the previous year. I shall certainly wish to consider further publicity later this year.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has the Minister thought about using youth employment to help old people to insulate their lofts and their houses generally? Does he realise that any false economy in insulation would be silly, in view of the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are willing to consider anything that would enable a greater take-up of the resources that are

    755
    available. Local authorities implement these proposals, and in the current year we were able to give them every pound that they asked for this purpose.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Minister should consider making a 100 per cent. grant to the low paid and elderly people? Is it not true that those people cannot meet the 10 per cent. difference? Would it not be socially and economically desirable and desirable in every way if domestic insulation were widely increased?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that it was only in August last year that the proportion that can be paid was increased to 90 per cent. At the moment, there is no reason to believe that people find it impossible to pay the remaining 10 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to prove what he says, we shall be happy to see it.
    Mr. John MacKay: Has my hon. Friend read disturbing reports about some cavity wall insulation products, which suggest that in the long term they are not entirely safe? Will he undertake that the Scottish Office will look into the matter before giving grants for cavity wall insulation material which may have a damaging effect on the health of the people who live in the houses?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government continually monitor the products that are used to see whether they are safe or whether they create any problems. If there were any reason to believe that any product is not safe or has become unsafe, we would give the matter our urgent attention in the advice that we give to local authorities and others.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that Scotland has one of the lowest levels of energy efficiency in the domestic sector in the northern European countries? As more and more people are finding it difficult to pay their electricity bills when they are heating the outside environment as well as their homes, will he give increased urgency to the Government's programme alerting people to the grants that are available, increasing them, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, and mounting a major campaign to improve the standard of energy efficiency?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's objectives. That is why we made a number of changes last year, which we hope will lead to a greater uptake. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are constrained by the sums that are requested by local authorities. We have allocated to local authorities the total amounts that they have sought. We hope that the changes that have already been made will lead to a greater uptake this year, and we shall be happy to look at any means of facilitating that process.

    Grampian Region (Assisted Area Status)
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his comments on the report which has been prepared on the re-assessment of the assisted area status in the areas covered by the Grampian region.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend is presently considering the report which we commissioned from consultants on the performance and prospect of industries in areas affected by oil developments, including Grampian region. The report and the Government's conclusions on it will be published in due course.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a further recent survey shows that there is considerable concern about the loss of employment in the old-established and indigenous industries in the Grampian area and that, in addition, there has been a direct loss of assisted area status? In considering the report, will he seriously consider the reinstatement of assisted area status, at least to the old-established and indigenous industries in the Grampian region, and particularly in my constituency of East Aberdeenshire?
    Mr. Fletcher: I share my hon. Friend's concern for the economic health of the non-oil sector in Grampian. Although the prime purpose of the report is not related to the development area status of the region, it will nevertheless be useful to my right hon. Friend in coming to a decision about development area status there.
    Mr. Myles: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in considering the report, to pay attention also to the indigenous industries in Banff, which have suffered considerably as a result of the activity of the oil-related industries?
    Mr. Fletcher: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    Electricity Disconnections (South of Scotland)
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the large number of families in the South of Scotland whose electricity is disconnected, he will take special measures to help them.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government have already taken substantial steps to help with fuel cost hardship, mainly through the supplementary benefit and family income supplement schemes. The South of Scotland Electricity Board carries out disconnections in accordance with the gas and electricity industries' code of practice dealing with the payment and recovery of fuel debt. I understand from the board that there has been no significant increase in the number of disconnections in the year to 31 March 1981.
    Mr. McKelvey: In view of that disgraceful reply, does not the Minister realise that, in the South of Scotland, about 1,200 homes were without electricity for the whole of 1980, and that, proportionately, that is the worst record for the whole of Great Britain? Does he not agree that the code of practice that is being operated by the South of Scotland Electricity Board is a complete failure, considering that it affects those families who are in a high priority category of need? Should he not introduce statutory limits to the powers of the Scottish boards so that these poor people may be protected?
    Mr. Fletcher: The operation of the code of practice by the South of Scotland Electricity Board is monitored by the electricity consultative council for the South of Scotland district, and the consultative council is satisfied that the board's procedure and its application generally complies with the aims and spirit of the code of practice.
    Mr. Henderson: I have on occasion criticised nationalised industries, but will my hon. Friend accept that, over the past two years, South of Scotland Electricity Board, in dealing with constituent's problems, has dealt sensitively with people who have had difficulty in paying

    757
    their bills? Will he assist the SSEB to make more widely known a number of schemes that it has to assist the people to pay their electricity bills?
    Mr. Fletcher: We shall be happy to assist with publicity, if we can do so. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the House will bear it in mind that it is damaging to produce statistics and make false claims and criticisms about the way in which the board is undertaking this task, unless they can be properly substantiated. If any Members have evidence that the board is not behaving properly, I hope that they will direct such evidence, first, to the chairman and, secondly, to myself.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen the evidence in the excellent pamphlet produced by the Scottish Fuel Poverty Action Group called "Living in the Dark Ages", which catalogues the appalling hardship of poor families who have been disconnected? What action will he take on the recommendations contained in that pamphlet to end disconnections, to abolish warrant sales and, above all, to improve liaison for early action to deal with fuel debts?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Government have increased substantially the funds available to help those who have difficulty paying their electricity bills.

    Hospital Broadcasting Services
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask health boards to discuss with hospital broadcasting services in their health board area the difficulties they are facing as a result of the increase in the land line rental; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): The volunteer hospital broadcasters provide a valued service to patients and many boards already assist that work. They will, I am sure, be happy to discuss any problems which the hospital broadcasting services wish to raise with them. The determination of rental charges for land lines is, however, a matter for the Post Office.
    Mr. Ewing: Is not the Minister aware that the hospital broadcasting services now face serious problems because of the decision to increase their land line rental by 50 per cent. each year until 1984? Against the background of an increase from £1,000 to £5,000 per annum, would it not be better and far more constructive if the Minister, through the health boards, came to an arrangement with such organisations as the Edinburgh hospital broadcasting service and Radio Royal in Falkirk to guarantee a specific income each year to meet the enormous increase in land line rental?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: The charges have not been raised since 1975—
    Mr. Ewing: That is because the Labour Government kept them down.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: They were raised in 1980 because of inflation under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman is, once again, wrong. The suggestion is that over a four-year period the charges be increased by a factor of between two and five times, but never by more than 50 per cent. in one year. Last year, as a guarantee of income, we gave permission for the services to use advertising time if they so wished.
    Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable enterprise of those who run the Buckie hospital broadcasting service and raise a large amount of money voluntarily to help themselves to a great extent?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Knowing who represents Buckie in Parliament, I am not the least bit surprised at the enterprise in that area.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures of unemployed people in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: On 9 April seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 270,800–12 per cent. While I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the continuing high level of unemployment, I am encouraged by the fact that the rate of increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland has slowed down somewhat during the past three months and has been relatively less severe than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency alone during the past two years an additional 3,571 people—about 89·25 per cent.—have been added to the unemployment register? Is that not all too sadly typical of what is happening in the rest of Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of those people are more than 45 years of age, and that they fear that unless something drastic is done they will never work again? Without eroding any of the other programmes, can the right hon. Gentleman do something to help that group who are thoroughly demoralised?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, both on the general point and for his constituency. The new scheme announced recently as a supplement to the youth opportunities programme, for the older unemployed, should help the group that he mentioned who are the longer-term unemployed. I know that he will be the first to agree that, having seen the position develop in his part of Scotland, the Government have given that area the highest priority in assistance for regional development. Many hundreds of millions of pounds have been pumped into the steel industry, in which many of his constituents work.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the attempt to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement at a time of world recession—as the Government are doing, and to which policy he is apparently committed because of his ministerial responsibilities—is having a deeply devastating effect on Scottish employment? Will he abandon that course? When he announces the number of new jobs created in Scotland, as he did last week—he said that 43,000 new jobs had been created since the Government took office—will he also tell us of the number of jobs lost?
    Mr. Younger: I am interested to hear a piece of policy from the Social Democratic Party. That is extremely helpful. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contemplate what the opposite effect would be if we were to increase the public sector borrowing requirement at a time of

    759
    recession. How much would it add to the interest rates about which his constituents are complaining, with the backing of the Social Democratic Party?
    Mr. Peter Fraser: In view of the attention that my right hon. Friend has paid to the problem of unemployment in Scotland, may I ask whether he has found evidence to suggest that we can afford the stunning complacency about the level of rates in Scotland and its effect on unemployment? Can he recollect one cheep from his opposite number on the Labour Benches when rates were increased, especially following the 150 per cent. increase that Dundee district council imposed on industry in parts of my constituency?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is overwhelming evidence that the excessively high levels of rates being imposed by irresponsible overspending authorities is threatening many thousands of jobs in small firms in those areas. I have not noticed the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) making any strong appeals to local authorities not to overspend. Perhaps I simply failed to notice.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that school leavers this year will face the worst employment prospects since the 1930s? Does he realise that there is complete demoralisation among large sections of youngsters? We are told that things will get better. When will they do so, and when will he hold out even a little hope to this year's school leavers?
    Mr. Younger: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about school leavers. I am sure that he will acknowledge that we have increased the youth opportunities programme for that precise reason by no less than 80 per cent. Even if he wishes, as I do, that we could do more, at least he might acknowledge that we have made a fine contribution.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far better for Scotland if Opposition Members occasionally stopped moaning and started pointing to the many job opportunities coming to Scotland, especially in the oil industry? Does my right hon. Friend recall that only last year Shell UK predicted that during the next 15 years a further £60 billion would be spent developing North Sea oil? That is more than five times what has already been spent. Does not that mean massive new domestic market opportunities for Scottish jobs and products?
    Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's puzzlement at the attitude of the Opposition Party on this issue. Their contribution to a difficult position appears to be that we should withdraw from the European Community, thus threatening about one-third of the jobs in Scotland, abandon the defence commitment, which would instantly threaten about 30,000 Scottish jobs and, as if that were not enough, institute huge public spending programmes that would threaten the remaining jobs.
    Mr. George Robertson: Has the Secretary of State read reports in today's press about the attack on his Government by the president and chairman of the North Lanarkshire Conservative and Unionist Association, both of whom have declined reselection as Conservative councillors as a five-point protest against Government policies? In the light of that and in the light of the Government's pathetic 15 per cent. support in the latest opinion poll, will even this stubborn Government
    760
    recognise that they are being condemned on all fronts and change their policies before they cause any more damage to Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I understand that the president and chairman reaffirmed their remaining loyalty to the Conservative Party. If I wish for any advice on how to deal with dissension within the party, I shall turn to the Labour Party, which is expert on such matters.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely sympathetic and concerned about the problems of growing unemployment, will he consider the Robb Caledon yard in Dundee, which no longer has any orders in hand and where 400 jobs are in danger? British Shipbuilders is apparently determined to close the yard. Will he intervene with Department of Industry Ministers and British Shipbuilders to bring new work to the yard?
    Mr. Younger: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I, too, have been greatly concerned about the Robb Caledon yard. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that the Government have been extremely generous to the shipbuilding industry. It is for British Shipbuilders to decide which yards can continue and which cannot.

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities since he took office.
    Mr. Rifkind: Eight, Sir.
    Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that COSLA and many councils throughout the country, including Conservative councils, feel that the meetings with the Secretary of State are a waste of time because he is not interested in what COSLA says? Special powers have been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and it is being seen that local democracy has virtually ceased to exist in Scotland? Does he appreciate that the mandate that he thinks he has does not operate in Scotland. Does he accept that councils have the job of resisting the policies of his Government, especially those that are attacks on jobs and living standards? Will he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very fair. The hon. Gentleman has asked three supplementary questions. The Minister is entitled to choose which he answers.
    Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that all democratically elected Governments have a mandate to carry out their policies. I think that he will find that the convention accepts that if it is necessary to take action against high-spending authorities it is better to concentrate that action on the authorities responsible than to direct it against all authorities, including those that have behaved responsibly.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss with COSLA the recent press release by the EIS on section 88 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980? Will he assure the convention that hon. Members do not react positively to threats of strike action, distortion and vulgar personal abuse?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is correct that the House does not react favourably to protests and demonstrations, whether carried out by trade unionists or Labour Members of Parliament.

    Housing Shortage
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for relieving the acute housing shortage in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is quite wrong to refer to an acute housing shortage in Scotland. On the most recent estimate, the number of houses exceeds the number of households by more than 150,000 and in the public sector alone there are an estimated 35,000 empty houses. There are, of course, some local shortages and the special needs of particular groups need attention. I expect housing authorities to concentrate their resources on these priorities.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 150,000 people on waiting lists throughout Scotland and that local authorities are currently building about 5,000 houses a year? Does he accept that the recent White Paper on public expenditure shows that the Government are intending to slash public expenditure on housing by 42 per cent.? That is the largest cut in any sector of the Scottish economy. Was the Prime Minster told about this "success story" before she made her rather stupid speech in Perth last weekend?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman uses, as so many others, the simplistic total of those on waiting lists and implies that all those on waiting lists are homeless or in grossly unsuitable housing conditions. He must be as aware as anyone that a large proportion of those on waiting lists merely wish to transfer to a house in another area or, for some other reason, would prefer to move house. Few local authorities would seek to suggest that the size of the waiting lists is equivalent to the degree of housing shortage in their areas.
    Mr. David Steel: In turn, will the Minister avoid giving simplistic statistics to the House? Is he aware, for example, that in Roxburgh district there may be some empty houses but that that is no argument for doing what his Department has done—namely, to refuse consent to the SSHA to build a scheme at Kelso merely because there are empty houses at Hawick 18 miles away? Will he exercise some realism in housing in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is for the SSHA to decide how to use the resources that are available to it. I emphasised in my main answer that shortages remained in certain localities. It is wrong to suggest that there is an overall housing shortage in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in Scottish housing is lack of mobility? Further, does he agree that the Government's highly successful policy of selling council houses will ease the problem?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The problem will be eased by not only the sale of council houses but the removal under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 of residential qualifications that are imposed by a number of local authorities. The latter provision has made an important contribution that has been recognised by both the CBI and the STUC.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that there is a shortage of houses in which people want to live and of a standard that it is right to ask them to live in? Does he appreciate that his remarks about the lack of a shortage of housing will be regarded as crassly insensitive in Scotland? Is he aware that new-build starts in the private sector in 1980 were the lowest since the war and in the public sector the lowest for over a decade? Is this not a record of which he should be thoroughly ashamed?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, I ask him to listen to the following words:
    "the overall housing shortage is virtually a thing of the past in most areas and the worst problems of overcrowding and bad conditions have been dealt with."
    Those words appear on page 1 of the Green Paper on housing that was published by the previous Labour Government in 1977.

    Planning (Consultations)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which non-elected bodies he consults in the exercise of his planning functions.
    Mr. Younger: I consult a wide range of organisations, including a number of non-elected bodies, on different aspects of town and country planning matters. The main non-elected bodies consulted on a regular basis are the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council.
    Mr. Maclennan rose—
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is a non-elected body.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the anger that has been caused in the Highlands by the Secretary of State's proposals for areas of scenic beauty, for implementation in less than a year? Why is he persistently and stubbornly refusing to accept the advice of the Highland regional council, the Western Isles Islands council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that these proposals are inapplicable in the Highlands and will inhibit the development that he and others wish?
    Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no reason why these arrangements should inhibit any development in the Highlands or anywhere else. These measures have already been brought into action in the rest of Scotland. As a special concession to the susceptibilities of the Highlands, I postponed their operation in that area for one year. The planning authority remains the decision-making body. If it can receive some extra advice from other bodies from time to time, surely that will be entirely to its advantage.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Western Isles Islands council shares the concern of the Highland region and COSLA about the possible interference of the Countryside Commission for Scotland in any future development? In an area in which unemployment is over 21 per cent. that is a serious consideration. Is he aware that Highland region and Western Isles councillors, being residents and natives of the area, have as much concern for the environment as the Countryside Commission?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Highland regional council.

    763
    However, I would have thought that not even the Highland regional council could be so perfect that it could not benefit from some advice from some other bodies such as the Countryside Commission for Scotland. If it is of any reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman, that scheme has been in operation in Argyll for some months. There is no sign of any difficulty.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in planning and development matters it is essential that there is an approach which balances the needs of the community, including creating jobs? Is he aware that, while I am no friend of quangos, I believe that the Countryside Commission has a role to play which should be carefully monitored?
    Mr. Younger: I too have confidence in the Countryside Commission for Scotland and in the Highland regional council, and its planning authority. I am sure that they will do right in planning for the Highlands. However, none of them can be any the worse off for good advice from other bodies. I hope that they will accept that.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member on this question and allow one minute extra at the end of questions at 3.30.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that a non-elected body, namely the South of Scotland Electricity Board, is causing planning blight at Chapeldonan near Girvan by reserving a large area of ground for a power station which will not be needed for at least the next 100 years? Will he instruct the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to meet the duly elected local authority which he knows well—the Kyle and Carrick district council—to discuss the planning blight which the action of the electricity board is causing in that area?
    Mr. Younger: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's words are drawn to the attention of the chairman of the SSEB. I am sure that he will be prepared to discuss that matter with the planning authority, if it asks him to do so.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Bail (Persons Reoffending)
    Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been taken since the passing of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act against people reoffending while on bail; and what proportion that is of those on bail during this period.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I regret that no separate records are kept of persons who reoffend whilst on bail and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a matter of concern that his office has not seen fit to try to establish those figures, in the light of the concern which has been shown by people and the police about the effect of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act? Will he assure us that that will be rectified in the near future?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. A statistical survey covering 45 per cent. of sheriff court cases has been
    764
    carried out by the Scottish Office for the period from eight weeks before the Act came into force to a year thereafter. The Act came into force on 1 April last year. The Crown Office has also instructed that a survey be carried out over a three-week period in November to December 1980. I would have been able to give my hon. Friend the figures which he wanted but for the industrial action of the court staff.

    Warrant Sales (Law Commission Report)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss its recent report on warrant sales.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss its second memorandum on diligence, poindings and warrant sales.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell the Scottish Law Commission that there is bitter disappointment that, after a decade of deliberation, all it has managed to achieve are a few pussy-footed proposals? Will he compliment the print union SOGAT on taking direct trade union action to stop the shameful practice of advertising warrant sales? Will he consider adding his name to the list of sponsors of the Private Member's Bill which I hope to reintroduce on 3 June, which will stop that barbaric, medieval practice once and for all?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I note that the hon. Member used the words "barbaric and medieval practice". It amazes me that someone of his fluency cannot think up two alternative adjectives. He used those words on 20 February—
    Mr. Canavan: That shows that I am consistent.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It shows that the hon. Member is consistent, but it also shows that he is boring. The hon. Member has introduced a Bill to control the employment of sheriff officers, presumably meaning that they should be unemployed. That seems contrary to his concept of the matter. I know that the hon. Member wishes to have a debt arbitration service, which would increase the burden of the State on those who pay. He favours a situation in which no one owns anything. Therefore, there would be no question of warrant sales. Nevertheless, all civilised systems have them, regretfully. There are only 300 in Scotland. It is a system on which the Law Commission has reported and which will be reviewed.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I accept my hon. and learned Friend's reply to this question. Would not he further consider the situation in view of the degrading circumstances which people suffer? Is he aware that when sheriff officers arrive at many of the homes early in the morning the children are put in fear of their lives when the officers knock down the doors to take out the goods?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of such conduct, he should report it. That action is a last resort. There is no evidence that it is taken in circumstances which are wrong or unfortunate. I would have thought that my hon. Friend would remember that in those circumstances there are creditors as well as debtors to be considered.
    Mr. Dempsey: If the Solicitor-General is unwilling to meet the Law Commission, will he at least draw its attention to the disgraceful practice by the sheriff officers in selling household effects at bargain basement prices, as if the debtors did not suffer enough? Will he insist that the Law Commission ensures that such goods are sold at market prices in future?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I always understood that the bargain price and the market price were the same. Let us be clear about the matter. The Scottish Law Commission has reported responsibly. The law of diligence and the law of warrant sales are bound up together. It is not a question of taking advantage of people. The circumstances of each of the 300 cases are available for any hon. Member to discover. If the hon. Member can demonstrate anything which is wrong about any case, he should bring it to my attention.
    Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that, while some of us accept that creditors have rights in such matters, some of us feel that warrant sales are a problem and that we should consider a more humane way Of dealing with that difficult social problem?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter of last resort. All that is possible is done to prevent any inhumane action being taken. If any hon. Members can bring to my attention a particular case in which they think injustice has been done, they should do so.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that there are umpteen cases of injustice being done? This is a degrading system. Even the Law Commission, which wished to retain the system as a last resort, said that it was urgently in need of substantial reform. Is the Solicitor-General saying that the Government will do nothing about the Law Commission report, which was the product of 10 years' study? The system must be reformed. That view is held 100 per cent. by people in Scotland. Something must be done.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have carefully read the vast report on the law of diligence which the Law Commission produced. It produced that report with great diligence, in another sense. Its comments on the law of warrant sales are being taken into consideration, but it would not be appropriate, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to deal with that matter separately from the law of diligence.
    Mr. Dempsey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Courts (Industrial Action)
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many applications have been made by the Crown for the extension of the 110-day rule as a result of the industrial action in the courts.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Up to Friday 8 May 1981, the Crown has made 28 applications to the High Court for extensions of the 110-days as a result of the industrial action in the Scottish courts.
    Mr. Dewar: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied in all conscience with the indications from his ministerial colleague that there was no need for emergency legislation to deal with the crisis in the administration of justice, given the sweeping condemnation which he made of the Labour Administration, whom, he said, should have legislated from day one of the 1979 strike? Is it satisfactory to shelter behind a discretionary power, granted in the recent Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1979, to deal with exceptions to the triennium in civil matters, and to ad hoc applications in individual cases of the 110-day and 40-day rule? Will he not accept that without emergency legislation there is no proper protection for individual rights?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We must consider what people term individual rights with care. It is a serious matter to extend the 110 days where no fault is attributable to the Crown, which the courts can do on the application of the Crown or the defence, if it so wishes, although in this case it is likely to be the Crown. To preserve the statutory protections of summary cases in emergency legislation, which I take it is what the hon. Gentleman means, is not protecting individual rights. It would be protecting the right of the Crown to prosecute in certain summary statutory cases.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is that not yet another context in which the use of the phrase "industrial action" is as misleading and meaningless as its objectives are often indefensible and disreputable? In the circumstances is it not far better to describe such action unequivocally as civil or judicial disruption? Does not even that phrase flatter the motives of those who put self-interest before civil justice?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend's words are apt. In Edinburgh and Glasgow the sheriff clerks have, and should know that they have, a duty to perform their statutory duties if they wish to hold and do justice to such a high office.
    Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I intimate that I wish to seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply.
    Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The arrogant management of British Leyland yesterday admitted further failure by announcing yet more closures, yet the Secretary of State for Industry has not seen fit to come to the House to make a statement. How are Back Benchers supposed to answer our constituents' many questions?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question except to say that Back Benchers can pursue their normal rights.
    I have two applications under Standing Order No. 9, which I shall call in the order in which they were received.

British Leyland (Speke Factory)
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the latest British Leyland proposals and the way in which they may affect the BL factory at Speke".
There can be no doubt that this is a matter of extreme urgency. Judging from press reports and the briefing note issued to employees, BL's plans are already well advanced. I am anxious, therefore, that, before decisions that may be irrevocable are implemented their full implication and the considerable impact that they will have on employment in Speke are fully considered by the Government.
In an area already cruelly affected by major factory closures, with the loss of thousands of jobs, the loss of a further 1,100 jobs will be insupportable. The factory is not being closed because of poor performance or bad industrial relations. Indeed, Sir Michael Edwardes has stated that work will be directed towards plants that showed the commitment and had the track record to merit BL's support and confidence, and he accepted that the Speke factory fell into that category.
I entirely support the need to return BL to profitability and to ensure that our motor industry has a sound future. Tremendous amounts of public money are being allocated for the survival plans. Equally, very large sums, plus a package of measures for new opportunities, have been allocated by the Government to regenerate industry in the Speke area. It therefore seems entirely inconsistent that the chance for regrowth should be hampered by the erosion of a base upon which the future can be built.
768
In conclusion, I am asking for an opportunity to see whether BL management can direct new work towards the Speke factory, which has proved that it can do the job and deliver the goods. No amount of promises for the future or pats on the back for the past can compensate the workers at the plant if they lose their jobs. There are no prospects of alternative employment in the area in the near future. If this is not a matter of urgency and concern, I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the latest British Leyland proposals and the way in which they may affect the BL factory at Speke".
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important matter. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the various factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. The matters that he raises are of considerable significance to his constituency and beyond, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The BL proposals affect a large number of constituencies, and many hon. Members would like to debate them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling. I believe that the next speaker, from another part of the country, wishes to deal with the same matter.

British Steel Corporation (Workington Ironworks)
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Workington Ironworks, announced this morning by the British Steel Corporation, which was the subject of comment this morning by Mr. Ian MacGregor during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade".
The matter is specific, because the BSC is Workington's principal employer. The ferocity of the corporation's recent decisions are generating levels of unemployment that demand urgent and effective action by the Government. The Prime Minister's indifference and insensitive response at Question Time yesterday further reinforce the need for urgent debate.
The matter is important because, with the completion of the BSC redundancy programme—and this morning's announcement provides for a further 907 redundancies—unemployment in my travel-to-work area will have tripled in 24 months. The House will be aware of the long list of tragedies that have befallen my constituents in the past two years—the closure of BIP, Fisher Control, Bata Footwear, Courtaulds, K Shoes, Textured Fibres and the Distington foundry, and major redundancies at High Duty Alloys, Paul Green Spectacles, Condura Fabrics, Spillers Foods and Millers Footwear. The House must understand the personal tragedy for the community, cast adrift and now helpless before the ravages of industrial recession.
The matter is urgent. My constituents cry out for help. I beg the House to respond.
Mr. Speaker: Before I reply to the hon. Gentleman I must apologise to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). The application under Standing Order No. 9
770
made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not identical to the other application and does not involve British Leyland's proposals. However, I was aware that it involved redundancies.
The hon. Member for Workington gave me notice before 12 noon today that he might seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Workington Ironworks, announced this morning by the British Steel Corporation, which was the subject of comment this morning by Mr. Ian MacGregor during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade."
As the House knows, when I receive applications under Standing Order No. 9 about closures in hon. Members' constituencies I always take them very seriously, as do hon. Members. However, the House will be aware that I do not decide whether this matter should be debated. I merely decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow night.
I listened with anxious care to the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but could we have some clear guidance? When it was announced that Shotton steelworks was to close, and that The Times was to close, debates were initiated under Standing Order No. 9. Hon. Members would like some guidance about the subjects that can be raised. Both of the matters raised today are important, particularly to the areas and workers involved. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have some written guidance on, or an understanding of, when and how we can raise matters.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. However, he will be aware that the House has given me instructions to the effect that I must give no reasons for my decision. I must obey the instructions of the House.

Minimum Housing Standards
3.41 pm
Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Health Act 1936 in relation to minimum housing standards.
The country is currently living off its camel's hump. Victorian sewers in the North fold up daily. Some Victorian housing is built to standards such that conscientious farmers would not put their livestock in it. The buildings are damp have leaking roofs, and lack inside sanitation. Homes are falling into chronic disrepair. In no way are we reinvesting in that camel's we are simply squandering the wealth created by our forefathers. Rather even than patch as best we can, we are bleeding our capital dry, like the worst sort of gambling and drunken landlords.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in our housing stock, where perfectly sound homes, which merely lack proper facilities, are being wilfully neglected. Decent people are being forced to live in worse conditions than cattle would be subjected to. Without reinvestment, the rampages of the bulldozer in the 1950's and 1960's will be as nothing compared to what will be necessary in the 1990's. There will need to be a swathe of destruction through our urban communities, and there is no guarantee that funds will be available to pay for it.
Meanwhile, skilled workers are lying idle, although simple things could be done to make our homes more habitable. Over 300,000 building workers are on the dole, yet nearly 1 million homes are still without inside sanitation. In the face of that, we find a passive acquiescence on the part of the Government. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members are in touch with reality and whether they understand the indignity of a mum having to bath her child in the kitchen sink, or the indignity of a sick old lady having to go out into the cold of the night to find some ramshackle and broken-down backyard toilet. That is the reality for thousands of my constituents and for people all over Britain.
My Bill seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to promote the National Home Improvement Council's proposal to make it a legal requirement under the Housing Act 1980 for all dwellings to have a hot water supply. At the same time, it seeks to update the Housing Act 1957 definition of "unfit" by including a full list of the standard amenities as set out in Department of the Environment circular No. 170/74, appendix B, paragraph 5. Dwellings should also conform to minimum standard requirements before allowing grant-aided improvements by private owners, as defined in Department of the Environment circular No. 160/74 and in paragraph 6 of circular No. 170/74, which defines the 10-point standard. Regrettably, the Housing Act 1980 was an opportunity lost, because it did nothing about these things.
My Bill would make it compulsory for every home to be provided with an inside toilet, bathroom and running hot water. The same 75 per cent. level of grant that is available in housing action areas should be available for this work. The Bill would also amend the Public Health Act 1936, to bring electrical wiring within its remit. For many of those who live in homes with decrepit and faulty electrical systems the choice is often between a cooker or a fridge, because their electrical system will not take both.
772
As for the Prime Minister's suggestion that people should buy deep freezers and purchase in bulk, it should be borne in mind not only that they cannot afford to buy large quantities of anything, but that to suggest that a deep freeze should be run on an antiquated electrical system is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Secondly, the Bill would amend the Public Health Act 1936 to enable the Public Health Inspectorate to enforce such minimum standards. The present levels of enforcement are more suited to Victorian workhouses than to modern twentieth century housing.
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to tackle the shocking conditions that exist in many council-owned properties that are infested by damp, mildew and fungus, and that lack ventiliation. Hon. Members must recognise that dampness is a national problem. Design, building materials, building methods, as well as lack of finance, are to blame. A recent study has shown that £200 million is needed to put right design and building defects in publicly owned dwellings in 60 local authorities. Over 8,000 council houses and flats have already been, or are being, considered for demolition because they were badly designed and built. Many of them were built in the 1950s and 1960s, despite warnings at the time.
In my city of Liverpool, a new lord mayor, Mr. Cyril Carr, is being installed today. It is ironic that in 1964 he had the foresight to speak out—a lone voice—against those virility symbols of the 1960s, which were erected all over Britain. Twenty years later we can see how right those warning voices were. Dampness is a major problem in blocks of both low- and high-rise flats. A number of studies have shown that infections of the upper respiratory tract, bronchitis and pneumonia are much more common among flat dwellers than among those who live in houses.
One study compared medical records of patients living in houses with those of patients living in three- and four-storey flats. For the families living in flats, first referrals to doctors were 57 per cent. greater than for those living in houses. The incidence of infections of the upper respiratory tract, bronchitis and pneumonia, was also greater in women aged between 20 and 29, in women over 40 years old and in children under 10 years of age. Living in unsatisfactory and inadequate housing often produces disease, which in turn lead to an increase in mental stress and to the increased use of tranquillisers and other drugs. The incidence of psycho-neurotic disorders amongst those living in flats is twice as great as it is amongst those living in houses.
The need to combat such conditions, particularly dampness, black mould, inadequate play facilities and loneliness, contributes additional mental stress to other social and economic problems, such as coping with unemployment, as well as hard and often low-paid jobs. In one survey of 17 families, all of whom had young children, five families suffered from a recognised medical or psychiatric condition, which was aggravated or maintained by their living accommodation. The remaining 12 families also showed symptoms of psychological upset, which directly resulted from their living conditions.
My Bill would make it compulsory for every local authority to establish specialist teams to tackle dampness, and as part of the annual housing investment programme aplication, to submit a design fault rectification programme.
There are three practical proposals in the Bill. First, it seeks to provide hot running water, inside toilets and

773
bathroom facilities, and decent electrical wiring in all homes. Secondly, greater enforcement powers will be provided for public health inspectors. Thirdly, the Bill will provide for measures to tackle the chronic dampness that plagues many council properties all over Britain.
One hundred years ago, Liverpool was a pioneer in tackling the urban squalor of the late nineteenth century. The courts and stinking hovels of Liverpool were decimated by cholera, typhoid and the results of insanitation. Liverpool led the way in providing public health facilities. It provided the first wash houses, the first Public Health Inspectorate, and Dr. Duncan—the first medical officer of health in Britain.
However, 100 years later it feels as if the clock is turning back. For many people, things have hardly changed in the austere surroundings of the back-to-back terraced houses. Only the ration coupons, the pea-soup fogs and fried fish and chips wrapped in the Daily Herald have disappeared. Their homes have not changed at all.
The Bill is a marker demonstrating concern for the dignity, well-being and self-respect of 1 million citizens caught in a time trap in homes that are no different today from what they were in pre-war days. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Russell Johnston and Mr. David Penhaligon.

Minimum Housing Standards
  MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS
  Mr. David Alton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Public Health Act 1936 in relation to minimum housing standards: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed [Bill 139].
Orders of the Day
  Social Security Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Social Security Bill
    New Clause 6

      Reciprocity with other countries
      '(1) In section 143 of the Social Security Act 1975 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
      "(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications or adaptations, provide generally that this Act shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement or, as the case may be, alterations in question."
      (2) In section 15 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
      "(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications, provide generally that this A0 shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement or, as the case may be, alterations in question.".
      (3) In section 32 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
      "(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications, provide generally that this Act shall be modified to such extent. As may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement in question.".
      (4) Any enactment mentioned in subsections (1) to (3) above and any enactment from which section 143 is derived (whether directly or indirectly) shall, in relation to any Order made or having effect as if made thereunder before the commencement of this section, be treated as if at the time when the Order was made that enactment contained the relevant power provided by this section'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]
      3.53 pm
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As I have told the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) the clause is tabled as a result of a point raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in respect of the Social Security (Austria) Order 1981.
      In the last few days the Committee has challenged a drafting convention that has been used since 1948 by successive Governments. I am advised that there is substance in that challenge, which we should not ignore. Hon. Members will be familiar with the background, which is, briefly, that nowadays so many people are migrant workers—that is, they spend their working lives in more than one country—that there is often a need to combine social security records and rights in more than one country.
      That is done by treaties negotiated with other countries, usually referred to as reciprocal agreements on social security. Agreements have been made with 30 countries. They are given effect to by Orders in Council. The established practice is to provide that current social security legislation
      "shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions"

      775
      contained in the new agreement. That avoids the impossible task of identifying and scheduling each modification of our own extensive social security legislation that is required to apply to the cases covered by reciprocal agreements.
      The agreements secure rights that would otherwise not exist. I understand that the Joint Committee has no qualms about the principle underlying traditional practice. However, as is its function, it questions the vires. My legal advice is that I should accept that the legal basis is and has been questionable. The new clause provides the necessary powers for the future and legitimises what has been done in the past.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased that the Government have tabled the new clause. It is a response to the representations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee expressed doubts about the authority of section 143 of the Social Security Act 1975 where it contemplates specific provision in an order. The Minister has responded and argued correctly that there should be primary legislative provision other than that.
      I do not speak about the arrangements on behalf of the Committee. However, the provision of legislation such as this, in spite of its being valid in primary legislation, creates a difficulty. Future orders will have full and complete statutory authority, unlike the Socal Security (Austria) Order, and the user will have to consult two documents. He will have to consult both the order and the convention.
      The instrument contains in a schedule the general terms of the convention, but the detailed changes to the primary legislation cannot be so scheduled. The user has to apply the detailed changes. How will the user obtain access to the information? He will have to buy a copy of the statutory instrument, which costs over £2, and he will also have to consult the convention. When an order refers to two documents, which are usually not available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the user is faced with additional costs.
      I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of including the maximum information in the instrument that effects the changes. That is a slightly different question from the one that the Minister answered comprehensively, when she said that the new primary legislation would give full authority. One instrument would overcome the practical difficulties.
      Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I do not oppose the new clause. I commend it to the House. However, the subject of reciprocal agreements comes before the House so rarely that I must take the opportunity to ask the Minister to consider whether provision of social security benefits under reciprocal agreements remains the most effective way of achieving the objective that we share.
      I have received much correspondence over the years revealing massive discontent by British citizens settled abroad, not least because of the wide inequalities between countries. If I am a British old-age pensioner settled in Spain I have wide access to social service provision, whereas if I am settled in Portugal the provision to which I have access is comparatively small. If I am an old-age pensioner living in Canada, although the Canadian authorities are prepared to move toward reciprocal
      776
      agreement, for a variety of financial reasons that I understand, the British authorities are not prepared to move.
      I hope that the Minister will turn her attention to the whole basis of reciprocal agreements and consider whether, because of the injustice that so many people feel, that method continues to be the only or best way of achieving justice for British people settled in many different parts of the world.
      Mrs Chalker: I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That Committee's work brought the problem to our notice. I accept that there are difficulties for the user in having both an order and a convention. However, the social security department of the country with which we have a reciprocal agreement usually has a working document that brings together the aspects of the order and the details of the convention, which are not contained in one document.
      4 pm
      We also have an extensive overseas department within the DHSS which can give advice. One of the problems that I might bring to the notice of the House—it concerns what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (M. McCrindle) said—is that very often pensioners who retire abroad do so without getting adequate advice or without asking for any advice before they contemplate this change. Successive Administrations have had some difficulty in bringing to the notice of pensioners or other people who go to work abroad the exact way in which the regulations work. I am always willing to re-examine the question of bringing information to the notice of potential claimants and to make sure that people are aware of their rights in this, as in many other ways, but to bring it together in a single document would probably make it inordinately expensive—the very point at which the hon. Member for Keighley was hinting.
      Through the Department, and particularly through our overseas branch, we should do everything possible to advise persons who take up occupations abroad what they should do and what class of contributions they should pay to contribute towards their benefits in the long term, and shall give them advice, both in advance or during their absence abroad, but if they settle permanently in another country it is the responsibility of that country with whom we have a reciprocal agreement also to advise them of the way in which this will work out.
      Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I understand that many pensioners who have settled abroad are not happy if they fall into the category in which they cannot receive increases in pension claimed after they leave this country. He is very well aware of the very difficult on-cost that that would present, and of the fact that before people go abroad they know of this situation which has existed under Governments of both parties for a very long while. We aim in every case to give advice well in advance, and as the numbers of reciprocal agreements increase year by year we hope very much that the knowledge will also be more readily available to people who are employed by companies working both in this country and abroad.
      In addition to the 30 agreements that already exist, I have recently signed an agreement with Mauritius, which is now awaiting ratification. Some of the agreements already considered—the hon. Gentleman referred to

      777
      Portugal—have been drawn up not just for the convenience of the British Government but for the convenience of the particular Government with whom we have the reciprocal agreement.
      This clause is a step forward. We cannot do all the things that we would like to do but I hope that the Committee will accept it in good faith, because we wish to make sure that we are totally within the law and not in any way acting ultra vires.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      TAKE-UP OF BENEFITS
      'At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection 1 he shall—

      (a) cause to be published a report stating the numbers of persons who claimed each of the benefits covered by Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975 and supplementary benefit and his estimate of the numbers of persons in each case who, in his opinion, were eligible to claim the benefit concerned for the 12 month period up to and including the date of the last uprating, and

      (b)make or cause to be made in each House of Parliament a statement of the actions which he is taking and propose to take to acquaint persons eligible to claim those benefits of their right to claim them and to encourage them to do so.'—[Mr. Buchan.]

      Brought up. and read the First time.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
      I refrained from participating in the earlier debate because we all want—where we are in agreement—to continue with the main matters of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to clear up that aspect of it which involves the making known of Social Security provisions. It is perhaps a good augury for the support that I may receive on the clause, which is also concerned with making known the provisions of the social security legislation.
      The clause asks for two things: first, for a report to be prepared showing the number of people claiming particular benefits and the number of people actually eligible for them and secondly, where a gap is shown, for the Secretary of State to make a statement in each House of Parliament indicating the action that the Government propose to take in order to improve the level of uptake.
      I suppose it is true to say that the level of benefits is one criterion by which we can judge a compassionate and caring society. If that is the case, it is quite clear that the level of take-up is another criterion. It is a scandal that successive Administrations have allowed for so long such a low percentage of take-up. It is a real index of our concern that attention should be paid to this matter.
      The facts are grim. Six hundred thousand people who are entitled to one of our basic welfare benefits—the supplementary benefit—are apparently not drawing it. Out of an estimated 2¼ million people entitled to it, 1,670,000 people are receiving it. This figure, which works out at 73 per cent. of those entitled to benefit, is typical of the whole range of benefits. With the exception of child benefit, where there is an almost 100 per cent. take-up, no welfare benefit has a take-up of more than 80 per cent.
      There may he a lesson to be learnt from that exception. In terms of the child benefit increase, or the one-parent family benefit—we will talk about the change of name in
      778
      a moment—the figure is one of the lowest, at 60 per cent. There is a take-up of supplementary pension of only 73 per cent., and the take-up of supplementary allowances is only 76 per cent. Only 4 per cent. of free welfare foods is taken up. This may be a reflection of pride in our society but if it is theirs by need and by right it should be taken up by those eligible.
      Rent allowances are taken up by a little over half the people who are entitled to them. This is the level of take-up by people in the community who have been described as scroungers by elements in the Conservative Party—strange scroungers, when there is this level of take-up! One would have thought that the originator of the phrase that gave the Government party its whole drive and ethos in the last election should not be missing during this debate. If he is missing, and things are said about him, that is his own fault.
      One of our problems is lack of information in this field. We are dealing with figures for 1977 and 1978, and we have attempted to extrapolate those into 1979. This is ludicrous. We are three or four years out of date, and the rest is a kind of working hypothesis. We should be concerned and should know about the level of take-up of a particular benefit. It may seem rather pointless to ask this Government to supply more information. It is like asking for the moon, especially when one sees the cuts in those bodies that should be providing such information in statistical and other ways. When we look at the proposals in the Rayner report we realise that that may be too much to ask. Perhaps the Government feel that if we do not measure the problem it will go away. We need to know it for a number of reasons, because there is a need to encourage take-up.
      Two facts stand out. One is that the level of take-up is far too low in the case of a number of major benefits. Secondly, people who are not receiving benefits are precisely and by definition those who are most clearly in need of them. That is the reason for our concern. The numbers involved are staggeringly high. It is not as if the level of benefits taken up by many people are high. In fact, they are too low. Some surveys have been done on this. Some attempts have been made, not merely restricted to surveys, to take specific action about it in lieu of the Government's failure to take action—for example, in Strathclyde.
      Some of the small surveys done by people in this field make very interesting reading. The Disability Alliance, for example, in North Yorkshire—admittedly, the numbers involved are low—examined a number of people who were suffering from disabilities. The alliance calculated that at 1979 benefit rates an average of £800 per person of those in the survey had gone unclaimed. These were all people who suffered from disabilities and were entitled. Therefore, the survey was partial to that extent. The alliance was dealing with people who were not an average sector of the community. However, it was found that when interviewed at the start of the project, only three out of 23 disabled people investigated were already receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. The remaining 20 were, between them, failing to receive a total of 51 benefits for which they appeared to be eligible.
      I am not putting too much stress upon this matter. We are dealing with small numbers. I find the £800 to which I have referred to be a high figure. But there is no doubt, from the result of this survey, that things are not going very happily in that field of disablement.

      779
      Another survey was carried out by the Chapeltown citizens bureau, which covered 39 of what it claimed to be randomly selected households of disabled housebound people. About a third of the sample of unclaimed benefit was on attendance allowance. About 15 per cent. were not claiming supplementary benefit—which we would see as one of the linchpins of the Welfare State. Only with the help of the citizens advice bureaux locally did some of them receive extra weekly benefits to which they were entitled.
      Even on a small sample such as this, and even with all the errors that small samples can produce, there is clearly a major need among those who are most affected.
      One would have thought that the Government would be interested and involved in this situation. There have been enough complaints. My hon. Friends and others have asked questions about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has done so. On 3 February this year he had a reply from the Under-Secretary. She is my favourite social security Minister. We may get more from her than from the rest; we shall see.
      The hon. Lady was asked what the Government were doing about this matter. She said that they were concerned. For example, she said that
      "the take-up of child benefit increase … is disappointing."
      Therefore, we had an announcement on 22 January that
      "the name child benefit increase will be changed to one-parent benefit."
      That was the Government's biggest contribution to take-up—to change the name.
      I accept that this is a useful change. However, what we want to see this backed up by is the expenditure of money. When we approve of this change as a means of help, we then require money so that we can publicise it. But what does the Minister say? She says:
      "With regard to benefits in general, the Department's publicity budget for 1981–82 is not yet finalised, so it is not possible to give any firm commitments."—[Official Report, 3 February 1981; Vol. 997, c. 83.] We may get some firm commitments today on this matter—that the Government propose to use the national press, television and so on; but none of it with a firm budget.
      This is not good enough. We have plenty of words. The amounts are very little. There is no commitment, but the Government say that a special effort will be made on particular sectors such as family income supplement—and that is good; only about 90,000 to 100,000 people are affected.
      The hon. Lady also tells us—this is a very interesting point which has been raised with me by old-age pensioners—that, after all, information is available, and that if one looks at the last six or eight pages of the pension order book, one gets a lot of closely written information about various benefits for which people should apply. That does not get anywhere near the problem. We know the problem involved. We know the difficulties that people have in understanding some of our forms or information, let alone tacking it along the back of a book, with all the official imprimatur that that entails and the difficulties that causes. I know of no one who has told me that he has gone to a social security office to seek out a benefit because he has read about it in his pension book. I would be interested to know if any other hon. Member present has encountered anyone who has done that. Clearly, therefore, that is insufficient.
      780
      4.15 pm
      It is a curious fact that this meanness of behaviour on that matter bears a startling contrast to the other aspects of this field. A special effort has been made to reduce the number of scroungers. On this matter, we have the astonishing phenomenon that the Government are restricting public expenditure and are boasting every time they see a reduction in public service staff that the one field—there are two fields, actually, and we shall look at the other one shortly—in which they are expanding is in employing more people for fraud squad investigation.
      This, not unnaturally, has not only angered me—that is unimportant—but it has angered the Civil Service unions involved in it. They see that the focus of the Government's efforts in these matters is only in the field of scrounging, and not in the field of improvement of take-up of benefits. These two things contrast starkly.
      I welcome the present Minister of State; we had a short acquaintance back in February, and then we had a slight hiatus for various reasons. I am grateful for the reciprocal welcome today. Reciprocity seems to be in the air.
      The former Minister for Social Security—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice)—has said that any campaign undertaken—in parallel with the campaign to try to create a concept of scroungers—to increase the level of take-up, was as nothing as compared with the value that would come from a strong campaign on scroungers. He said that such a campaign would create
      "a better atmosphere in which people will not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlemant".
      I have never seen such a perverse creation of the opposite of the truth.
      The truth is that the scroungers campaign, far from creating a climate in which people would not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlement, created precisely the opposite. Those of us who are in direct contact with people in need know that the attacks on scroungers in the campaign inhibited large numbers of people from applying. Looking at the book "Disability Rights—Who Benefits" by the Disability Alliance, one sees that the alliance found precisely that. In its project, it found that some people refused to apply for benefits to which they seemed entitled. Although they were getting advice and encouragement on what to do from welfare officers, Members of Parliament and others, they were frightened that their relatives, doctors, social workers and the officials at the Department of Health and Social Security would think that they were scrounging.
      As opposed to that kind of atmosphere, the insertion of seven or eight pages of information at the end of a pension book counts for nothing. The confidence that is sapped in that way is what we have to restore.
      The authors of this report from North Yorkshire say:
      "Press reports that the Prime Minister is jubilant about new allegations of widespread fraud illustrate the Government's cruel disregard for the hardship caused to people with disabilities who fail to claim their entitlement."
      Those are bitter words indeed.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is the hon. Gentleman weighing his words very carefully? I think that the impression that he is giving to the House is that at very least, he is condoning fraud and, at very worst, encouraging it.
      Mr. Buchan: I was intending to deal with that matter shortly, but that is a gross travesty of anything that I have said. What I am saying is that when a Minister of State

      781
      says that the best means of improving take-up is a better atmosphere, in which people will not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlement, and then launched a campaign of indiscriminate accusations of scrounging against people in need, that is a dangerous step. Neither does it help on the question of finding out about fraud. The really fraudulent person is not worried about statements of that kind. The people who are worried about them are the innocents, who will be afraid that they will be accused of it. The person who is really fraudulent—the street-corner Vestey—knows how to get around matters.
      That is not the way of dealing with the problem. The Government have produced an indiscriminate apparatus of investigation with their forms of questioning and their advice to officials—for example, that if they find a man who is in the wrong but who is so mentally handicapped that a court of law may take a more sympathetic view of his situation than the Department, they should not prosecute.
      There is a denial of justice. They are not saying "Do not prosecute in the interests of justice;" they are not saying "Do not prosecute in the interests of compassion;" they are saying "Do not prosecute e in case a court of law takes a more compassionate view of the man than does the Department of Health and Social Security". That is a sad indictment of the Department. That is the charge that we are making. Of course we are opposed to fraud, but we say that fraud is a minor element compared with the great loss of benefits for people in need.
      I am also going to show that it is a minor element as opposed to the massive loss in other matters. I will give the figures. I take the Department's view on it when, a week ago, the Secretary of State said, amid great rejoicing, that we had saved £40 million by the fraud squad investigation of social security. I do not know how they balance that out. That means that people approached have withdrawn their claims in general.
      It does not prove that they should have withdrawn their claims, so I do not know about that figure. But even if we grant that figure of £40 million there is 10 times more than that lost in supplementary benefits alone by the failure to apply the same concentration of effort on take-up. There is 100 times more lost—£4,000 million—by the failure of the same Government to investigate tax avoidance and tax evasion. They can deal with the street corner Vesteys, but the real Vesteys are left untrammelled. That is the accusation that we are making. We ask for the same vigour of action, in a better cause, as they have shown on this terrible Fraud Squad eruption over the last two years.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The Vestey point is a bit of a canard, because the hon. Member knows that the Government have taken action to stop that particular matter. On the fraud campaign generally, I know that there are two different ways of looking at this but I wonder whether the hon. Member would consider that there is a great feeling in the country that there are people who have skills, such as decorators, mechanics, and so on, who are working privately and do not declare their income but are drawing benefit at the same time.
      It is because that is known that genuine people are deterred from putting in claims for their benefit, because they do not want to be associated in the public mind—in the neighbours' minds—with that kind of activity. I should have thought that if we take steps to make sure that the
      782
      dishonest are brought to book, the innocent know that they can hold their heads up and not be ashamed when they make the claims to which they are properly entitled. That is what we are seeking to do through our campaign.
      Mr. Buchan: I do not know what that is based on. It is totally unrelated to any evidence that we have through our direct experience with these people. I have never encountered one who said "I shall not claim the supplementary benefit, or invalidity allowance, disability allowance, or child benefit, because there is somebody down the street who is doing a spare job as a painter while he is claiming his benefit." I have never heard anyone say that. But I have heard of plenty of people who were inhibited from claiming for other reasons. I will not name one, but I had to spend several months trying to convince someone who is very close to me that she should be going down to draw a benefit to which she was entitled. I have not heard her mentioning a painter down the road who draws benefit. This is a lot of nonsense.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Following the Minister's intervention to tell us all about these decorators who have been claiming benefits, perhaps my hon. Friend could press the Minister to tell us how much of the £40 million has been reclaimed from decorators.
      Mr. Buchan: He will not tell us how much of that has been reclaimed. I am astonished at the reaction to this. This was a passing reference, which seems to have erupted and seems to upset the Conservative Party. The Conservatives cannot get away from the thoughts of punishment. Take-up they can leave alone. That is only a benefit to people. But they are absorbed with punishment and the fraud squad.
      We accept that there is a problem arising from what the Minister calls the black economy. We are not disputing this. The main way of reducing that amount, if there is any fraud going on in relation to a black economy, is by reducing the level of unemployment. When we have 2½ to 3 million unemployed, when we expand it, the amount of fraud of that kind is bound to increase. We all know that. The quickest way to reduce any amount of fraud spent on social security is to reduce the level of unemployment.
      The second is that the Vestey matter took a long time to solve and the chairman of the Tory Party, Lord Thorneycroft, seemed to say, "He is 'doing' the country—good luck to him."
      Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when he was putting forward the case for an increased take-up the Members of the Conservative Party, including the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who purports to be concerned in these matters, immediately leapt to the smear campaign argument, that somehow, when we raise the question of take-up, we are supposed to be encouraging fraud? Will he remember that when, in the late 1970s, the same sort of smear campaign was mounted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East, with the assiduous persistence of The Sun, a national campaign produced 750 rumours and tittle-tattle items about people who were alleged to be committing fraud? Of those, around 24 had some substance, and of those roughly half were already being investigated. That is the sort of basis that the Conservatives have for their allegations against the Opposition.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member means the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sprout), not Aberdeen, East, but he is quite right. The statistics on this whole basis of the scrounger question did not stand up to the light of day. They were a minimal amount, as we all know. To be fair to the hon. Member for Kemptown, he was attacking me not on what I was saying about take-up—I regard him as an ally; please do not let me lose him as an ally—he was attacking me because he considered that I was exonerating fraud. Of course I regret fraud in whatever field.
      Sir Frederick Burden: I am glad to hear that.
      Mr. Buchan: There is no need to hear that. We know this from the beginning. One would have thought that if the Government were applying this kind of effort to an omission, or a loophole in their structures, they would have given the same concentration of interest to the other major loophole—the failure of people to get everything to which they are entitled. Far from doing that, when people try to assist others to obtain their entitlement the Government become angry.
      The most interesting example of people attempting to improve the take-up of people actively saying to the community "Are you entitled to such-and-such a benefit?. If so, you should claim it," was that which happened in Strathclyde. To beat the gate coming down on 24 November with the change of regulations, Strathclyde notified the community as widely as they could as to their entitlements. That should have been done by the Government. It was done by Strathclyde. It was a very interesting event. Starthclyde sent out about 10,000 postcards to people. They have now had a analysis of some of the results. They took a much bigger sample than the North Yorkshire sample, a sample of 500 claims.
      I must stress that the references here are to people who are receiving benefits now which they were not receiving before but that they should have received before and most of the people involved are those who are desperately in need. Of that sample of 500 claimants, on the basis of the 100,000 postcards sent out, a number of claims came forward. Of the claims coming forward, 500 were examined. These were claims that we were failing to give people their entitlement. A total of 378 were awarded exceptional needs payments. They were the poorest of the poor. Weekly increases in benefit, either in addition to an existing payment of supplementary benefit or as a new claim, were awarded to 62 people. They were people who were not receiving enough benefit, and those payments were needed to get them on to the subsistence level of supplementary benefit. The average weekly increase in benefit was £5. For years these people had been getting £5 less than they needed; they had been living below the bone.
      4.30 pm
      Sir Frederick Burden: When did that survey take place? Does the hon. Gentleman say that there were no people in similar circumstances when the Labour Government were in power?
      Mr. Buchan: This survey took place in November last year. I said at the beginning of my speech that this was a scandal of successive Governments. It is the Tories who are trying to make party points out of this. We are dealing with the needs of the community.
      784
      When efforts such as the Strathclyde survey have shown the size of the problem, we should say "Thank you for telling us; now let us get on with it". The problem was considerable. Comparing September to December 1979 with the corresponding period in 1980, there was an estimated increase of about 83 per cent. in payments in Strathclyde.
      Mrs. Chalker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is only fair to the House to make clear that the figures he has been quoting are connected with the exceptional needs payments and the once-off payments. This blanket campaign produced fewer regular weekly payments. In this widely flung postcard campaign a number of once-off benefits were claimed, but the ongoing weekly entitlement payments were nothing like so many as the once-off benefits. I will answer the point more fully when I wind up the debate.
      Mr. Buchan: It was a campaign for one-off benefits connected with the change of date. But it is not true to say that no full-time benefits were shown to be needed. On the contrary, 62 people were awarded a weekly increase in benefits. Of the 500 sample, 62 people received an increase in weekly benefit, that is, 12 per cent. The global figure for the one-off payments is £2·75 million—the Minister is dealing with that. The total for the weekly increases could be £1·3 million per year. That is a considerable sum. We have been talking about fraud and £40 million, but if as a result of that one exercise there is a £1·3 million increase in weekly payments, by repeating that exercise in a comparable population throughout Britain more than £40 million can result.
      It is nonsense to say that the survey did not pay off. In direct cash terms, it paid for itself, and more. It brought to many of the most needy in Strathclyde single payments. That is good. Single payments are important to destitute people. It also brought weekly payments.
      Mr. A. W. Stallard: I do not think that the Minister is right in putting this down to one-off payments. There have been other surveys. There was a small survey in Harlow which showed that many people were entitled to benefits varying between £1 and £6 per week. That is not a one-off payment; that is weekly benefit. As a result of that small survey, £15,000 per year has been claimed which would not have been claimed had it not been for the survey. That is far from one-off payments, and it is far from the minuscule amount that Ministers are trying to say it is.
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Strathclyde figures prove it, and other surveys have done the same.
      Given that kind of assistance from a local authority, the Government should have praised the local authority and said "Good, you are helping us in the battle against poverty". But that did not happen. The leader of the Sheffield district council and chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' social services committee, Mr. Blunkett, wrote to the Minister saying "This sounds good. What about a bit of encouragement for us to do the same?" The Minister sends a letter in which she says:
      "The…Strathclyde postcard drop made few bones about its being a political exercise".

      785
      From that exercise, £2·5 million went to people in need, yet the Minister said it was a political exercise. It was not. It was a necessary social exercise to do the job and prove the need. The Minister goes on to say:
      "I objected to this crude exercise".
      She objected to what? Did she object to the 378 single payments to people in need? Did she object to the fact that 12 per cent. of the 500 and therefore of the 100,000 required weekly benefits? Did she object to the fact that about £3 million came into a Scottish community which had been made destitute by the Government's employment policies? What does she object to? I thought that she represented the Department of Health and Social Security, not the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions—that is what it is becoming—and she is the best of our Ministers. She went on to say:
      "It also seems unbelievable to me that the people who do not take up their entitlement for reasons which, as I have indicated are quite complex, will be encouraged to apply for their rights by such a campaign".
      She is saying that we should not support the campaign because people would not respond to it, but they did respond to it. About 30,000 postcards were returned out of the 100,000 which were sent out.
      Mrs. Chalker: I apologise for interrupting again, but I want to get the record straight while the hon. Gentleman is going on in this fashion. I was objecting to the blanket campaign. There is no way in which I or any of my colleague Ministers would wish to discourage people from taking up what is rightfully theirs. What went wrong in Strathclyde was that the 100,000 postcards and various leaflets that went out at the same time so flooded local offices in the last few weeks before the change to the new scheme, which had been approved by the House, that many claims made by people who had just as genuine a claim were delayed.
      I shall never put my mind against any genuine and well targeted campaign for take-up, but the Strathclyde campaign raised so many expectations. From the 100,000 postcards distributed, 340 weekly claimants resulted. I am glad that they resulted. As a result, as will be seen from the letter I wrote on 9 February 1981 to the hon. member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Stallard), out of the 100,000, 340 people received regular weekly payments. Sixty-two out of 500 is 1·2 per cent., not 12 per cent. as the hon. Gentleman said. Apart from the mathematics of the issue, there is a problem—
      Mr. Buchanan: Sixty-two out of 500 is 12 per cent.
      Mrs. Chalker: If we are to have success, it behoves everyone to have carefully targeted campaigns, not wide campaigns of this nature.
      Mr. Buchanan: I would have taken the lecture better if the Minister had not thought that 62 out of 500 was 1·2 per cent. She is wrong by a factor of 10. I do not know what is taught at Roedean. Thank heaven we teach better in comprehensive schools. However, I thank her and I shall cherish that. She objects that it cruelly raised false expectations. We have to weigh the raising of false expectations against the hundreds of thousands who should be receiving benefits but are not. The raising of a false expectation can easily be overcome by a simple sentence in a card or leaflet. Indeed, that was said in the process.
      The Minister was wrong in almost every aspect. She should not take the right hon. Member for Daventry as a
      786
      good example. The right hon. Gentleman is a thoroughly bad example. He was a bad example when he sat on this side of the House and he was an even worse example when he changed sides. The hon. Lady should not do it. She is much better than that.
      In conclusion, I make a rapid comparison of the numbers employed in the fraud squad and those employed in other directions. Another element in scrounging concerns low wages under the rates laid down by law under the wages councils. On 12 January my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) elicited that the underpayment of wages under this legislation, including holiday pay, was found in 10,969 establishments in 1979. Those firms were paying against the law and below the law with only 270 civil servants employed to deal with it.
      This week the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that to deal with taxation of unemployment benefit he intended to employ an additional 3,500 civil servants. That is a measure of the Government's priorities. Ten thousand firms paying low wages and breaking the law can be ignored with just 270 civil servants to deal with it. I believe that some were sacked in the process as one of the Rayner savings. The Government now intend to employ 3,500 people to tax unemployment benefits. That is the measure of this tawdry, paltry Government. The hon. Lady should speak out more clearly. We shall back her if she does.
      The Strathclyde exercise, with all its difficulties and problems, succeeded in setting an example. If the Government do not intend to do their duty by using new methods and new forms of publicity to increase the take-up in our community at a time of expanding unemployment, and do not take seriously their responsibility to counteract the scrounger mentality of so many of their supporters, others must do so. Councils throughout England, Wales and Scotland—we have many good councils now after last week's elections—should repair the Government's omission and launch similar campaigns. After last week's victories, we must ensure that the Government do their job. These local councils must become the bastions of help and caring in the middle of this brutish and nasty Tory world.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Bowden: I first thank the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for his honest and genuine interpretation of my intervention. He saw my point and dealt with it fairly and reasonably.
      In complete contrast was the intervention by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who deliberately misrepresented what I said. He loves the use of the word "smear". He is an expert at the half-truth and the smear. His political behaviour since he was elected has been of the lowest possible standard. He invariably enjoys calling his political opponents—be they the Labour Right or Conservative Members—callous and uncaring.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Withdraw.
      Mr. Bowden: I have no intention of withdrawing put that on record, because the House knows what kind of man the hon. Member for Keighley is and treats him with the contempt that he deservea.
      The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is in a different category.
      Mr. Andrew F. Benett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am not aware that the Chairman of a Select Committee is any more likely than anyone else to be immune.
      Mr. Bowden: Certainly not from my attacks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
      I was pleased that two-thirds of the way through his speech, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West was categorical and definite in condemning fraud. I wish that he had done it earlier rather than under prodding from myself and the Minister. I want to put on record my condemnation of all types of fraud, be it tax fraud, anything that evades the law of the land or social security fraud.
      The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West developed his argument from the angle that, because the Government were proceeding strongly against those attempting to defraud the system, people would not claim their benefits. My experience in my constituency is the opposite. Cases have been brought to me where in certain areas it has been believed—sometimes wrongly—that a person or a number of people are claiming from social security benefit money to which they are not entitled. That has directly led to some, especially the elderly, being afraid to ask for their benefits to be checked to discover what their entitlements are. They are frightened that they may be regarded as attempting to swing a fraud or a swindle. There are two sides to the coin.
      Mr. Reg Race: That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said.
      Mr. Bowden: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech tomorrow, he will see that his hon. Friend said the opposite. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) should listen to the debate.
      When we are strongly against fraud and when action is taken and people know that they are receiving their genuine entitlements, that will encourage others to act in the same way.
      Mr. Stallard: Is not the hon. Gentleman's experience that the campaign and the concentration on scroungers is being counter-productive to the extent that it frightens people away from claiming their legitimate rights? They are afraid of being tarred with the scrounger and fraud brush, so they do not claim. It is the campaign that is frightening people.
      Mr. Bowden: No, it is the other way around. That is the major deterrent. We should not be mealy-mouthed about it. We use the word "scrounger" as though it was a misdemeanour or just on the border, but fraud is a criminal offence. Those who engage in fraud, be it tax or social security fraud, are swindling people of their money. The actions of those who take the line of the hon. Member for Keighley are encouraging crime. Unless we stamp on it hard, we shall influence the actions and approaches of honest people.
      I am as deeply concerned as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West about the fact that 600,000 pensioners do not claim the supplementary pensions to which they are
      788
      entitled. That is a frightening national figure. With 23,000 people of retirement age in my constituency, my estimate—it must be an estimate—based on personal experience is that at least 2,000 pensioners in Kemptown are not claiming the supplementary pensions to which they are entitled. In Brighton as a whole, the figure is at least 3,000.
      What is behind those figures? They conceal a great deal of personal hardship and suffering. There are many reasons for this. We have discussed the question of fraud, and I shall not return to it. However, there is mistaken pride—the belief that if one claims a supplementary pension one is asking for charity. I believe that Members of Parliament and organisations concerned with the elderly and with those in receipt of benefits must kill that mistaken belief as quickly as possible. It is not charity; it is a right.
      Another reason is the spirit of independence. Many elderly people still feel that if they claim supplementary benefit they will sacrifice or jeopardise their independence. Everything possible must be done to persuade such people that there is no question of their sacrificing their independence. It is their right to have this money if they are entitled to claim for a supplementary pension.
      Mr. Clement Freud: If there is so high an incidence of non-take-up of benefits in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, what is he doing to make people aware of the existence of available benefits?
      Mr. Bowden: I am delighted to answer that question. In the 11 years that it has been my privilege to represent Kemptown I have emphasised time and time again through my local press and Radio Brighton the rights of people and the importance of making sure that they check them.
      Mr. Freud: What are the numbers involved?
      Mr. Bowden: On average, I see 30 to 40 people in my constituency advice service each time I hold it. I get between 30 and 40 letters every day. I cannot remember any week in which I have not had one or two letters about benefits, and the follow-through has often shown that people were entitled to more. It is exceptional not to have someone come and talk to me about rights and benefits at my constituency advice service.
      I am proud to be vice-president of Age Concern in Brighton. I work closely with that organisation and with other organisations concerned with the elderly and those in receipt of a wide range of benefits. I use every means available to me to emphasise time and again that people have the right to check their entitlements. People should approach their Members of Parliament and local councils. I am sure that Ministers would be delighted if people went to their local DHSS offices and asked "Will you check my entitlements? Is there anything that I am not getting to which I am entitled?" We, as Members, have a part to play in that process.
      Mr. David Ennals: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to the remarkable initiative of a local authority in Strathclyde taking upon itself the responsibility of bringing to the attention of the electorate what their rights were. Does the hon. Gentleman want something like that done in Brighton—indeed, right across the country—contrary to his hon. Friend who, for some extraordinary reason, condemned the initiative taken in Strathclyde?
      Mr. Bowden: Any campaign must be carefully coordinated. It will be more effective if it is a national campaign involving the Government, political parties, county councils, social services departments, councillors and Members of Parliament. In too many instances such campaigns have been undertaken on an ad hoc basis.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Bowden: I can deal with only one intervention at a time. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I should like to finish this point in reply to the last intervention. If we do not think this through carefully, the danger is that it will not get the right degree of national coverage. If people see something on a regular basis in a national context, the ground will be laid for making the best of local campaigns. Whatever campaign is organised—every possibility should be carefully examined—must be a carefully co-ordinated and continuing national campaign. The individual one-off local campaign does not necessarily achieve the right objective.
      Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in more detail the kind of campaign about which he is talking?
      Mr. Bowden: We shall listen with interest to the reply from the Front Bench, but all of us have a part to play, because we get publicity in this context as national Westminster Members. If we are supported by elected colleagues of all political parties and by opinion locally, that can only be a move in the direction that we want to go.
      I believe that substantial progress has been made not only in Brighton, but nationally during the past few years. That has been due largely to local and voluntary organisations, citizens' advice bureaux and voluntary service centres which, in their sustained campaigns and work, have carried out an invaluable job in this area. We naw need a carefully planned and co-ordinated national campaign.
      I believe that local DHSS offices—I appreciate the difficulties facing them—could do more than they are doing. There are problems at present because of the Civil Service dispute, but offices and officials of the DHSS locally must continually be on the watch to ensure that those who are in receipt of benefits are getting their full entitlements and that those who are not getting them do get them.
      I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will give careful consideration to the new clause. If they feel that they cannot accept it as it stands, I hope that they will suggest a positive alternative.
      Paragraph (b) would ensure that the situation is brought to the notice of Parliament on a regular annual basis. That can only be good in building up the national picture that we wish to present of ensuring that all people apply for their entitlements. Publicity and public awareness are important weapons in this battle.
      Society owes an obligation to the elderly. We must ensure that they receive their full entitlements. Appendix 1 to the White Paper "Growing Older" lists the State benefits and grants for which elderly people may be eligible.
      In conclusion I shall quote from the White Paper. It says:
      "To enable people to enjoy secure, dignified and fulfilled lives in their later years is a large and ambitious objective … there is no doubt that society can do more for its elderly members".
      790
      In my opinion, the new clause could help.
      5 pm
      Mr. Stallard: I want, first, to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). During the Committee and Second Reading stages of the Bill Labour Members argued against the Government's attempts to abolish the annual reports and statistical reports of many organisations concerned with occupational pensions, war pensions and some statistical evidence that is necessary for voluntary organisations to keep in touch with developments. So we join the hon. Gentleman in his plea. We are pleased that the offending clause has been withdrawn, at any rate for the time being, and we join the hon. Gentleman in his appeal to the Government to look favourably on new clause 1, which asks for more information. Information is needed. We can then disseminate it to local voluntary organisations which will then be able to identify problems, where they exist.
      The hon. Member for Kemptown also mentioned the citizens' advice bureaux and the DHSS. Many of us have had letters from local citizens' advice bureaux which are in severe financial straits as a result of the Government's economic policy. Their finances are being dramatically cut and they are finding it difficult to carry on with their task of providing people with information on statistics and the lack of take-up.
      The DHSS also was mentioned. The people who are entitled to benefits find that the local DHSS office now cannot monitor or pay the moneys to which those people are entitled because of staff cuts and financial restrictions. We all know about the sterling work done by the hon. Member for Kemptown on behalf of pensioners. He rightly spoke of their independence and their present plight. I agree with him. They are among the most Vulnerable people in society. They are the people to whom most of the benefits apply, and yet they are often the least able and most ill-informed about the benefits to which they are entitled.
      I accept that the Labour Government did not implement a similar scheme, but I do not apologise for that. We asked for a scheme at that time, as now, and we hope that we shall be given a commitment that if this Government do not bring in a scheme the next Labour Government will. There should be a Government responsibility and the Government should be seen to be taking their responsibility seriously by local and regional, organisations.
      The Government should not say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said in opening, that they deplore the fact that people are now finding out about these moneys. The Minister seemed to imply that she was sorry that people were now claiming these moneys and that she did not want the moneys to be paid. We shall not get far if that is her attitude. That is typical of the Government Front Bench attitude, but we hope to change that approach of one of the most hard-line and uncompassionate Governments that we have had for many a day.
      I represent a part of Camden, that is one of the alleged profligate spending councils. I am glad that that is so, because it spends money on finding out about the benefits to which people are entitled, monitoring the effect of benefits on the people who are vulnerable, and supplying

      791
      services to the people who need those services most. We shall continue to support that council in its attempts to uphold those principles.
      I know from my experience of the area that the older pensioners, people over 70, will apply for rent and rate rebates if they are pushed. They have to be pushed. They have to be convinced that it is not charity but something to which they are entitled. They have to be convinced that it is the law of the land and that they are not doing anything wrong. They have to be persuaded, though I have seldom persuaded them that they ought to apply for supplementary benefit. People of that age find it difficult to accept that supplementary benefit is something to which they are entitled.
      We know, therefore, that there are hundreds of people who are entitled to supplementary benefit and who would welcome something along the lines of this new clause to say that it is official and can be claimed. There might then be a different approach on the part of the people who really need it. They would then find out that they were entitled to it, and would be happy to apply for supplementary benefit. They would also then be entitled to the other allied benefits from which they are now cut off—heating bills, clothing grants and allowances which can be claimed only by people who receive supplementary benefit. At present, they are cut off from those benefits because they are afraid or do not understand their entitlement to supplementary benefit. Thus, the new clause would be a positive step in assisting people over 70 years of age.
      Incidentally, even when pensioners are persuaded to claim the rent and rate rebates to which they are entitled, the delay in processing claims can be crucial to people of dignity and independence. Since 1 April this year, no one has yet received any increase in supplementary pensions to deal with rent and rate rebates. That, of course, is a direct result of the cuts in staff and in local DHSS offices.
      We know—again, from our local experience—that the younger pensioners—those aged 60 and above—will apply for supplementary pensions, but they are put off by the jargon of the benefits and appeals system. It is difficult enough for us to wade through some of the forms and appeals procedures, and so on, but pensioners of 60-plus are frightened when they are confronted by such jargon. The publication of something simpler by the Government, in language that can be understood, would benefit that age group, too. They hate to feel that they are begging. They do not want to be reduced to the level of beggars for something for which they have paid, probably all their lives.
      I do not want to denigrate the work of the DHSS staff. They are often sympathetic to pensioners. They probably have special categories of good claimants, bad claimants and not so good claimants. Good claimants would be pensioners, because they have a perfectly reasonable claim. However, there is a crying need, certainly in the Camden area, for a simple leaflet, in simple language that people of our age and people older than us can understand, to explain pensions, the methods of entitlement, and appeals procedures. That still has not been done.
      Because of ignorance, fear and a lack of any official stamp on their entitlements and rights, pensioners find themselves with a disposable income, after they have paid their rent, of between £20 and £25 per week. More than 36 per cent. are below the poverty line. If their cases were
      792
      investigated, or if they understood their rights, they could easily and legitimately be lifted above that line. If pensions had remained linked to the national wage level—something for which we have campaigned for many years—they would have been even better off.
      The clause must be supported by all who genuinely feel that there is an urgent need to inform people of their rights. They must be informed by the highest source in the land, namely, the Government, who must take the lead in telling people that schemes and entitlemennts are theirs by right. They must say "You need not be afraid to claim benefits". Their entitlements must be simply stated according to age and conditions. If the Government do not accept that suggestion there is something seriously wrong and their credibility can no longer be accepted in the areas of social services and social security.
      I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kemptown. I hope that many of his colleagues will find it possible to support the Opposition on this modest new clause. We could have gone a great deal further, but the clause simply asks the Government to take the initiative by finding those who are entitled to benefit, explaining their entitlement to them and informing them how to obtain it. They must ensure that there is sufficient staff to pay the benefits. I welcome the new clause and I shall support it in the Lobby.
      Mr. Race: The first question the House must ask is whether the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are in favour of increasing the take-up of social benefits, and, if so, what they intend to do about it. That is the real question that we are posing today. If the Minister does not support the new clause or announce a major campaign to increase the take-up of new benefits, the Opposition will be entitled to say to the country that the Conservative Party is not in favour of increasing the take-up of benefits, but is more concerned about the minority who abuse the social security system. I hope that we will have a clear statement from the Government about their intentions.
      In an earlier intervention the Minister said that the Strathclyde experiment of sending out postcards to individual electors was a political exercise. I wish to challenge the hon. Lady strongly on that point. I do not believe that a local authority is wrong if it seeks to improve the take-up of benefits in a certain area. It stands in precisely the same relationship to its local electorate as the Government stands in relation to the electors of Strathclyde.
      If the Government wished to introduce a scheme to improve take-up of benefits in Strathclyde, Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole, no one in the House would say that it was a political exercise. Yet the Minister said that Strathclyde local council was undertaking political action by sending out postcards telling people that they could claim supplementary benefit or exceptional needs payments.
      That attitude sticks in my craw. The Strathclyde council was provoked into taking that action because the Government changed the rules about who was eligible for benefit. As we all know, on 24 November last year the rules for claiming exceptional needs payments were changed by the Government. Ministers should not talk about keeping politics out of social security when their Government have cut benefits time after time. They did so last year by cutting 5 per cent. off invalidity benefits,

      793
      unemployment benefits and other benefits and by changing the rules for exceptional needs payments. Anyone who says that politics should be kept out of social security, and criticises a local authority for daring to try to increase the take-up of benefits in its area, is taking a wholly scandalous attitude.
      5.15 pm
      The take-up of benefits is a major issue. If we want to treat the problem seriously we must revert to the Supplementary Benefits Commission paper on the take-up of supplementary benefits which was published in 1978. It had a great deal to say about the extent of the problem. Many hon. Members have quoted figures given by the SBC for those who were not claiming supplementary pensions—namely, 600,000. The reasons given by the SBC for people not claiming benefits were significant. It said:
      "Failure to take up benefit has been seen as a result of some mixture of the scheme's complexity, administrative failures, ignorance and misconceptions about the scheme on the part of potential claimants and stigmas still associated with supplementary benefit."
      All those factors are relevant.
      To give the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) his due, he referred to the need for a wide-ranging approach to the question of take-up, involving all agencies. We must examine the reasons why people do not claim benefit. One reason is stigma. Conservative Members who have supported the campaigns of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and the arguments about scroungers—which have been blown up out of all proportion to the numbers involved—bear a heavy responsibility for increasing the stigma for those who might otherwise claim benefits. I am sickened by some of the remarks made by hon. Members about those who could claim social security benefits. They are discouraging large numbers from claiming their legitimate rights.
      The Supplementary Benefits Commission was worried about the large numbers of people not only not claiming supplementary benefits, but a wide range of other benefits to which they were entitled. It said in its report:
      "All we can say is that this reluctance to claim appears to come from some mixture of pride, ignorance, a sense of stigma, reluctance to make the efforts which a claim calls for, a desire for self-sufficiency on the part of an individual or family, an unwillingness to become involved with a government agency and a feeling that the whole business is not worthwhile".
      We cannot do anything about some of the problems—for example, the potential claimant who may be too lazy to go the DHSS office and claim his entitlement—but we can encourage people to overcome the stigma of social security benefits. That stigma exists because people, especially Conservative Members, talk about social benefits as if they were something generous given by the nation to those who otherwise could not look after themselves.
      I recall the statement made shortly before the 1964 general election by Lord Home of the Hirsel. The noble Lord said that the old age pension was a donation. That stuck in the craw of retirement pensioners throughout the country. It was used by spokesmen of the Labour Party in various speeches. It exemplified in one word the Conservative Party's attitude towards some social benefits.
      Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tory Party has a great knack for developing such terms? It
      794
      contends that disabled pensioners have been over-provided for and wishes to take back 1 per cent. It seems to have a great knack of linguistic dexterity.
      Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right. It seems that the donation last year was too substantial for the Conservative Party to accept.
      We have a responsibility to overcome ignorance of social security benefit entitlement. What have the Government done to overcome it? We await with bated breath the Minister's response. The only precise answer that I can suggest is that they may have marginally improved some of the forms. They have changed the name of child benefit to one-parent family benefit. I accept that that is an improvement. However, they have done nothing to improve take-up. That is why the clause is on the Order Paper.
      We want to shove and cajole the Government into doing something for those who are entitled to benefits and who do not claim them. Apart from the Strathclyde experiment, there have been innumerable local initiatives and schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) referred to the Harlow scheme and he was right to do so. There have been many others. One such scheme was undertaken by Casserly and Clark in 1976–77 under the previous Labour Administration. It is true that the problem has existed under successive Administrations.
      Casserly and Clark revealed that in an occupation centre for the physically disabled, again in Strathclyde, 69 per cent. of those interviewed were not receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. The result of that exercise was that those interviewed made a claim for at least one extra weekly benefit. The total cost to the DHSS was £12,000 a year at that time. I could recite many local examples. I shall not do so because it would be tedious and boring for the House. I merely say that Ministers know about the many local schemes that have been initiated and that they should start to take action now.
      The House should be concerned about two main factors on take-up. One factor is means testing and the other is fraud and abuse. Means tests are important because they discourage prospective claimants from claiming benefit. That is partly because of the complexity of the schemes. There are many different means tests. There is a means test for school uniforms and another for eligibility for free school meals. There are, for example, different means tests for supplementary benefit. Prospective claimants are faced with increasingly complex schemes that they do not understand.
      Several hon. Members have referred to the excellent work done by DHSS officers in their own constituencies. However, in the majority of instances the entitlement to benefit that has been calculated by DHSS officers has been shown to be wrong once it has been investigated by an hon. Member. I do not criticise officers for that, but it is a reflection of the complexity of the means test and the various schemes that are available that DHSS officers should get it wrong as well. We must address ourselves to the extent to which we can eliminate the complexity of means tests and thereby allow more to claim their legitimate rights.
      Mr. Freud: I accept that, when the previous Labour Government were in office, the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of this place. However, will he tell us what that

      795
      Government did to make means tests more easy to understand and to improve what I think is agreed on both sides of the House to be an imperfect system?
      Mr. Race: The previous Labour Government did a few things—
      Mr. Bowden: Name them.
      Mr. Race: —that were acceptable and good, but on the whole they did nothing to reduce the number of tests and in some respects they increased it. The benefits that they introduced for the disabled were means tested in some respects.
      The problem presented by means tests is so serious that we should consider it carefully. I shall give one specific example of the way in which means tests operate to reduce people's understanding of the system and their ability to obtain benefit. I am talking especially about the disabled.
      We try to encourage the disabled to become independent and not to depend on others for their daily existence. However, once a DHSS officer enters a disabled person's house and asks, "How dependent are you on your spouse or on your neighbours for basic household duties?", the disabled person tries to minimise his or her dependence because of the reflection of our attitude that they have to be independent, and thereby becomes ineligible for some of the benefits that would otherwise be available. That is the experience of those who are working for the disabled all the time.
      Let us try to introduce a policy that will allow means tests to be abolished, will create universal benefit and will increase take-up. If such a policy has to be financed by taxing those with the highest income I would support that approach. I would rather see the highest paid have a benefit taxed away than see others have nothing at all.
      The Minister may recall that in Committee I referred to a constituency example of alleged fraud and abuse. I said that one of my constituents had been visited by a local DHSS fraud officer. I disclosed that I had taken up the issue with the local office. I did not go into too much detail at that stage because to do so would have been inappropriate and wrong. I have now received a reply from the local DHSS office which contains an apology, which I have passed on to my constituent.
      My constituent visited her local DHSS office. She said that her order book for supplementary benefit had expired and she was told that it could not have done, as it was supposed to run until May. She repeated that it was finished. A fraud officer was sent to interview her in her home. My constituent alleged that she was told by the officer—the interview took place when my constituent had not had any income for about three weeks—that she could live off the fat of her body for a little while because she was overweight. The local office regrets such an approach and apologises for any indication of anything of that sort having been said to my constituent.
      I do not say that all fraud officers behave in that way. I merely say that there is a disincentive in the system. In other words, because we are now placing so much emphasis on fraud and abuse, we are in danger of reducing the number of legitimate claimants who come through the system.
      796
      5.30 pm
      I have no doubt that if a well-publicised case of fraud and abuse exists and is published in a local newspaper, it may stop people from claiming locally. I agree with that. However, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the Government must accept that a campaign to stamp out fraud nationally must, by the same token, undermine people's ability and desire to claim their legitimate rights. for that reason, I hope that there will be a change of attitude by the Government on the fraud and abuse campaign.
      The new clause tries to protect us against anything else the Government might do. I use those words because it is well known that the Government want to cut the number of statistical inquiries on social security. It would be right for the House to put that new clause in the Bill because it is the only way to ensure that the Government do not say in six months' time that they are terribly sorry but they cannot tell us how many people are not claiming supplementary benefit or supplementtary pension because they have cut the statistical inquiries which would give that information. If the clause is in the Bill, the Government have no option but to produce that report so that we can debate it and discuss the ways in which the Government should improve their services to the public.
      That is a major point because the cuts in the survey division will be so serious that it is likely that the information which we want as Members of Parliament will not be forthcoming in future.
      I do not want to start receiving ministerial replies to parliamentary questions which say that unfortunately the information is not available or the £50 rule operates and no further information can be obtained because it would cost too much.
      For all those reasons, I hope that the House will support the new clause. I hope that the Conservative Party will show that it is more interested in the take-up of benefits than in the so-called "scroungers" campaign.
      Mr. Freud: This clause is good. Each hon. Member who has spoken from the Opposition Benches to date has pretended that the Government are against the clause. I have always felt that there should be a standing order preventing people from naming the number of hon. Members in the House at any one time, so I shall simply say that even the sole occupant on the Government Back Benches—that number has now been doubled—also seemed to feel that the clause is good. One has no reason to believe that the Government are not sympathetic towards it.
      I am aware that while I have been steadfast in opposition—whoever governed and whoever did not—the official Opposition have steadily reminded the Government of their duty to make the availability of benefits known to those who have a proper claim to them.
      It is right that the clause should be part of the measure, not only so that we can monitor progress which is proper, but because not enough information is available. Far too often, when one asks a parliamentary question, the reply is that it would be disproportionately expensive to give an answer.
      I believe that those figures are available; they are just not published. Local DHSS offices send a list of their claimants to their headquarters. Knowing the ways of Government—admittedly by repute rather than from experience—one knows that the headquarters send on the

      797
      figures and they end up as a statistic. If we are to run a decent, fair and humane system, the take-up figure of benefits is essential. If we severely penalise those who commit fraud—I agree with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said on the subject—we have a duty to help honest claimants to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled and no reforms can be achieved in the social security system unless we are in possession of the basic information.
      I remind the Under-Secretary of State that I recently asked her a written question about the exceptional needs payments in respect of maternity benefit. If the figures had been high, they would have shown that maternity grant was insufficient. The Government could have done something about it in the knowledge that as so many people were properly claiming extra benefits on maternity grant, they had got it wrong.
      The answer I received was that those figures were unavailable. Why are they unavailable? How can a Government get a grant right if they do not monitor how many people ask for supplementary benefit in respect of that grant? The Under-Secretary, who used to feel that 62 out of 500 represented 1·2 per cent., is now persuaded that it is 12 per cent. She needs all the help she can get from statistical departments, which are cutting down on their staff as an experiment. I shall give way to the hon. Lady, perhaps for a lecture in higher mathematics.
      Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Member for Ely that, left to my own devices, I can get it right.
      Mr. Freud: If the Under-Secretary of State is left to her own devices, she will be interested to hear that I am the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. The Boundary Commission is currently trying to take away the city of Ely.
      I accept that the information that Ministers receive, even if it is from their seniors, is often as bad as that which they receive from other parts of the House—but not to collect information provides far too great and too thick a smokescreen behind which a Government can hide.
      When the hon. Member for Kemptown was speaking about the non take-up of benefits in his constituency, I intervened to ask what he was doing about it. I intervened because when I first became a Member of Parliament and I was keen, I decided to use my Young Liberals to wait outside social security offices and post offices to ask whether there was anything about which claimants were concerned and whether they felt that they were receiving the pamphlets and information to which they were entitled.
      The hon. Member is right when he maintains that people are too proud and that they are unwilling to give information to random questioners, such as Young Liberals, Young Conservatives, and even old Liberals and old Conservatives, and even people behind post office counters. The House will be pleased to hear that I stopped that method after the first temporary attempt. However, I still believe that there are acceptable ways of informing people of their rights—for example, by pamphlets, local radio and newspaper advertisements.
      I know how little many Government Departments care because when we debated index-linked retirement certificates, the amount of advertising which was done in the days when it was advantageous to buy was immeasurably lower than when the rate of inflation came down and those certificates became a pretty poor investment.
      798
      The amount of advertising done by the Treasury for premium bonds, which by any account must be one of the all-time bad gambles, is disgraceful when compared with the small amount of advertising devoted to the good investments. On the Liberal Bench we are committed neither to Government nor to opposition for the sake of opposition. I want to make it clear that I am not persuaded that the Government will not concede, at least in spirit, some of what the clause is trying to achieve.
      Let me give examples of the failure of the system: First-time claimants of national insurance benefits are meant to be given forms SB8 and SB9 about means-tested benefits, but a survey in 1979 showed that only 20 per cent. received them.
      The Supplementary Benefits Commission survey showed that £400 million went unclaimed and that 25 per cent. of those eligible were not claiming; that was in 1979. Those statistics were produced during a Labour Government and were roundly condemned by the Conservative Opposition. Neither party has done much about the problem. In the same year fewer than 50 per cent. of families with children were claiming their full housing benefits, rent rebates and child allowances.
      My point is simple. Let the Government prosecute those who abuse the system, but if they wish to hold up their heads as a Government of honour they must try substantially harder to ensure that those who are entitled, receive—and I mean receive—not only benefits, but such information as will allow them to discover what is available.
      Between £40 million and 50 million has been bandied about as the cost of additional social security snoopers. It may be the right amount, not enough or too much, but we should like to see a fraction of the money that is spent on prosecuting the guilty, invested in providing extra staff, for citizens' advice bureaux funding, advertisements or pamphlets, and distributing information that will allow rightful claimants to receive their entitlements.
      I hope very much that the Government will reconsider the clause and will not refuse to sanction it simply because it was tabled by men opposed to anything that they do. It is a decent clause and proper consideration must be given to it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped that by now the Minister would have intervened to accept the new clause. I now assume that she will express her sympathy and tell us that she cannot accept it.
      I hope that the Government will view the new clause with sympathy. There is all-party concern about social security fraud and other crimes. However, our major concern is that in his campaign the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) concerned himself not only with that problem. He also tried to create the impression that that was the only problem with social security payments and that if it was solved all would be well. In addition, he tried to show that some people were getting benefits that they did not need and that the system was far too generous. As has gradually been discovered, the system is still extremely harsh and hostile. Week after week people who have become unemployed come to my advice bureau. They are horrified when they find out what benefits are actually being paid as opposed to what they were led to believe were being paid.

      799
      The hon. Gentleman's campaign led the country to believe that benefits could be cut and has resulted in the Government making the system even harsher. We want to make the public and the Government aware that the real problem is the under-receiver. Almost 1 million are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the major problem. The Government should show as much concern about that as they do about social security crimes.
      Last week the Government claimed that £40 million had been saved, but they did not give details so we do not know whether it is a realistic figure. What assumptions did they make about how long a person would have continued to receive the benefit had it not been withdrawn? Did they use a week, a fortnight or a year? How many overpayments have been stopped, and who were they going to? The Under-Secretary of State made a similar smear in accusing decorators of receiving benefits. What percentage of the £40 million was involved there? If he cannot substantiate his claim, he should withdraw it. The Government employ well over 1,000 extra people to chase up fraud and to save £40 million. If underpayments amount to over £400 million, we need 10 times that number to sort that out, but the Government have given the problem little or no attention.
      One of the most important ways to ensure that people receive benefits is to make them simple and easy to understand. The Government made a statement yesterday on child benefit, which is one benefit where the take-up is good because it is simple. The Government now appear to be making it more complicated. They are taking away choice in receiving the benefit as circumstances vary from week to week. People have been able to wait three or four weeks to draw the benefit, and keep it as an insurance against a big gas bill or a child suddenly tearing a pair of trousers. The Government are taking that choice away from new beneficiaries and making the benefit more complicated. People will have to opt to have it paid weekly or monthly. If they switch to supplementary benefit, they have to take action to have it paid weekly rather than to have it there as a right to fall back on.
      Another problem that is tied up with underpayments is the late arrival of benefits. Many of my constituents find that it can take a week, a fortnight or even longer to claim benefits to which they are entitled. They often receive the benefits long after the urgent need for them has disappeared. Some of my constituents who appeal against refusal to pay benefits find that the appeal runs three, four or even five months after the need for the benefit. The Government should ensure that appeals are heard quickly.
      The leaflets to encourage take-up of benefits have improved, but the quality of most of the leaflets does not make the slightest difference. Many of those who are entitled to benefit cannot, or do not, read. The Government should bear that in mind. I have checked up on many of those who come to my advice bureau and particularly on those who have problems with benefits. Often, they cannot read, or rarely read. Therefore, however well designed an official leaflet may be, they find it difficult to follow. Sometimes people have problems with their glasses, or excuse the fact that they cannot read by saying that they have not got their glasses. Those people find it difficult to read and understand forms. The way in which the form is written is also important. I give
      800
      the Government credit, because they have improved many of the forms. However, for many people that does not solve the problem.
      One of the problems of the Strathclyde campaign was that it depended on a leaflet or postcard being sent out. The campaign was successful in a far larger area than Strathclyde, because the media paid it great attention and it was taken up by local radio. As a result of the publicity, three or four of my constituents asked me whether they were getting the right benefit. Until the Government tell us that they are prepared to run a campaign within the next six months, none of their criticisms can be justified.
      I accept that the Labour Government started to erode the situation. However, the home visits system was of the greatest help to claimants because it ensured that people received the right amount of benefit. The system was intended to help people to get the benefit that they needed. It is appalling that the Government should return to a system of home visits in order to deprive people of benefit when they think that fraud is involved or that there has been an abuse of the system, when they cannot find enough people to undertake home visits to those who receive less than the correct amount of benefit. More than 1 million people are involved. The Government should do something about that.
      The new clause only goes a little way, but it is a start. I ask the Government to accept it and to see that within the next six months a major campaign is carried out to ensure that 1 million people receive the benefit that they are entitled to.
      Mr. Cryer: It is interesting to contrast the number of Conservative Members here today with the numbers of those in the Chamber last night when we dealt with the Government's tax on bank profits. Yesterday many Conservatives were in the Chamber to express their shock, horror and amazement at the Government's measure. Of course, they were in the Chamber because the subject under discussion concerned wealthy organisations. This debate is about the poor and, as a result there is a stark difference in the number of Conservative Members attending.
      I turn to the intemperate attack made on me by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). I was amazed that he should attack my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and suggest that my hon. Friend, or any other Opposition Member, would state or imply that he condoned fraud. It does not behove the hon. Gentleman to criticise those who express deep resentment at his attack on my hon. Friend. After all, the Labour Government instituted the framework of the Welfare State. When we were in Government, the Opposition made successive attacks on the Government and claimed that "welfarism" was somehow softening the nation. Beveridge reported immediately before the Labour Party was swept into office. We largely implemented that report. It is fair to claim that we built up the framework of the Welfare State.
      More deeply than anyone else, we resent the fact that people deceive the Welfare State, because that allows unscrupulous people to attack the system. I understand the difficulty that the hon. Member for Kemptown finds himself in. He is one of the few Conservatives to express concern about those in receipt of benefit. Therefore, he is sensitive about this issue. However, he has never made a complete and utter condemnation of the unscrupulous

      801
      campaign that was carried out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Labour Members resented the way in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South conducted his campaign, aided and abetted by The Sun and other unscrupulous newspapers. Those newspapers found the campaign a convenient stick with which to beat the Government.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) said that one reason for the lack of take-up was the stigma attached to benefits. The type of campaign that was started by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—which was sustained by this Government—inhibited take-up.
      Mr. Freud: For the record, I simply wonder whether, as the hon. Gentleman had claimed Mr. Beveridge, he would also like to claim Lloyd George and Mr. Gladstone.
      Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman examines the legislation that Liberal Government introduced in that dim and distant age when such Governments existed, he will find that it does not in any way match the comprehensive legislation introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
      The Sun led a national campaign on social security scroungers and on fraud. It was used as a stick with which to beat the Labour Government. It was said that the Labour Government were soft on scroungers and that we were sapping the nation's vitality, because we believed in the Welfare State. There was a national response. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South received about 750 replies. About two dozen of them could be substantiated. About half of them were being investigated, anyway, by the fraud section of the DHSS. The campaign revealed a significant amount of prejudice. In addition, it wasted much of the time of DHSS officals, who scrupulously pursued the matters that had been raised in order to meet the prejudice of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and of The Sun.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: It is worth putting it on the record that at the same time as The Sun campaign, casual workers, in league with the management, were doing fiddles not a million miles away to get out of paying income tax. With the co-operation of the Inland Revenue the Labour Government had to declare a tax amnesty. Until a few weeks ago, that was still the subject of a court action by the National Federation of the Self Employed. Therefore, on both sides of the coin, the hands of The Sun are not clean. It was involved in tax abuse and in the scrounger campaign.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. When the Inland Revenue Commissioners—not the Government—declared an amnesty, the Labour Government were criticised, because they seemed to adopt a double standard. On the one hand they were resisting the unscrupulous scrounger campaign, but on the other they were apparently allowing tax avoidance to continue. We had to meet those criticisms.
      I emphasise the importance of take-up at a time when more and more people have to apply for social security payments. After 12 months, unemployment benefit ceases. If a person has less than £2,000, he has no option but to seek social security benefit. I have a copy of "Newsflash", which is dated April 1981. It is issued by the Wool Textile and Clothing Industry Action Committee. It states that 10,000 jobs were lost in each month of 1980 in the textile and clothing industry. "Newsflash" states:
      802
      "It was estimated that 100,000 jobs were lost in the whole year. In fact this number disappeared in just 11 months. To make good this job loss the UK would need to secure not only the much publicised Nissan car assembly plant but 24 additional car assembly plants of an equivalent size."
      In April 1982, how many people will be employed and how many will be in receipt of supplementary benefit? It is likely that in our present economic decline the vast majority of those 100,000 people will be in receipt of supplementary benefit. The take-up and information about rights will become increasingly important.
      6 pm
      That is sad. We prefer people to have jobs. However, the Government's economic policies, supported assiduously by the hon. Member for Kemptown, are resulting in thousands of people being brought face to face with social security benefits.
      One local authority has anticipated the new clause and tried to give information. The Bradford authority, under Labour control, has distributed leaflets in the Bradford area. The leaflets are headed "Are you getting enough?". That is perhaps an ambiguous heading but it draws attention to the leaflet that provides information about social security rights and rent and rate rebates. A free postal reply service is provided so that people can ask for more information.
      It is too early to estimate the response. I hope that a statistical analysis will be made. Many people believe it to be a valuable service. I am sure that the authority would like to extend the exercise throughout the area but they have cash shortages. It is incumbent upon the Government to finance such campaigns. Labour controlled local authorities, following the Strathclyde example, are using their meagre resources to inform people of their rights. Bradford's campaign is appreciated but the onus is on the Government to initiate a similar campaign, and not only in areas with the greatest unemployment. A national campaign is needed, because there are pockets of deprivation everywhere.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some people cannot read, write or understand. The Government have just given millions of pounds to the breakfast television people. Why do they not make it a condition that some time is devoted to the DHSS and other Government Departments so that they can present oral and pictorial advice? The experts could explain to the people and if we believed that the information was not being provided adequately we could demand improvements.
      Mr. Cryer: That is an excellent suggestion. When Governments hand over franchises to groups of beautiful people who are already well off and who are given a licence to print money, they could easily make it a condition that part of the transmission time should be used to provide public service information. Instead, the Government are handing over significant sums to purchase advertising time to provide public information.
      The Minister's comments on local authority campaigns were ambiguous. I invite the Under-Secretary to comment on the work in Bradford. It has not received the widespread publicity that the Strathclyde experiment received. Nevertheless, it is a valuable exercise. Local authorities should be praised and encouraged when they embark on such a campaign. The Minister should encourage the Bradford Labour-controlled council to work more vigorously on the campaign. She should encourage

      803
      other councils, whoever controls them, to do likewise. The DHSS should also provide funds for councils which are prepared to undertake such work.
      The new clause is of great value because it provides Parliament with a slight improvement in parliamentary accountability. Under the clause a statement in the House is required on the action proposed to improve the take-up of benefits. The clause does not provide us with the right of a debate but a statement would encourage opportunities for debate and put on the pressure for a debate on the range of benefits, their application and take-up. That is an improvement in accountability to the House.
      The new clause is modest. It provides an improvement for people who are not well-off and who are in need of the benefits. It affects the poorest in the community. It improves democratic accountability and therefore has much merit. I hope that the Government will either accept it or at least implement the terms of the clause.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) claimed that the Welfare State was established by the Labour Government after the war. His claim is fully justified. When the Labour Party fought the 1945 election, it outlined the establishment of the Welfare State. Arthur Greenwood called upon William Beveridge to take charge of the committee that examined all the social services. There is no doubt that if a Labour Government had not been elected the Welfare State would not have been established.
      National insurance, national assistance, national insurance for industrial injuries, family allowances, the National Health Service, the death grant and a whole range of social benefits were established for the first time by the Labour Government. The Tories opposed the Second Readings of some of the Bills which implemented those benefits.
      Sir Frederick Burden: The Beveridge considerations took place when there was a national Government. Both parties undertook to implement Beveridge if elected. Why is not the hon. Gentleman honest about that?
      Mr. Evans: The Tories promise, pause, prepare, and postpone and end by leaving things alone. They talked about legislation, but when it came before the House they voted against it. They voted against setting up the National Health Service.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the question of take-up.
      Mr. Evans: I am pleased to learn that the Government apparently are for the Welfare State. Many people believe that the Government want to undermine the Welfare State and that they are withdrawing certain welfare benefits introduced by the last Labour Government. Earnings-related benefit is one example. There are many unemployed people who under the last Labour Government would have received earnings-related benefit, but this Government have withdrawn that benefit. Earlier this week we heard that this miserable Government will not pay a tax refund to the unemployed. How can we say that there is a Welfare State when the unemployed are having their tax rebates withheld?
      I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on tabling this clause. Although we can claim
      804
      the right to have established the Welfare State, perhaps we could have done more to draw the attention of people in need to the fact that they are entitled to claim benefit. We have an honourable record in that respect. When Miss Peggy Herbison was appointed Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in 1964 her first step was to make pensioners aware that they had the right to claim supplementary benefit. Within weeks it was found that over 300,000 pensioners were entitled to supplementary benefit. That was established by Jim Griffiths, the Minister for Health and National Insurance.
      For 13 years the Tory Government tried to make the people feel that they were getting the pension to which they were entitled but that they should not claim anything else; that there was a stigma attached to claiming supplementary benefit and that they should try to manage without it.
      Sir Frederick Burden: Does the hon. Member not recall that Labour Governments refused absolutely to give a pension to widows of ex-Service men who died before October 1950? This Government have not only dealt with that, but have drawn attention to their right to draw it.
      Mr. Evans: In some small examples the Tory Party appears to say "We are really concerned about the Welfare State" but on the major matters it tries to undermine it. There are times when Tories try to tell us that they are not bad after all, that they are reformed characters and that they really believe in the Welfare State, but they are undermining its fabric.
      I look forward to hearing a contribution from the right hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir Frederick Burden). If he claims that he supports the Welfare State as much as those of us on this side of the House, I hope that he will support the clause. I would finish quickly if I thought I could persuade him to intervene. It would be good to find Conservatives who would say "We are concerned about the problems of the people. We are prepared to show that we support the Welfare State and we will therefore implement the clauses".
      6.15 pm
      Reference has already been made to the Strathclyde experiment. Hundreds of thousands of people are entitled to benefit which they are not claiming. It is a scandal that the Government should be putting emphasis on that very small minority who are involved in fraud. I am not saying that people who are making fraudulent claims should not be investigated and dealt with, but I should think it would be better to deal with the problem of tax evasion.
      Far more revenue is due to the Treasury from that source than from people who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.
      I hope that we shall get the figures which make up the so-called saving of £40 million. Over 1,000 civil servants are being given the task of finding out what benefits people receive to which they are not entitled. We have heard about the binoculars which have been bought for them to study certain arrangements amongst families to ensure that they are not claiming benefits to which they are not entitled. Has the Minister had reports about harassment, about the wave of anxiety caused to individuals in receipt of invalidity benefit and mobility allowances who have been investigated in this process?
      I have taken up certain cases where people who receive invalidity benefit and who have medical evidence to show

      805
      that their health has greatly deteriorated have been investigated in an effort to try to stop the payments of benefit. People who were granted a mobility allowance for the first time two or three years ago and whose immobility has greatly increased now find that their allowance has been temporarily stopped. The onus is being put on them to make fresh claims. Constituents of mine in receipt of unemployment benefit were told that they had to go to a work camp at Henley-in-Arden, otherwise their unemployment benefit would stop. In 1980 people who were unemployed for over 12 months and who were claiming supplementary benefit were told "If you don't go to Henley-in-Arden your social security will be stopped." I took up the case, and I am pleased to say that the Minister was able to respond and that that nonsense has stopped.
      In my area the unemployment rate is 17 per cent. and there are no job vacancies. In these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to determine whether people are work-shy. People claiming supplementary benefit are told that they are getting their full entitlement, yet they might have a blind mother and could be getting a dependant's allowance. People are not informed about the benefits to which they are entitled. I hope that the Minister will employ the civil servants to whom I have referred to look through the records of people who are claiming benefit and to ensure that they are getting all the benefit to which they are entitled.
      We are going through very difficult times. There are 2½ million people unemployed. They get very small benefits and they are faced with all sorts of problems. In my constituency the water rate was previously taken care of in the local authority rate. People living from week to week on supplementary benefit are now confronted with an additional bill of this kind.
      If there are ways and means of helping people with their problems, then the Government have an obligation to do so. We need to know what benefits are being taken up. It is important that we should be told by the Government what action they are taking to ensure that people are aware of the benefit to which they are entitled. Let us get away from the emphasis on scrounging. Let us put the emphasis on a Government who apparently support the Welfare State. I hope that we shall get a positive response from the Minister and that she will accept the clause.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I apologise for being late in attending the debate, I was in the Public Accounts Committee investigating other scandals of a different kind, namely, the scandals in the black economy. When one compares the Government's response to tackling that problem with their very energetic approach to dealing with what they call scroungers, one sees the difference in attitude to the very poor and, in many case, to the very rich—people such as the Vesteys.
      My guess would be that the Government will not accept the new clause. It is contrary to what Sir Derek Rayner is about. There have been letters in the newspapers complaining about the Government's restriction of the availability of statistics about all kinds of things. Sociologists and economists have been writing letters to newspapers complaining about the restriction of information available in all sorts of spheres, information which ought to be available to them and to this House.
      If I were a gambling man, I would bet my last halfpenny that the Government will say "No, we shall not do this"—even though it is assumed that several hundreds of
      806
      millions of pounds rightly belong to ordinary poor people who, for one reason or another, are not claiming it. One of the reasons why they are not claiming it is precisely that the Government have put inspectors on asking all kinds of questions. They were reported on some while ago in the magazine New Society. I remember quoting it at length in the House.
      In the extraordinary steps that the Government are taking, Big Brother from the DHSS is watching not Mr. Vestey but Mrs McTaggart in West Fife, who is, maybe, diddling the social security of 50p a week. The Government are not concerned with the millions that Vesteys are getting away with. They are concerned with the pence that someone in. Fife or Bradford might be getting away with.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who has got maximum publicity in this House. The only publicity that he has ever received in all the time that he has been a Member has been when he has referred to scroungers who were on social security. When the hon. Member was invited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was then the Minister, to send in the letters, to produce the evidence, he sent the letters in but he carefully obliterated the addresses of the writers, which alone would have allowed my right hon. Friend to investigate the validity of the hon. Member's charges.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has properly referred to the undoubted and undeniable fact that in the last two years the Government have clobbered mercilessly, in various ways, the poor, the helpless. the sick, the old and even the disabled. There is a massively miserable record over those two years of the differences of approach to the poor and the handicapped, the people at the bottom of the pile, and the approach to those at the top. There has been and there is no serious and sustained campaign by the Government to make sure that the people who are most disadvantaged—by definition, they are the people on supplementary benefits of various kinds—are getting all that this House and the Government think they are legally entitled to.
      I want to quote from a Supplementary Benefits Commission discussion paper produced in 1978. The commission calculated in that document that about 600,000 people were not getting what they were entitled to and that the shortfall was about £200 million. In the nature of things, that must be a very rough estimate of the figure. But that £200 million is no less accurate an estimate than the estimate of £3 billion to £4 billion in regard to people who are evading or avoiding tax. Those are the figures that the Inland Revenue gave to us in the Public Accounts Committee on the black economy. People at the top of the pile are getting away with £3 billion to £4 billion, and £200 million is not going to people at the bottom who are legally entitled to it.
      I hear mutterings from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to the effect that not all the people who get away with that £3 billion to £4 billion are rich. When we were talking about this matter in the Public Accounts Committee in public session last week, one Conservative Member was at great pains to switch almost the whole of the questioning to the subject of window cleaners. He wanted to pin all the blame on window cleaners for getting away with £3 billion to £4 billion in the year. That was the impression that he was trying to create.

      807
      I remarked that there were bigger fish in the sea than window cleaners. The Vesteys and others are getting away with all that cash, and the Government are doing damn all. [Interruption.] The record is there. The Under-Secretary might say that there is something in the Finance Bill to deal with Vesteys, but Vestey is only one of the big fish among the whole lot of sharks in that infested sea. I am making the comparison between the Government's lack of energy in chasing those people and their enormous energy in chasing the so-called scroungers.
      All that we are saying is that the Government should be just as active in making sure that people get what they are entitled to as they are active in chasing people who they think are getting illegal benefits.
      In the discussion paper, the commission says that it will be necessary to concentrate a good deal of attention on the two most deserving categories—the unemployed and the pensioners. That was in 1978, before the Government came to power, but since then they have added another 1 million to the unemployment figure, so that the problem is much more acute, and many of those, as some of my hon. Friends have said, are long-term unemployed who, at the end of the year, must go on to supplementary benefit. The commission says that these two groups are responsible for the largest amount of unclaimed benefit.
      6.30 pm
      I quote at length from what the commission says a little later, remembering that this was written in 1978:
      "Although the average amount of unclaimed benefit is low for pensioners, the period of entitlement is likely to be much longer. Moreover given the large proportion of pensioners (about a third) with an unclaimed entitlement of under £1 a week, the amount unclaimed for the rest must be substantially higher and this takes no account of the ECA's which might have been payable in addition. The Commission concludes therefore that families with children should be the top priority in efforts to improve the take-up of supplementary benefit and that pensioners should be the other main group on whom efforts should be concentrated."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), was seeking to ascertain why people do not claim. It is not necessarily ignorance. It is not necessarily pride. It is a mixture of all kinds of things. The document from the Supplementary Benefits Commission says:
      "We still do not know exactly why particular groups of people are reluctant to claim supplementary benefit. Knowledge of the scheme's existence does not appear to be the main problem and simply providing information does not necessarily lead to significant increase in the take-up of benefit…Failure to take up benefit has been seen as a result of some mixture of the scheme's complexity, administrative failings, ignorance and misconceptions about the scheme on the part of potential claimants and stigmas still associated with supplementary benefit. But the results of research studies have been inconclusive in establishing the reason why particular groups do not claim. All we can say is that this reluctance to claim appears to come from some mixture of pride, ignorance, a sense of stigma, reluctance to make the efforts which a claim calls for, a desire for self sufficiency on the part of the individual or family…"
      That seems to me to be emphasising the fact that the great majority of people who are in this unfortunate position are scrupulously honest. That is not to say that there may not be a tiny minority who are scroungers. Nobody on this side of the House makes any apology for them; there is no defence for them. Do not let that charge be laid at our door. Our charge is that the Government are devoting infinitely more energy to the minority of scroungers than they are to the people who, for one reason or another, are not seeking their legitimate rights.
      808
      My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to an initiative that had been taken by his own Labour-controlled authority in Bradford. I remember the violent hostility of the Department to the initiative that was taken by Strathclyde, another Labour-controlled authority, to ensure that people got what they were entitled to. The Under-Secretary herself was very hostile to the Strathclyde initiative. I hope that she will not only deny that but state positively that she will encourage local authorities to take what initiative they can in their own areas to ensure that people get their entitlement.
      I have a news item from Harlow council in Essex which reads:
      "Detailed work by the council in a unique survey has brought hundreds of retired people in the town news of extra money to help their weekly budget. Conducted by the Financial and Community Services Department the survey analysed the rebate returns and discovered that many retired people were eligible for supplementary benefit pension entitlements of between one and six pounds a week. Three hundred and fifty letters went out in December 1980 bearing the good tidings and Senior Welfare Rights Officer Tony Bennett reports 'Already dozens of people have taken our advice and claimed this money which is justly theirs. The amount claimed totals some £15,000 a year so far."
      Towards the end it says:
      "One local resident found he was better off by £1·10 a week as a result of the letter and his supplementary pension claim. However, with other extras the total came out at £4·76 a week when the social security office had examined all the details. A council spokesman said, 'By multiplying even preliminary results across the nation, clearly tens of millions of pounds lie unclaimed by a section of the community which is often in most need. This is a right, not a charity handout'. In the London area alone the Welfare Rights team calculate a staggering £10 million probably lies unclaimed," —
      in London alone. If the Government have any sense of equity in view of their record in the last two years in their treatment of the very poor at the one end and the very wealthy at the other, they can do no less than make sympathetic noises tonight that they will use as much energy and enthusiasm to make sure that these people get their rights as they do in ensuring that the tiny minority of scroungers get their desserts.
      Mrs. Chalker: This has been a long and varied debate.
      May I at the outset put paid to the nonsense that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) spoke at one point—it was not all nonsense—when he talked about the dismantlement of the Welfare State. No Government who are allocating £27 billion public expenditure on benefits in 1981–82 can possibly be accused of ignoring or dismantling the Welfare State. It is 27 per cent. of our public expenditure and the money to pay for it has to come from those of us who are fortunate, who have jobs, and who contribute through taxation and national insurance.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Chalker: I wish to get on. I have only just begun and I should like to continue.
      We have had exaggeration on some issues. That always happens in debates on issues that are dear to the hearts of many hon. and right hon. Members. We have had some unusual expressions of what has been going on over the years, but we have also had some sincere interest in the question of take-up and delivery of benefit. For that reason, if for no other, this debate has been worthwhile because it has brought home to many people the fact that there is much more to be done. When people talk about giving media coverage to enable better take-up to be achieved, perhaps media coverage of our debate will help.

      809
      I want to make a few remarks about the subject of fraud and abuse since it has been raised by many hon. Members during the debate. This is not the occasion—and you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to attempt it—to make a full-scale statement on the Government's current campaign on social security fraud and abuse, but I want to say a few brief words about it. I believe that this campaign is necessary if people are to have faith in a system, that their money is being spent properly and that those who are genuinely entitled to benefit get it.
      The savings that we claim—£170 million in total, including £40 million through the work of additional staff employed during 1980–81—are not exaggerated; they reflect moderate assumptions from the data we have obtained. The savings have not been achieved using questionable methods. At all times and in every way investigators have been required to observe very high standards of conduct and the campaign has not been conducted at the expense of honest claimants, as some Labour Members would have us believe. The honest claimants have been and remain our main priority. They have nothing whatsoever to fear from successful efforts to prevent unjustified payments. In fact, the more resources that there are for genuine claimants, the better they will fare, and that is something to which we must give our earnest attention.
      Over the last year the Department has received many telephone calls from disabled people, elderly people and others who have said "Thank goodness you are taking action because now I know that I am right to make a claim". It is remarkable that they have been complaining about the existence of fraud or abuse and saying that it rubbed off on genuine claimants and beneficiaries; they have been saying that they know we want the system to be balanced. It is in striking a fair balance that sometimes the Opposition do themselves a disservice. They know as well as we do—they have repeated it from the Front Bench and from the Back Benches—that if people are abusing the system they should be stopped.
      Some hon. Members might want me to stray into areas covered by other Government Department, but I cannot do that today. Wherever abuse exists it must be right for those in charge of the scheme to rout it out.
      Mr. Buchan: It is a great pleasure to listen to a Minister who believes so firmly in her own Department and puts its case forward so strongly. She will accept that some of us are rather sceptical about floods of telephone calls coming directly to the Ministry bearing that message, as no one here has ever encountered it in real life.
      It would be interesting to know how many telephone calls there have been. The real charge is that the campaign, as illustrated by the guidelines issued, has as its main effect, even if it is not its main purpose, the discouragement of the innocent from applying and the encouragement of the innocent to withdraw their claims.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is standing the whole argument on its head. I repeat, loud and clear, so that the BBC or any other medium reporting the debate may broadcast or print the good news, that anybody who is entitled to benefit has nothing to fear in taking up a claim with the local office.
      810
      I understand why the clause has been tabled and I understand the concern that has been expressed about take-up. I want to explain why I have to say that the Government cannot accept the clause. The report which is envisaged in paragraph (a) would have no relevance to the uprating of benefits which is required by clause 1. That is perhaps the technical objection. Information about the numbers of persons claiming the benefits concerned in the year up to the previous uprating in the preceding November would not in any event be available at the time when the uprating statement is normally made by the Secretary of State. In the Government's view, information about the numbers receiving benefits can more suitably be provided by the publication of statistics in the normal way. Contrary to what some hon. Members have said, the publication of these relevant statistics will continue.
      The question of action taken to encourage people to claim the benefits in question is under constant consideration. I probably bother my officals on this issue as much as on any other issue. It has no relevance to the uprating exercise. One by-product of an uprating exercise is that somtimes it brings the existence of the benefit and the size of the benefit to the notice of the general public through the media, particularly through local radio, which is an extremely good way of communicating, and thereby encourages take-up. We believe it is much more appropriate to make all the information available on the specific benefit as the occasion arises.
      There is no evidence that take-up is a serious problem in relation to the generality of benefits covered by section 125 of the Act. It has, I know, been suggested that there is a shortfall in relation to attendance allowance claims, which are covered by that section. There are no national data on eligibility to support this, and the increasing number of claims and awards, especially for attendance allowance, are encouraging. The small local studies which have prompted successful new claims suggest that this may be the most effective way of getting people to overcome reluctance to claim, but we shall be looking again at ways of improving information and removing misunderstanding.
      6.45 pm
      The main debate has been about supplementary benefit, which does not come under section 125 of the Act. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the 1978 report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The latest figures relating to 1979 are that about 75 per cent. in terms of those eligible for supplementary benefit claim it and get it, and 83 per cent. in terms of the value of benefits which might be claimed is actually claimed. I accept that that is still not good enough, but the question is how to get the information through to that 25 per cent. or 17 per cent. Many hon. Members have given reasons why they think people do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
      The reasons are indeed complex. Yes, there is a stigma, especially amongst elderly people who do not want to claim. I say loud and clear that those pensioners who do not get a 100 per cent. old-age pension are beginning to be followed up, and they should always ask for a supplementary benefit claim form. I want to have the right technology to allow us automatically to follow up people who do not get a 100 per cent. pension, because they may be amongst the small losers, those who lose 20p or 30p a week. However small the weekly amount might be, it all

      811
      mounts up, and I would be the last to deny that. The indications are that the amount of benefit which goes unclaimed in any individual case is likely to be small, although important.
      Rash comments were made by Opposition Members about the new supplementary benefit scheme. That scheme emphasises the entitlement of people to their supplementary benefit by putting their rights into regulations and simplifying the rules. We have published a handbook which explains the new scheme—I thank the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for what he said—and there are new leaflets on which much effort has been spent to make them simpler and more direct than the previous leaflets. The Government do not accept that a statement on take-up would add anything to the efforts which are already being made.
      I want now to refer to comments made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. He referred to the small-scale project carried out in North Yorkshire and reported to hon. Members through the Disablility Alliance. In this project 23 disabled people were interviewed and encouraged to apply for benefits for which the project worker considered they might be eligible.
      From the results of the project the report concluded that there was a serious problem of failure by disabled people to take up benefits to which they were entitled. If hon. Gentlemen and people outside the House criticise the Government for lack of concern, we have to see how we can better get benefits to those people. Certainly the effort that has been made is helpful, but it is an exaggeration to suggest that the applications of the 20 people who failed to claim would have succeeded. The number of successful claims made during that period was very much smaller. There were, I think, seven successful claims for disability or incapacity benefits not previously claimed and a few for family income supplement or local authority rebate. Whether it is that small but valuable effort in North Yorkshire, or the one taking place in Bradford—about which I want to learn more because I do not have the details at present—it is important for local authorities to target what they are doing.
      That brings me to the Strathclyde exercise. My worry about Strathclyde was that it was so widely targeted that for many weeks it prevented the delivery of benefits to people who were genuinely entitled to them. It was not the best way of using the resources available. The fact that only 340 people received weekly benefit out of 100,000 who were sent postcards means that the success rate was only 0·5 per cent. A success rate of that size suggests that if a local authority decides to undertake such an exercise it can target it better.
      We could go over this ground for many hours more, but I wish to draw the attention to the benefits and what we are seeking to do.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady referred to the 340 people who received weekly benefit out of the 100,000 who sent in postcards. The 300 figure that I quoted came from the sample of 500.
      Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear what I said. Out of that sample of 500, 62 people were entitled to weekly benefit—12 per cent. However,
      812
      out of the 100,000 postcards sent out, only 340 people received weekly benefits, and according to our statisticians that is a 0·5 per cent. success rate.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the end of the period of the old scheme there was a large number of exceptional needs payments, but there was so much variation in the old scheme that many people who should perhaps have made their claims earlier were pushed into making them at the last minute. They succeeded, but because of the discretion of the old system the variation across the country was of concern just as much to the Labour Government as it was to us.
      My point is that the resources used to send out those 100,000 postcards might have been better spent had they been used on groups that were much more likely to have an entitlement.
      Mr. Ennals rose—
      Mrs. Chalker: I must continue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      I should like to comment on the other benefits that have been mentioned.
      Mr. Ennals rose—
      Mrs. Chalker: In the main, Labour Members have referred to supplementary benefit. However, there is almost a 100 per cent. take-up in terms of national insurance benefits, particularly the retirement pension, in addition to child benefits. If the claim is made but not at the right moment, the arrears are paid.
      Those hon. Members who follow these matters will know that the question of a unified housing benefit has been under review. Consultations are now taking place with the local authorities to see whether some sense can be made of the variety of housing benefits—for some of which there is still a low take-up—and the mix between them and the supplementary benefit, where people are perhaps in doubt about which they should claim. Those consultations are now proceeding apace. I hope that it will be possible to simplify housing benefits in the future.
      Increasing take-up must be targeted, and two specific areas are already organised. I am delighted to say that Brian Rix has kindly agreed to assist in a television filler, as well as in advertising, to publicise benefits for the handicapped. I am grateful to him for the contribution that he is making, not only through his own organisation on mental handicap but also across this whole area.
      The new leaflet "Help for Handicapped People" published earlier this year—the International Year of Disabled People—is, I am told, a good deal better than any which the disabled organisations have received previously. It is much more extensive. Already we are seeking ways in which we can better deliver to that group the benefits to which they may be entitled.
      Labour Members have referred to child benefit and specifically to what we now call one-parent benefit, which was formerly known by its rather dubious name of child benefit increase. We changed the name for a good reason—to say to single parents who might be entitled, "Make a claim".
      This summer, we are following through a specific letter to 300,000 or more single payees named on child benefit books in case they may have an entitlement to one-parent benefit. We believe that to be important. Regrettably, some of them do not make claims at present, and they should be encouraged to do so.

      813
      I repeat a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowen) in his interesting contribution—and I acknowledge the work done by my hon. friend and other hon. Members on behalf of pensioners. Irrespective of the group to which they belong, if people believe that they are entitled to benefit, they should visit their local office and inquire about it. Let there be no doubt about this. People should be encouraged. I am glad that hon. Members have said that they usually get good service in their relationships with local offices. I pay tribute to the staff who make the effort to get those benefits to people.
      We shall probably have to look at new ways of doing things for pensioners. Earlier I mentioned new computing techniques which may he available before the second pension scheme begins to eliminate some of the problems associated with too low a pension for the elderly, because that scheme will only come to fruition in 17 years.
      I pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux and other groups which seek to bring benefit to people and to tell them of their rights. I must correct one comment. When the Government came into office, they made an extra grant of £2 million to the citizens advice bureaux so that they could extend their task. The CAB in my own area has told me that it is extending tasks. It is reaching out to do the job to which every hon. Member has referred.
      An entitlement in law under the new supplementary benefits scheme, and a clarification of that to which claimants are entitled, is much better than the discretion with which we have laboured for many years, although that played its part in the whole development. It is also important to remind claimants that they can obtain a basic statement of how their benefit is made up. If that statement is insufficient, or if they do not understand it, they can ask for a further explanation to check that they are getting that to which they are entitled.
      Some hon. Members have commented on the leaflets that are now written. The hon. Member for Stockport, North referred to the problems of reading them. However, they are extremely straightforward. For example, I do not know how we could make the instructions more simple than they are in leaflet SB1, "Cash Help—How to Claim Supplementary Benefit".
      There are four basic instructions. The first is:
      "Tear off this form and post it of us at your social security office. You can get the address or a free stamped addressed envelope from the post office."
      The second instruction is:
      "We will then get in touch with you."
      The third instruction is:
      "If you are a pensioner we will visit you at home. But if you would like to talk about your claim at our office instead, put an `X' in this box".
      For pensioners, we accept that home visiting should continue as a matter of course. The fourth instruction is:
      "If you need money very urgently call on us at the social security office, or telephone."
      Many people in real need will find that that is the best way to resolve their problems.
      A major effort is being made todeal with specific benefits by local office staff, hon. Members and many voluntary organisations. Although I cannot accept the new clause for the reasons I have given, I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) that in spirit I understand only too well what the debate is about. Efforts will be made to improve the take-up of benefits for which there is an unsatisfactory take-up now.
      Mr. Rooker: The debate has been worth while for the last quarter of an hour of the Minister's speech. Every hon. Member who has participated and listened to the debate will be grateful for the way in which the Minister has answered the debate positively. I make no bones about that. She has made one or two announcements.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
      Mr. Rooker: Once I have begun my speech, I shall gradually give way to my hon. Friends. Many hon. Members are waiting to join the embassy cocktail circuit and I do not intend to curtail my speech for that reason.
      We thoroughly approve of the announcement to draw the new single parent benefit to the attention of single payees named on the child benefit book. That is an excellent practical idea after the change of benefit. We share in the thanks to Brian Rix for his agreement to make a television filler. That follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said about breakfast time television.
      The Central Office of Information uses the radio regularly for public announcements during the day when the disabled and the elderly are at home. We do not use television enough for those announcements. I hope that the filler will be used on all channels at all convenient times of the day, including peak viewing hours, when the advertisers and the TV companies will necessarily be deprived of income.
      The debate has been a little one-sided, as most social security debates are. We have heard a speech from only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). He voted against the Bill on Second Reading and I have no doubt that he will join us in the Lobby, if not on the new clause perhaps after tomorrow's debate. We heard a speech from a member of the Liberal Party but there has been no attendance from the members of the Social Democratic Party. I do not know whether they have a spokesman for social security.
      Mr. Mike Thomas (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)rose—
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman could have made a speech at any time during the last three hours. We are not on a timetable motion and there is no guillotine. The hon. Gentleman may have been on that Bench for the past 10 minutes, but that is the only time in the past three hours when a member of the SDP has been here.
      Mr. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Rooker: At no time in the past three hours has any member of the SDP sought to catch the eye of the Chair.
      Mr. Thomas: I am not sure that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will note, the Social Democratic Party is represented in the debate. There has been a representative of the party here throughout the debate.
      Mr. Cryer: That is not true.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is saying.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: We do not choose to take up the time of the House on every occasion, though I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so glad to hear our views. That reflects the statement I made yesterday, that opposition for opposition's sake is a waste of everyone's time.
      Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Member had been here he would not have said that. The Opposition have introduced a new clause of which the Government have partly and constructively met the spirit. However, they will not accept the new clause. This has probably been one of the most useful debates on any aspect of social security in this Session. Although few Conservative Members have contributed, they know that there is a problem about take-up of benefit, as many hon. Members have shown. It cannot be argued that this is opposition for opposition's sake when all we are seeking to do is to change the law so that those people—mainly, though not solely, pensioners—can receive the legal entitlement that Parliament has already decreed. By using the parliamentary process as parliamentarians we are entitled to make speeches in a debate. What is wrong with that? That is the role of Members of Parliament. Neither I nor my hon. Friends who have spoken will take lectures from hon. Gentlemen who do not use the Chamber to make their case but come in at the end of a debate to make cheap remarks.
      Mr. Freud rose—
      Mr. Rooker: I want to draw attention to the brief remarks on take-up in the last report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission for the year 1979.
      Mr. Freud rose—
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has already made a speech.
      Mr. Freud: In all fairness, will the hon. Gentleman accept that in my speech I said exactly what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) said? That is, that opposition for the sake of opposition is pointless and alien to the nature of any parliamentarian who cares for due process of legislation and Government.
      Mr. Rooker: That is all right. What is the problem in new clause 1 that makes it subject to the charge that it is opposition for opposition's sake?
      Mr. Mike Thomas: You are making a meal of it. Get on with it.
      Mr. Cryer: It is a major issue.
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has a lot to learn if he is to speak on behalf of his constituents for the short time that he will remain a Member. Before he shouts from a sedentary position he should participate in the debate.
      I was referring to what was said about take-up by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in its recent report. The Minister quoted figures for 1979. I want to know more about those figures. The Supplementary Benefits Commission said that because it could not yet give the 1979 figure—that was some time ago— it had to give estimates for 1978. But the Government's statistical collections have been changed. Some surveys are not now being done yearly. The Supplementary Benefits Commission said:
      "These estimates require a substantial commitment of staff and computer time and as movements from one year to the next are rarely of statistical significance we accepted that it should be sufficient to provide them every two years."
      That is under the family expenditure survey. The report continued:
      "The immediate effect…would be to enable the Department to apply its resources to the analysis of the extremely valuable data obtained from the Family Finances Survey."
      816
      There was a meeting of the Social Services Select Committee recently. The Committee had given the Government a list of questions to answer. Question 16(b) related to recent and expected rates of take-up of social security benefit.
      The Government answered that question and included the table for 1977. That table contains most of the figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen today. It states that in 1977 only 73 per cent. of pensioners were thought to be receiving supplementary benefit. That left 610,000 pensioners missing out on £100 million a year. That worked out at £3·10 a week that these 600,000 pensioners were missing out on. Those are 1977 figures.
      The footnote to the table stated that estimates based on the 1979 family expenditure survey and the 1978 family finances survey would be available later in the year.
      The Minister quoted from figures for 1979. If there are more up-to-date figures for the take-up of benefits—four years out of date is unsatisfactory for a debate—why cannot we have them? Why did not the Select Committee have them? If the Minister has them, I should be grateful if she would ensure that they are put in the Library as soon as possible.
      Mr. Ennals: I intervene only because I am a member of the Select Committee, and the Select Committee met yesterday. We questioned civil servants in the Department on these very matters. It became clear that, as a result of legislation passed by the Government, there will be a substantial increase in the numbers who will be entitled, and will need, to claim supplementary benefit. Is it not obvious that the Government should accept the new clause because of the extra need?
      Mr. Rooker: That is one reason for raising the issue. The Government are in the business of cutting benefits in real terms and of vastly increasing the numbers eligible for supplementary benefit. The Social Security (No. 2) Act last year shifted between 70,000 and 80,000 unemployed persons on to supplementary benefit. Therefore, the numbers eligible for supplementary benefit have increased.
      Having referred to the up-to-dateness of the figures, I want now to refer to some of the surveys that have been mentioned. Many related to the attendance allowance. In February 1980 a question was asked regarding what research the Department had
      "undertaken into the numbers of people eligible to claim attendance allowance; and how much additional expenditure would be required if take-up of the benefit were equal to the numbers eligible."
      The former Minister for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), said that no research had been undertaken. He then quoted figures from 1971 of the numbers thought to be eligible. That was about the time that the attendance allowance was introduced by the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
      "There is no evidence that there is any significant further number who are entitled but fail to claim the allowance." —[Official Report, 12 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 628.]
      I have a summary of four local surveys by the Disability Alliance relating to the attendance allowance. In Harlow, 117 people were interviewed at a training centre. The outcome of the advice was known in 100 cases. At the start of the survey, 28 people were receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance. After the survey, 44 people were receiving it—an increase of 57 per cent.

      817
      In one project, at Leeds, at the start of the survey 10 people were receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance. After the survey, 14 people were receiving it. Again, that was a substantial increase in percentage terms.
      Similar increases were recorded in a north Yorkshire project. I understand that there was also a significant project in Bradford.
      I do not think that it is right to quote constituency cases from the Dispatch Box, but I know of one case where, five years after the attendance allowance had been granted, it was reviewed and although the circumstances had not changed, was withdrawn. I saw the form filled in by the doctor who visited my constituent at home. In answer to the question "What other relatives live in the house?", he had written "Father and brother" instead of "Husband and son." There were only three people in the house—father, mother and son. When constituents see that kind of mistake made by the doctor filling in the form, they become doubtful about the rest of the comments on the form relating to the capability of the claimant. I have taken this up not with the Minister's office, but with the Blackpool office, as I am sure she would expect me to do initially.
      I want to refer briefly to the question of fraud and abuse, which has been touched on by all who have spoken in the debate. Indeed, the Minister kicked off with it. The charge that we make is that over-concentration on fraud and abuse—we do not condone fraud and abuse, as we have made clear—people are put off claiming benefit.
      7.15 pm
      The Secretary of State's hands are not clean on this issue. Obviously he has other duties today, because he has not attended the debate. On 21 November 1978, the right hon. Gentleman, three times in the space of four columns in Hansard—I shall put the quotations on record not because they are short, but because they need to be pointed out—said:
      "However, we all know that many of the people are not reached. We all know that there is a good deal of abuse…We must strengthen the investigatory machinery and curb abuses of the system…Because it is known that abuse is widespread, people are reluctant to find themselves labelled as scroungers." — [Official Report. 21 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 1137–40.]
      Three times in four columns—about ten minutes of speech—from this Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman lent his name to that campaign.
      The last point to which I want to refer concerns the feeling in the Department engendered by the campaign. There is an excellent quotation from a civil servant who is in charge—if not now, he was a year ago—of the fraud and abuse campaign. He is the same civil servant who was in charge when the Labour Party was in Government—Mr. Arthur Howell. I understand that he is in charge of C3, which I presume is the branch of the DHSS dealing with fraud and abuse. I want to quote from Mr. Howell talking of how his staff perceive their job. I shall give the source of the quotation when I have put it on record. He said:
      "When I came to this job, I must say I'd been brainwashed by the media into thinking that as far as special investigation went, anyone who took that kind of job on must be a rather quirky kind of character, and I think it's really much more earthy than that; that the job gives freedom from office routines, they have to work unpleasant hours but to some extent they can control those hours and get variety in them; there's the chance of travel and car allowances, let's face it, and perhaps most of all there's the chance which at that sort of level in the Department is maybe rarer that it should be of exercising one's own initiative and
      818
      judgment. I think all that kind of thing attracts people, and one of the things that pleases me most about the way certainly fraud work has developed in recent years, is that a few years ago it was a Cinderella subject and it was very difficult to persuade anyone to take the job up, now in the light of the improved commitment by the Department, fraud work is regarded as quite an interesting challenge and one iin which one will get a decent level of support up the line."
      I would have hoped that it would not move from the Cinderella to the key post for advancement in the Department. Clearly the Cinderella part of the DHSS is the aspect of improving the take-up of benefits. Mr. Howell was speaking about a year ago on the "File on Four" programme on Radio 4 on Wednesday 12 March 1980.
      For the avoidance of any doubt about our commitment, I want to add one final point. I hope that it will be seen in the positive spirit in which it is meant. It might create work for people; that is one of the problems. We know that our debates are recorded. We certainly hope that many of the points made in the debate will be used by the media tomorrow.
      I suggest to any members of the public—old, disabled or whatever—who are in any doubt about their entitlement to benefit to get a piece of paper, to put their name and address clearly on it, and to write "Dear Sir, Will you check whether I am entitled to social security benefit?" Put it in an envelope marked "MP for area so-and-so"—it is not necessary to know the name of the constituency; the rough geographical area will do—and address it to the House of Commons, London SW1. We know that the excellent staff in the House of Commons Library and Post Office will track down that person's Member of Parliament, and then he or she can play a role in seeking to improve the uptake of benefits. That is what the new clause is all about—positive help to the hundreds of thousands of people who are not getting their legal entitlement.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I shall speak for only a moment, merely to take up something that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said. At the beginning of his speech he made a promise that he has yet to fulfil. He promised me faithfully that he would give way. He never did. He congratulated the Minister on her reply and said what a good Minister she is. I agree. She failed to give way to me, but I make no complaint about that, because she made no promise to me.
      I also want to correct a matter of fact. When the Minister was answering my hon. Friend she said that the Government had put in so many billions of pounds—whatever the sum was—to support the National Health Service and social welfare services. She went on to say that we who work and pay taxes pay for them. May I correct her? What she said was only partly true. We who work pay taxes—yes—but every man and woman in this country pays taxes, including the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, because—and here is the point—if they buy anything they now have double tax to pay. The war-disabled pensioner—with one leg or no legs—and those who do not have enough money to pay income tax pay a double tax virtually every time they purchase anything. That applies also to some children, for example, when they have a meal out. So the Minister should not say that it is the man who is working or paying income tax who pays. She should say that every man, woman and many children pay for these various services. They are paid for by everyone in the country.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
      The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 276

      Division No. 183]

      [7.23 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Adams, Allen

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Allaun, Frank

      Ford, Ben

      Alton, David

      Forrester, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Foster, Derek

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foulkes, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'W'd)

      Ashton, Joe

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey.)

      Freud, Clement

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      George, Bruce

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beith, A. J.

      Graham, Ted

      Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Buchan, Norman

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Homewood, William

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Hooley, Frank

      Campbell, Ian

      Horam, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howells, Geraint

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coleman, Donald

      John, Brynmor

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Crowther, J. S.

      Kerr, Russell

      Cryer, Bob

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lambie, David

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Lamond, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Litherland, Robert

      Deakins, Eric

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dempsey, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dewar, Donald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dobson, Frank

      McElhone, Frank

      Dormand, Jack

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Douglas, Dick

      McKelvey, William

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dubs, Alfred

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      McNally, Thomas

      Dunnett, Jack

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Magee, Bryan

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Marshall, (G'gow S'ton)

      English, Michael

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maxton, John

      Ewing, Harry

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Field, Frank

      Meacher, Michael

      Fitch, Alan

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Fitt, Gerard

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flannery, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      820

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Morton, George

      Stoddart, David

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Stott, Roger

      Newens, Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Parry, Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Penhaligon, David

      Tilley, John

      Prescott, John

      Tinn, James

      Race, Reg

      Torney, Tom

      Radice, Giles

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Richardson, Jo

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Watkins, David

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Weetch, Ken

      Robertson, George

      Wellbeloved, James

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Welsh, Michael

      Rooker, J. W.

      White, Frank R.

      Roper, John

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Whitlock, William

      Ryman, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sandelson, Neville

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sever, John

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Winnick, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Woodall, Alec

      Silverman, Julius

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

      Spearing, Nigel

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Alison, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Ancram, Michael

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Arnold, Tom

      Chapman, Sydney

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Churchill, W. S.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Banks, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Colvin, Michael

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Cope, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Corrie, John

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Critchley, Julian

      Best, Keith

      Crouch, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blackburn, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Blaker, Peter

      Dover, Denshore

      Body, Richard

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Eggar, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Elliott, Sir William

      Brinton, Tim

      Emery, Peter

      Brittan, Leon

      Eyre, Reginald

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Farr, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fell, Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      821

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mellor, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Fox, Marcus

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Fry, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Moate, Roger

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Monro, Hector

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Goodhew, Victor

      Moore, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morgan, Geraint

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Greenway, Harry

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

      Mudd, David

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Grist, Ian

      Myles, David

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parris, Matthew

      Heddle, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Henderson, Barry

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Porter, Barry

      Hooson, Tom

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhodes James, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Knox, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Latham, Michael

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lee, John

      Rost, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Luce, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Sims, Roger

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Spence, John

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Major, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, John

      Mates, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stevens, Martin

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stokes, John

      822

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wall, Patrick

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Waller, Gary

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Walters, Dennis

      Tebbit, Norman

      Ward, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Warren, Kenneth

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Watson, John

      Thompson, Donald

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wells, Bowen

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wheeler, John

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Trippier, David

      Whitney, Raymond

      Trotter, Neville

      Wickenden, Keith

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waddington, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wakeham, John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      BENEFITS FOR THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
      'The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed with special reference to the level and duration of unemployment benefit and the Level of supplementary benefit paid to the long-term unemployed, and this report shall be laid before Parliament.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—"Long-term benefits".
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I commend these two important new clauses to the House. Yesterday, in Committee, we debated provisions in the Finance Bill that will help some of the wealthiest and most fortunate people in Britain. Today's debate is about people who are among the poorest and least fortunate in our society. It is a debate about the poverty and unmerited hardship of people who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own. It is about the claims of the chronically sick and disabled who find themselves in what has now rightly become known as the invalidity trap.
      New clause 3 calls for a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee on the financial implications of the long-term unemployed. Last July, the Secretary of State for Employment was reported by The Sunday Times as saying that he would make unemployment his next great priority. Since then there has been a further sharp and disastrous rise in unemployment, with the certainty of even worse figures to come. That rise has rapidly increased the numbers of the long-term unemployed. Moreover, the poverty that unemployment so often brings is worst among the long-term unemployed with children.
      Last November, the Government deliberately chose to cut the incomes of such families. The cut in unemployment benefits and the new and less generous basis for the uprating of the children's additions inflicted a pay cut of £2·80 a week—£145·60 in a full year—on an unemployed family with two children. That was a shabby

      823
      and indefensible cut in living standards, imposed by a Government who have been consistently and extremely generous to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers.
      As unemployment is forecast to rise to much higher levels, Ministers should recall the concern of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about
      "the prospect of so many children being raised in the atmosphere of social and material deprivation which unemployment so often brings."
      Ministers should also recall the argument put forward in an editorial in The Times which said that the Government
      "has an obligation to protect the hardest hit groups from the consequences of the recession."
      The long-term unemployed are incontrovertibly among the hardest hit groups. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is wrong that such people should continue to be discriminated against by the 5 per cent. abatement in benefits and by their exclusion from all the help that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit could confer.
      As I said, new clause 3, the case for which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will be returning to if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calls only for a report to the House on the current financial difficulties of the long-term unemployed. In all conscience, that is a modest request which I hope some Conservative Members will support.
      Among the long-term unemployed are large numbers of disabled people who passionately want to work. Many of them now feel that they are denied even the hope that they will ever work again. In the words of an ex-fitter, now registered blind, who is taking part in the people's march for jobs from Liverpool to London, he and many other disabled people feel that they will never again have
      "the right to work, the right to dignity and the right to provide for ourselves".
      New clause 4 deals with another of the hardest hit groups, namely, those who because of long-term sickness or disability cannot work, and who must rely for their incomes on invalidity pensions. They find themselves painfully caught in the invalidity trap. The trap arises where invalidity pensioners have an income above that which would qualify them for supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate but which falls below what they would receive if they were eligible for supplementary benefit at the long-term rate. Since they do not qualify for the benefit at the ordinary rate, they can never qualify for it at the long-term rate. Their problem is unquestionably long-term and they have lower incomes than the Government themselves regard as necessary for people in their circumstances.
      The Government keep changing their mind on the numbers of people now caught in the trap. To begin with, they said that there are 100,000 who are trapped. In Committee they said that the number was 70,000. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 15 April the Minister of State reverted to the figure of 100,000. A substantial number of widows are also affected and I speak also for them tonight. We are thus talking of deprivation on a very considerable scale.
      It is also important to understand that the invalidity trap has worsened in recent years for three reasons. First, the gap between the ordinary and the long-term rates of supplementary benefit has widened. More people are,
      824
      therefore, caught in between. In October 1973, when the long-term rate was introduced, it was worth 10·3 per cent. more than the ordinary rate for a married couple. It is now worth 25·6 per cent. more. In money terms, the gap has widened from £1·20 to £8·85.
      The second reason why the trap has worsened is that the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit last November reduced its value relative to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and has in consequence increased the number of people caught in the trap. In fact, the Government first gave their estimate of 100,000 even before the 5 per cent. abatement.
      Thirdly, the trap has worsened because before last November invalidity pensioners whose incomes were slightly above the supplementary benefit level were eligible for occasional lump sum payments under the supplementary benefits scheme to meet exceptional needs. Now such payments are confined to people restricted to weekly supplementary benefit. This restriction has increased the financial penalties of being caught in the trap. Again, it must be emphasised that the loss to an invalidity pensioner who is caught in the invalidity trap is much greater than the difference between the two rates of supplementary benefit. There is also the loss of weekly additions for heating and diet, free prescriptions and many other entitlements.
      Many examples could be given of the effect of the invalidity trap on some of the most hard-pressed families in Britain today. I shall give just one example, that of the family of a man who is long-term sick. He and his wife, who live in Newham, get £54·35 invalidity benefit and £4·75 child benefit a week making £59·10 in all. Their rent is high but £9·20 of it is not covered by supplementary benefit as they have a working child and another child who is disabled and not in receipt of supplementary benefit living with them. Their supplementary benefit entitlement, including an additional requirement for central heating, is £57·60. They are £1·70 a week over the short-term supplementary benefit limit but will always be £7·15 a week worse off when compared with the long-term supplementary benefit rate. The difference, therefore, is a very punishing one for that family.
      The Government will say that this is unfortunate—I think that "unpalatable" was the Secretary of State's word to describe the effect on such families of his cut in invalidity benefit—but that the cost of releasing them from the invalidity trap at £15 million a year is too high.
      There are two answers that the Government must be given. The first is that the cost is a mere 7½ per cent. of the £200 million which the Government are saving by the provisions of clause 1 of this shoddy little Bill. Indeed, it is £1 million more than the amount saved in a full year on invalidity benefit alone in consequence of the 1 per cent. clawback. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was totally justified in calling that "peanuts" in Committee.
      The second answer to the Government deserves to be put even more pointedly. How can Ministers who, on a single day, crammed £.1,400 million into the pockets of the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers, many of whom never have to lift a finger to "earn" their incomes, even begin to justify the denial of supplementary benefit on the long-term rate to the families of men who are long-term sick and disabled?
      Or again, how can they possibly justify the quite brutal pay cut of 5 per cent. imposed on Britain's 650,000

      825
      invalidity pensioners? For the poor they cut social benefits; for the rich they cut taxes. That is their kind of equity. To govern is to choose and this Government have chosen to help the richest taxpayers at the cost of hurting some of the poorest of those who, because of sickness and disability, can no longer work.
      New clause 4 is very much like the new clause that was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). It has the same effect. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place tonight. He takes a close interest in these subjects and the hon. Gentleman's speech in Committee is one well worth reading by every Conservative Member. I honour him both for the boldness of his advocacy and the obvious sincerity of his feelings on this important matter.
      The hon. Gentleman recalled that in the manifesto on which he stood for election to this House in May 1979, and on which every Minister in this Government was elected, it was pledged that the worst-off would be protected from the problems facing the country. He said:
      "Yet it appears that we are doing precisely the reverse of what we said in respect of the disabled." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G;24 March 1981, c. 232.]
      That was his charge against the Government. It was a grave one. I hope that he will have the opportunity of documenting it further tonight. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that, instead of protecting the chronically sick and disabled, the Government have been doing precisely the reverse to large numbers of the most vulnerable of them.
      The hon. Gentleman was much informed in his submission by the excellent brief prepared by Mr. John Wilson of Disability Alliance. John Wilson has won the respect of all of us who are concerned and have been concerned over the years, on both sides of the House, about the problems and needs of the disabled. I shall quote just three sentences from his brief:
      "The Conservative Government came to power pledged to improve benefits and services for disabled people. Instead it has cut them. Of all the measures which have affected the standard of living of disabled people, the 5 per cent. abatement has had the sharpest effect on the greatest number."
      John Wilson and his colleagues, the Disablement Income Group and the all-party disablement group in this House, like many other organisations and groups, will be delighted if tonight we can win approval for the very modest requirements that are imposed by the new clauses. I most warmly commend them to the House.
      Mr. Ennals: I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in his condemnation of the Government's performance in relation to the disabled during this International Year of Disabled People. I shall concentrate particularly on new clause 3, which I warmly welcome. When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which was the predecessor of the Social Security Advisory Committee, considered the matter and strongly recommended to me and to the Government that the long-term unemployed should receive long-term supplementary benefit. I warmly agreed. However, that was one of those battles with the Treasury which one inevitably lost at the time, when we succeeded in getting a higher level of child benefit than the Conservative Party was prepared to concede. We win some battles and lose others.
      The issue today is far more important than it was two years ago when I was Secretary of State. There are two
      826
      reasons. The first is the Government's decision to cut back the level of benefit for the unemployed and to tax the increases in benefit, whatever those benefits might be. Those issues were discussed earlier this week on the Finance Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I opposed the proposals and we were defeated on each one.
      The unemployed are not only much greater in number today, but they are poorer than they have been for several decades. As a result of the action taken by the Government, the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed on supplementary benefit, are suffering much more than they were before.
      I wish to develop the second argument. It concerns the massive increase in the number of long-term unemployed. In January 1979 in the United Kingdom 334,000 people had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks, or a year. There were 246,000 people who had been unemployed for between 26 weeks and 52 weeks—between six months and a year. They were moving towards long-term unemployment if one assumes that the long-term unemployed had been out of work for more than a year.
      That was bad enough two years ago. However, today the situation is dramatically worse. In January 1981 an extra 100,000 people had been unemployed for over 52 weeks. The actual figure was 430,000. The number of those unemployed for between 26 and 52 weeks had leapt by more than 200,000 in that two-year period. The total number in that category was 460,000. Therefore, if one takes the two figures together, in January 1979 480,000 people had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. The situation has become substantially worse since January 1981, which is the latest time for which I have figures. The figure was not 480,000, but 890,000. Therefore, it has nearly doubled.
      Therefore, if we are concerned with the long-term unemployed, the House must recognise that we are now dealing with a dramatically different problem from the one with which we dealt before. In our unemployment figures we were often dealing with people who were moving from one job to another. Sometimes it took them a considerable time to do so because they wanted to find the right job. Now the right jobs do not exist. The people who now become unemployed to a large extent become permanently unemployed. It will be found from the statistics that that happens in almost every age group, especially in two age groups—the young, that is, those up to the age of 30, particularly young parents, and older people over the age of 50 whose expectations of getting a job are small.
      The longer the unemployment figures remain at the present level, the higher will be the proportion of people who are long-term unemployed. My fear and sad expectation is that those figures will continue to rise substantially above the present figure of 2½ million. It may be more than a year before we see any improvement in the unemployment figures. Whatever the increase in the present number of unemployed, even if it were to stay at the present figure, we must expect that the number of people who will be long-term unemployed will be rising month by month. Those are the people we are discussing in the new clause.
      Many people who have become unemployed are seeking jobs and failing to get them, even at a much reduced level of income. I was horrified to see that the Department of Employment circulates a form to the unemployed which contains the following question:
      "What is the lowest income you are prepared to accept?"

      827
      It is appalling that people are being asked what is the smallest figure they would accept in order to take a job, regardless of their experience and background.
      That is a problem in my constituency in Norwich. We have seen an increase of 85 per cent. in unemployment in the past two years. That has shown a great increase in the number of long-term unemployed. The city is not used to unemployment, and it now has unemployment at a level which is not only unacceptable but far higher than it has ever had in its history.
      The plight of the unemployed is much worse. Any savings which they may have made over their years of employment are likely to have been used up purely for survival, particularly because the level of benefit has been reduced by the Government. The Government have cut benefit increases to below the level of inflation. Now the benefits are to be taxed and, furthermore, those people are to suffer a delay in their tax rebates, which is another disgraceful action which has been taken this week.
      There is now real hardship among the long-term unemployed such as we have not known for the past 50 years. The least the Government could do is to show some awareness of the massive human problem which has largely been created by Government policies. At least it would be something if they were to accept the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe.
      The Social Security Advisory Committee should be asked sympathetically to consider the problem and to report to the House. We would then be better informed. I would be staggered to hear any serious arguments from Conservative Members on why that newly established committee, which is to succeed the independent, forward-looking and often critical Supplementary Benefits Commission, should not be given that vital task.
      8 pm
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I endorse the views and sentiments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). We are concerned about the unemployed and disabled, who are the most vulnerable in our society. Neither new clause asks for the moon. They ask for information that may lead to additional cash being given to those in greatest need.
      Both my right hon. Friends referred to the plight and the poverty of the long-term unemployed. Last Monday in Stoke-on-Trent I joined the people's march for jobs. There has been much talk of what the people on the march are like, what they feel, what they do and who they are. I talked to them. They are men and women of great dignity, who feel deep anger at what they see as the Government's maltreatment. We all argue about who or what is responsible for unemployment. But an interesting comment was made when the march stopped in my constituency. Among the many speeches, the best was by the rector of Stoke-on-Trent. He delivered a devastating indictment of Government policy, and one comment stuck in my mind. He said that the Prime Minister said that she had no magic wand, which she has not, but she does have a Cabinet, and it is the Cabinet that should take action about unemployment. How true that is. The Government must accept responsibility for the consequences of unemployment.
      828
      Dealing first with the new clause 3, the long-term unemployed are in greatest need, and it is illogical and unfair to deny them the long-term rate of benefit. The number of long-term unemployed is growing. It is estimated at nearly 900,000, and if the trend continues it will soon be 1 million. The Government have a responsibility to do something for these people. My constituency has always had high unemployment, but in the last year unemployment has doubled. In constituencies not used to unemployment there is a deep feeling that the growing army of long-term unemployed should receive long-term supplementary benefit.
      Turning to new clause 4, invalidity pensioners are in a Catch-22 situation. They cannot qualify for the normal rate of supplementary benefit and they cannot qualify for the long-term rate. That position is untenable. The anomaly was brought home vividly by David Donnison when he was running the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The argument goes on ad infinitum. The number involved may be 90,000 or 100,000—I see it as a full Wembley stadium, watching, say, a poor Welsh or Scottish side, say 90,000 of disabled people who are being denied the long-term supplementary benefit, or a full stadium watching an English side could be as many as 100,000. It is inexcusable that so many people are denied the benefit.
      If people are suffering because they are disabled or unemployed for a long time it is indefensible and anomalous to refuse them the benefit. It is a plain and simple point. In Committee, the Government produced a disingenuous and preposterous argument about taxes that would be later introduced. Their argument cannot be sustained.
      We are not asking for an immediate payment. The new clauses ask only for a report. There could not be a more modest proposal before the House. The Government should be condemned if they reject it.
      I thought that I might be speaking after the admirable hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). I shall not embarrass him with too many compliments. I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always admire his views. I shall not speak for him, but hon. Members on both sides of the House sympathise with the aims of the new clauses. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.
      Mr. Race: I shall try to be as brief as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
      I wish to deal primarily with new clause 3, which concerns the long-term unemployed. The Government can and should take action. Our request is modest. We should like a report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) made it clear that the number of long-term unemployed is rapidly increasing. In January 1981, 10 per cent. of the under-25s had been unemployed for over 52 weeks. In the 25-to-54 age group it was 20 per cent. and for the over-55s it was 37 per cent. Young men and women just out of school suffer unemployment, but it gets worse as people get older.
      All my right hon. and hon. Friends want the long-term unemployed to get the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. The request should command respect and support from the House, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will implement it. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's recent report said in paragraph 3.20:

      829
      "We regard this discrimination against the unemployed and their families as wrong, and its removal is our highest priority for the improvement of the supplementary benefits scheme."
      That is what the Supplementary Benefits Commission said before it was disbanded. I hope that that is also the Government's principal objective in improving the supplementary benefits scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is, and when the Government will introduce the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for the long-term unemployed.
      Many of the unemployed do not receive any benefit. At the last count, 291,000 people did not receive supplementary benefit or national insurance unemployment benefit. That is 15·4 per cent. of the total number of unemployed at that time. Those people are in desperate straits. Some of them are among the long-term unemployed, but others are not. However, we must ensure that all the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, receive a State benefit in order to support themselves. There is nothing worse than a shoddy income, or no income at all, if a person is desperately looking for a job.
      The long-term unemployed seem to do worse than others in terms of receiving additions to their benefits. For example, offical Government statistics show that only 6 per cent. of the unemployed receive exceptional circumstances additions to their benefits, compared to 20 per cent. of widows and 33 per cent. of the sick and disabled. Those are the most recent figures that I could find. They come from the Government's 1972 social security statistics. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has more up-to-date information. It would seem that their ability to claim additional benefits is more restricted. Why is it that DHSS offices do not seem to give the same proportion of exceptional circumstances additions to the unemployed?
      The problem of the long-term unemployed cannot be separated from the climate in which the Government operate. In 12 months, the Government have increased unemployment by 65 per cent. During the same period unemployment in OECD countries has increased by only 15 per cent. The Government have created mass unemployment. Hundreds and thousands of people will not be able to find jobs in the forseeable future. The Government's policy on social security means that they are attacking the benefits of the unemployed.
      Last year there was a cut of 5 per cent. in unemployment benefit as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. The phased abolition of earnings-related supplement has also been announced. It is to be abolished in January 1982. On average, that provides £8·80 per week additional supplement to the national insurance standard rate of unemployment benefit. From some Government quarters we have heard the exraordinary suggestion that unemployment registration should become voluntary. I hope that the Minister will make a statement tonight on the relation between that and the accrual and payment of benefit.
      8.15 pm
      The climate is also being influenced by the activities of some officers in some DHSS offices and by activities in other parts of the social security system. For example, some of the long-term unemployed attend a DHSS reception centre in Camberwell. Recently a "Nationwide" reporter went to that reception centre and tried to obtain admission. When a long-term unemployed person who is
      830
      down and out goes to the reception centre, he is deloused. All a man's clothes are taken from him. The "Nationwide" reporter had all his clothes taken from him and was put through the delousing treatment. While he was naked, he was interviewed by a DHSS official about his entitlement to benefit.
      If that is the way in which people are treated, hon. Members should ensure that immediate remedial action is taken. I am sure that such practices are abhorrent to hon. Members. We should get rid of them as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action has been taken as a result of that "Nationwide" report to improve and humanise the degrading policies and practices of that reception centre.
      The problem of the long-term unemployed will not go away. Because of the Government's policies, it will get worse. We must ensure that we pay the long-term unemployed the benefits to which they are entitled. Eventually, we must find them jobs through the recreation of full employment.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like other hon. Members, I shall try to be brief. I hope that the Minister will brush aside the new clauses and announce that he intends to do as we have asked. After all, we do not need a review, because we know that an overwhelming case can be made for allowing such people to move quickly on to the long-term rates. However, if the Minister cannot concede that, perhaps he will tell the House why there is a long-term rate and a short-term rate of benefit. Perhaps he will carefully' explain the principle behind those rates and whether I have misunderstood it.
      The two rates are supposed to be the minimum levels necessary in order for a person to keep himself and his family at a reasonable standard. I understand that if someone is on such rates for a short period he will have to meet certain items of expenditure, such as food, rent, mortgage payments and heating and lighting bills. However, it is possible to put off the payment of many other items for the time being. For example, for a while they can put off replacing their clothing, bedding and most household necessities. I understand that that is why the short-term rate is less than the long-term rate. It is accepted that, after a while, people can no longer put off the replacement of clothes and essential household items. Therefore, there are short-term and long-term rates.
      Under the old system a person had to wait two years before moving on to the long-term rate. Many people felt that that was unreasonable. I welcome the fact that the time has been shortened to 12 months, but if that is the principle behind the short-term and long-term rates, why is it that some people cannot move on to the long-term rate regardless of how long they have been on the short-term rate? It is impossible for the unemployed to defer for ever expenditure on certain items. Perhaps the Minister assumes that such people have other sources of income, or perhaps he believes that they should live below the minimum standard.
      New clause 4 refers to the people who are fortunate enough to receive a little more than the short-term supplementary rate. However, because they are never deemed to be on the short-term rate, they never move to the long-term rate. Can they defer for ever items of expenditure which are taken into account for people on the long-term rate? Of course they cannot. That type of

      831
      invalidity benefit means that the recipients lose benefit for ever. Will they never be able to replace clothing and major household equipment?
      To wait six months before transferring from the short-term to the long-term rate is unreasonable but to have to wait for ever is impossible. I hope that the Government will do something about that quickly and not wait for a review.
      Mr. Tom Benyon: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. I referred to the subject on 24 March in Standing Committee. I shall not recycle what I said then. People who are interested in what I said can read the Official Report.
      I thank John Wilson of Disability Alliance for the information that he supplied to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his kind remarks. Being the honest chap and quivering flower that I am in the face of praise, I cannot accept that I have a monopoly of concern on this subject. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), have excellent and long histories of working for the disabled.
      This is the International Year of Disabled People and it would be wrong for pressure groups outside, and constituents who write to us and ask us what we are doing this year, to look solely to the Government to discharge obligations to the disabled. Before people ask anybody what they are doing this year they should ensure that they are doing something. It is far too easy for Governments to accept responsibilities for all elements in society. All citizens should take responsibility, not just in the International Year of Disabled People, but next year when another fashionable subject will take over. The problems of disabled people will not have disappeared next year. If the recession lasts much longer their position will become steadily worse.
      The definition of the invalidity trap has already been given. Between 70,000 and 100,000 people are caught in that trap. The disabled unemployed are the worst-off in our society. The invalidity trap has existed for a long time. I do not wish to make a party political point. I concede that the invalidity trap has become much worse in the last two years. The financial circumstances of the disabled have fallen behind other sectors because other sectors have used pressure groups to win more of our resources. The unemployed disabled who fall into the invalidity trap are several pounds a week worse off.
      Supplementary benefit acts as a passport for many handicapped people and many people on supplementary benefit are, as far as transport, heating, rent, rates and prescriptions are concerned, to name but a few, not only worse off in financial terms but in indirect terms. What has recently made the people in the invalidity trap worse off has been the 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. derating in the invalidity benefit. It is hoped that the position of the disabled, who fall into this invidious category, will be regarded by the Government as having the highest possible priority when resources permit.
      I concede that we are operating in a very difficult climate. Not only are we working against a backcloth of the world recession, but there are the much-vaunted cuts
      832
      which our Government are said to have undertaken. When one analyses the figures across the board one sees that we are spending more in every area. We should not look at one area where the Government have not come up to scratch but at their whole performance as far as the National Health Service is concerned. We have spent considerably more since May 1979 and honoured our electoral pledge that the National Health Service as a whole would not fall behind but that standards would be maintained.
      Before we criticise the Government too harshly in this area we should remember that we have 1,000 more doctors, and 8,000 more nurses and that we have cut hospital waiting lists by 100,000. It would be wrong to home in on the Government and criticise them on one aspect.
      I repeat that the record of the Government as far as the disabled are concerned leaves a lot to be desired. I have been reassured by my hon. Friend that when resources permit he will regard this as having the highest priority.
      To Labour Members I say that we just cannot spend our way out of problems. They have suggested occasionally that we might do that, but we cannot spend our way out of recession and the options, if they were ever open to us, are certainly open to us no longer. We have heard quotations from one of the then Prime Minister's speeches to the Labour Party conference in 1976, which we must all take to heart.
      Mr. Race: It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
      Mr. Benyon: I am grateful for that comment, made by the hon. Member from a sedentary position. Nevertheless I am sure that our Government echo those sentiments. We said in our manifesto that we would protect the worse-off from the worst of the problems facing the country. With regard to the invalidity trap, we have not done that and that trap is getting worse. I used the amendment I tabled in Committee to ventilate the problem. That has been done both in Committee and in this debate this afternoon. We listen with expectation to what my hon. Friend has to say on the subject. I am sure that he will reassure us that the priority with which he regards this is getting higher by the hour.
      Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) says that we are in a difficult climate. The truth is that the Government are making that climate much more difficult as each day passes. They have no policy as far as the long-term unemployed are concerned other than to increase the number who happen to find themselves out of a job for more than 12 months. I am not going to repeat the statistics which have been mentioned, other than to say that the United Kingdom is now in the unenviable position within the European Community, with the exception of the Irish Republic, of having more people out of a job for longer than 12 months. Belgium is trying to catch up quickly with us, but that is not the way in which the Government should be pursuing employment policies. From what has emerged from the Manpower Services Commission in recent years, it is clear that no meaningful measures are being taken on the scale that is required to deal with the growing problem of long-term unemployment.
      8.30 pm
      I notice the presence of the hard man from Bridlington, who served as a member of the Select Committee on

      833
      Employment until taking over as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister. I remind the Minister—in case the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) does not tell him about this daily—that the problem of the longterm unemployed is becoming so serious that I doubt very much whether any Government will be able to eradicate it within the next decade.
      One of the problems about recruitment is that employers are getting so many applicants that they can afford to accept people who are either in a job and want to change or have recently left or lost a job. Once a person has been out of a job for more than six or nine months, and certainly more than 12 months, it becomes exceedingly difficult to get accepted. I have had some experience not only in the trade union movement but in personnel management. That was in a much better employment climate than we are operating in today. Most recruiting officers would tend to play safe and would therefore take the person who has a recent employment record to go by.
      Mr. Race: Is my hon. Friend aware that the professional and executive register sends a newspaper to those who are on the register? The most recent edition stated that the average number of interviews gone through by people before they get a job is now 21.
      Mr. Craigen: Yes, I would accept that. The brunt of the problem in my constituency has been borne by the unskilled and the semi-skilled, although there is growing evidence that many professional groups within the community will now be faced with the prospect of serious long-term unemployment.
      I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I did not interrupt him to ask what his constituency's unemployment percentage was, but I suspect that it is a lot less than that of mine. His contribution reminded me of a Conservative Back Bencher who said recently, "I have 8 per cent. unemployment in my constituency." I thought, "Those were halcyon days in many parts of the country when the rate was only 8 per cent.".
      Perhaps the chickens are coming home to roost. Perhaps the Home Counties are beginning to experience some of the problems that we have had in Wales, Merseyside, Tyneside and the West of Scotland and other parts of the country. Perhaps political pressure will be exerted to do something to reduce long-term unemployment.
      I hope that the Minister will accept these two modest proposals. He will be a very mean-minded man if he does not do so, because they are not asking him to do very much. However, being a politician, he will probably wonder, "What happens if the report is not to my liking?". I suspect that it will be a very unpalatable report. None the less, I trust that he will accept it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) referred to the moves that are afoot to introduce voluntary registration for unemployment. The recent report on the payment of unemployment benefit, published jointly by the DHSS and the Department of Employment, makes frightening reading on how the present Government will handle people who find themselves out of a job. There has also been a review of statistical services in the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, from which it appears that we shall now be
      834
      excluding severely disabled people from the unemployment statistics, along with various other groups of people. The Minister will be able to say, "We do not know what the precise figures are". He will plead ignorance as an excuse for inaction.
      I hope that these two new clauses will be accepted by the Government.
      Mr. James Dempsey: I have heard from time to time statements from Conservative Members of Parliament to the effect that the monopoly of compassion is not on the Opposition side of the House. They say that they also deeply care. If they do, this is their opportunity to demonstrate that care and conviction by approving the two clauses, which have been described as modest proposals—as an effort to assist and protect the unemployed and, of course, the sick. In areas of the West of Scotland where we have unemployment, we do not talk in terms of people being unemployed for six months, but for one year, two years, three years, four years and five years. In the Monklands area I have an engineering training association which has 65 membership companies and not one company took on a single apprentice at the beginning of the session. That is how grave the unemployment situation is in the part of the country where I come from. We are appealing on behalf of these unemployed tonight.
      My hon. Friends have talked about short-term and long-term benefits. I would like to talk about some who do not have either, simply because a ruling was introduced by the social security authorities that meant that a standard charge was levied against all adults in the home, working or not. That has meant that thousands of families are now ineligible to receive supplementary benefits, and, as a consequence, ineligible to receive fringe benefits. I would have developed this argument extensively if my new clause dealing with aids for the partially sighted had been selected. I shall not do so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that to do so would incur your displeasure. I have no intention of doing that this evening but I feel that I must mention that this is one of the most important considerations.
      Where are the resources to be found by unemployed people to provide the essentials of ordinary living? It simply cannot be done on standard rate unemployment benefit. That is why the case has been argued for short term benefits for many who have now been declared ineligible and for long term benefits for most, because of the length of time that they are registering for employment, especially in parts of the West of Scotland.
      Quite apart from the unemployment problem, and the tragedy of the lack of work in these areas, I am always deeply concerned about those who are also in receipt of invalidity benefits. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some of the serious problems that arise. If unemployment and other benefits are cut by 5 per cent. it means a loss of £145 per annum for a husband and wife and two children. I should like the Minister to meet the housewives and to hear from them how they will find the resources to meet the rise in prices.
      One of my saddest experiences arises from a recipient of invalidity benefit. The person I have in mind has had two major operations for malignancy. Although he receives invalidity benefit he has to pay for his medical prescriptions. A person in receipt of invalidity benefit will be told that his income exceeds the supplementary benefit

      835
      scale and therefore he has to pay a proportion of the cost of spectacles, teeth and other aids that may be required and, most shameful of all, prescription charges. The gentleman I am talking about, having had two major operations, has to pay £5 out of his invalidity benefit for five items that have been prescribed by his doctor.
      Mr. Race: Does my hon. Friend recall that last year the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) moved a new clause to the Health Services Bill which sought to exempt invalidity beneficiaries from prescription charges, and that Conservative Members of Parliament went through the Lobby to defeat that proposal? Does not that show that they have no compassion for invalids?
      Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome and helpful intervention. It demonstrates unquestionably that on that issue Conservative Members of Parliament have no caring convictions and no sympathy for these people. They are the very individuals with whom I am concerned. Imagine the erosion in the benefit received by that sick and injured person who has to pay £5 from his invalidity benefit to obtain the medicines that the medical profession regards as indispensable to give him comfort.
      I am not impressed by the argument that when the Government have the resources they will do something about it. We have the resources; we do not have to wait for them. Budgets have shown convincingly that the nation's resources are being unfairly distributed in the interests of the well-off and to the detriment of the needy. On Monday I listened to the debate on the Finance Bill concerning capital transfer tax. Millions of pounds in tax concessions were handed to the well-off landlords and landowners.
      When I was pleading for an increase in the earnings of blind workers in the proceedings on a previous Budget I was told that the country could not afford it. Yet the Government have reduced the taxes of wealthy people from 83p to 60p in the pound. They are handing that money to those wealthy people on a plate. I understand that the total cost in one year is £1,500 million. Why not take back some of that money and give it to the unemployed, the invalidity pensioners, the sick and the needy? They are being discriminated against. I hope that we shall record our opposition to a fiscal policy that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Rossi: All the speeches in this debate have been commendably brief, and I shall try to emulate those hon. Members who have preceded me. However, I have been taken a little off balance because I thought that the main thrust of the Opposition speeches would have concentrated on these two sensitive areas of unemployment benefit and the invalidity trap. That is not the case.
      I shall try to deal with the questions that have been put to me. As is their right, the Opposition chose to concentrate most of their fire on whether or not we should chase up people who are defrauding the social security system, and we spent most of the afternoon discussing matters of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] Well, the record is there for all to see. I have been here all afternoon and I have heard every speech.
      836
      These two new clauses do not call upon the Government to take any positive action at all in respect of these two areas of real concern. All they require is that, in one case, we ask for a report and, in the other, that we bring forward a report within a particular time limit.
      New clause 3 asks the Secretary of State to
      "request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed"
      and so on. We discussed this matter in Committee. Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that I replied to that aspect by saying that it would be undesirable if my right hon. Friend started to tell an advisory committee what it should or should not do. It must be independent, survey the whole social security scene, come to its own conclusion and lay down a programme of work for itself. It would be wrong for us to suggest a programme of piecemeal, ad hoc reports.
      Unfortunately,the hon. member for Refrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) did not serve on the Committee at the time because he was unwell, and we missed him. Had he done so, he would have heard me say that of its own violition the advisory committee has embarked upon a study of this matter and would be reporting in due course. Therefore, there is no need for the clause at all. The work is already in hand, and the report will become available. That is well known to those hon. Members who served on the Committee.
      Labour Members expressed some anxiety about the length of time that it would take before the advisory committee's first annual report saw the light of day. They will recall that I undertook to draw the attention of Sir Arthur Armitage to what was said in Committee. I did so. As a result, an item about the timing of the advisory committee's annual reports appeared on the committee's April agenda, and members of the committee had copies of our remarks before them.
      I am glad to tell the House that the advisory committee hopes to produce its first and subsequent annual reports in time for the Budget debates and succeeding discussions. I hope that those remarks are reassuring.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The House will welcome that statement. What opinion have the Government given the advisory committee so that it may be aware of the Government's view when considering this matter?
      Mr. Rossi: Ministers and officials are in constant touch with the advisory committee and Sir Arthur has regular meetings with us. If the committee wants to know what Government thinking is, that is immediately conveyed to it during the discussions among members of the committee, Sir Arthur Armitage, Ministers and officials. The committee in due course will make known its views, which will be its views and not the Government's views.
      I hope that on that basis the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will accept that new clause 3 is no longer necessary, as the work is already well in hand. The Secretary of State does not have to call for the report because it will be prepared. It would establish an undesirable precedent for my right hon. Friend to suggest to an independent committee what his views are on work that the committee should or should not undertake or the areas that it should or should not investigate. I hope that the House will not press the new clause.
      The new clause is not concerned simply with a report but with the problems of the long-term unemployed. The

      837
      Government are aware of the importance of benefit provision for those who are long-term unemployed at a time when, regrettably—as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said—numbers are increasing in that group. Supplementary benefit has been exempted from the savings that have had to be made in the contributory unemployment benefit. Therefore, the position of the long-term unemployed has been correspondingly safeguarded.
      I know that that answer does not entirely satisfy the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) because he questioned the difference between the long-term and the short-term rates. He explained to me what he thought was the underlying philosophy of the distinction between the two rates. His logic is impeccable. He is correct in his analysis of the reason for the difference.
      The long-term rate is a recognition that, after being on supplementary benefit for some time, claimants can be expected to have extra expenses over and above their normal day-to-day living expenses provided by the short-term scale rates. As pensioners are invariably long-term claimants, they receive the long-term rate from the beginning of their claim. However, all other claimants, except the unemployed, become entitled to the long-term rate after one year. That includes the long-term sick and single parents.
      The House will recall that last November the Government improved the supplementary benefits scheme, especially for families with children. The number of children's scale rates were reduced from five to three and in merging the rates the higher rate in each case became the new rate. Families with children under five years or aged 11 and 12 gained from that change. Householders with under-fives are now entitled automatically to the heating addition of £1·40 a week.
      The qualifying period for the higher rate was reduced from two years to one. Although that did not affect the children's rates directly, many families benefited by up to £5·85 a week as a result. Among those particularly helped by this measure were lone parents, who also benefited from the introduction of a tapered earnings disregard which left them up to £6 a week better off. We estimate that the majority of the half million who gained up to several pounds a week as a result of the November 1980 changes were families with children.
      Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that the Tories have concern for those who are badly off and, within the resources available, do their best to make provision where it is most needed.
      I accept that there is an argument for extending the long-term rates to the unemployed, but the change would cost more than £100 million at current benefit rates. We cannot contemplate that until we get the economy right.
      Our predecessors were aware of this problem. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put a question on this matter to the then Minister for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), to which the answer was:
      "National insurance unemployment benefit extends for 12 months. A person unemployed for longer than 12 months must rely on supplementary benefit, but this is never paid to the unemployed at the higher long-term rate. It is a high priority to improve benefits for the long-term unemployed, but such improvements are costly. It would cost £35 million a year at constant prices to extend the long-term rate of supplemetary benefit to those on supplementary benefit for two years. Giving
      838
      all people under pension age the long-term rate after one year would cost £85 million a year at constant prices."—[Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 603.]
      Mr. Ashley: The Minister is right to criticise the Labour Government for doing nothing about this issue. We are guilty of having done nothing. However, that is no argument for doing nothing now. Both the Labour and Conservative Governments are wrong. There can be no justification. Why can we not have a change now?
      Mr. Rossi: I am not criticising the Labour Government for having done nothing in this area.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are.
      Mr. Rossi: The problem that has been presented to me on the Floor of the House relating to the long-term rate benefit for the unemployed is not new. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have looked at it and wanted to deal with it, but there has been a financial obstacle. In March 1979 the cost was £85 million a year. Today, the cost at constant prices is over £100 million a year. The problem has increased; it has not gone away. Larger numbers are involved. We are not arguing about that. That is the situation in which the Government find themselves, as did the Labour Government. We accept that the problem needs to be corrected as soon as resources become available. They were not available to the Labour Administration, and they are not yet available to us.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister at least admit that the Government have made the position infinitely worse by the 5 per cent. abatement? Indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) emphasised that the problem had been compounded by the Government's actions.
      Mr. Rossi: I do not know to what extent I am in order in going into the 5 per cent. abatement, because it was discussed in great depth on Monday in Committee on the Finance Bill. It was pointed out that all parties agreed that these were taxable benefits and that they should be brought into tax.
      At that time the economic difficulties had to be recognised and savings made. Those benefits that ought to be taxed were subject to the 5 per cent. abatement. The whole matter was gone into.
      9 pm
      One realises why this happened, and it is not because anyone takes pleasure in doing it. One wants the matter to be put right as quickly as possible, but we have to get the economy right first. The money has to be there before we can spend it. That is all that I am saying. That is the problem that faced the last Government with this long-term rate, and the same problem faces this Government.
      As things improve—the Prime Minister says that they are beginning to improve—we shall be able to deal 'with these problems, which have perplexed and bedevilled both Administrations. They are not to be laid simply at the door of this Administration because we are convenient Aunt Sallies for Opposition Members. We must maintain a sense of fairness and proportion, and recognise the real difficulties that now face the country.
      The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) asked me several questions. He asked about the registration and benefit entitlement. The Rayner unemployment study proposes that the registration should no longer be a condition of benefit entitlement for adults. It is a proposal

      839
      only, but if it were adopted in due course by the Government, after having considered the administrative requirements that would be needed to put it into effect, it would not in any way diminish benefit entitlement. Entitlement will depend on being capable and available for work. The registration condition is, as Rayner argued, more symbolic than significant.
      On the question of reception treatment, I did not have the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman had to see the Nationwide programme, so I do not know the details. I shall look into the matter. I do not like answering such questions off the cuff, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. If what he said is true, I would say that there is a prima facie case for disciplinary action to be taken against the official concerned. However, I do not know the whole story. I only know what the hon. Gentleman has said. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to prejudge the matter.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned also the numbers of unemployed people who are registered as such but who, apparently, are not in receipt of a benefit. That is because fluctuating groups of people come on the register and begin to get benefits. Some claims have been made but not settled. There is a transitional period while they are registered but not yet in benefit. There are people who are disqualified for a period of six weeks. There are the people who were formerly self-employed and with resources above the supplementary benefit level. There are those in receipt of payments, which means that benefit is not immediately payable—for example, compensation for loss of wages. If all those groups are added together, there is an apparent gap in the figures, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
      On that basis, therefore, I hope that the House will recognise that new clause 3 is both unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances.
      New clause 4 concerns the anomaly of the so-called invalidity trap. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has championed thatcause for some time. He has raised the matter in Committee and also on the Floor of the House. He has been supported by Opposition Members. It concerns him deeply and he is never slow to bring it to the attention of Ministers. I agree that it is an anomaly that needs correction. Figures have been bandied about the Chamber. Our best estimate is that about 100,000 would become entitled to the long-term rate after one year on incapacity benefit. On current levels of take-up, about 70,000 might be expected to claim. At November 1980 benefit rates the annual cost would be £15 million a year. The additional administrative costs to my Department are estimated at 250 additional staff in the first year, with about 150 additional staff in subsequent years.
      The Government are well aware of the problem. Only last November the qualifying period for long-term rates was reduced from two years to one year. At the same time we relaxed the rules to enable 16- and 17-year-old recipients of non-contributory invalidity pension to count periods in receipt of that benefit towards the qualifying period for long-term rates. That was a modest, but nevertheless indicative step, which showed our attitude towards the problem, and an earnest of our good intention to deal with the matter when resources become available.
      We need no prompting from Opposition Members to examine the problem. However, our resources are limited
      840
      and before we can decide upon such a change, with the sum of money that would be involved, we must first generate the wealth to pay for it. When the economy is on a sound footing once more we can deal with matters that we regard as of priority.
      Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief because we have made pledges to the House about the brevity of the debate, and we shall have another piece of the action tomorrow. I want to make one or two points about the Minister's speech. I do not know whether I should, in all honour, be expected to be brief following the Minister's opening remarks that he had expected us to concentrate on new clauses 3 and 4 and that we had, by inference, wasted our time in dealing with aspects of fraud and other matters.
      That was not true. It was an extremely important debate which covered a wide range of matters. It managed to elicit the attitudes and the differences on both sides of the House. It was a revealing debate. We had to vote because we received little change from the Government. The debate was both necessary and timely. We apologise only for having spent less time on this debate, not that we spent more time on the previous debate.
      There was little recognition in the Minister's speech that we were dealing with 2½ million unemployed—and, in real terms, we have reached the 3 million mark by any count. That did not seem to enter the Minister's consciousness. One reason for the anger on the Labour Benches is the speed with which the unemployment figure has been reached—an additional 1 million in one year. That is largely because of their own actions. Despite that, the Minister wishes me to accept blame along with the Labour Administration. I resigned from that Administration but their actions were not causing the then unemployment. That is the great difference.
      In November 1980 there were 825,000 unemployed who were relying on supplementary benefit. There are probably nearly 1 million in that position now. They are either receiving unemployment benefit plus supplementary benefit or supplementary benefit only. We have now put nearly 1 million directly on to means testing. That is the gravamen of the charge.
      I was in a mood to accept the Minister's suggestion on new clause 3. I welcome some of his comments. I think that some of his remarks stemmed from the pressure to which he was subjected in Committee. I am sorry that I missed the proceedings in Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I am now a good deal fitter. I suggest to everyone that they undergo an arterial operation as it cheers one up enormously. I have read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, and I sympathise with the Minister. It seemed that he was not making very good weather of piloting the Bill through the Committee. I understand that he had a bad case to present. I was tempted to say that we would accept what he had to say on new clause 3. However, we shall be voting on the new clause not merely because we seek the report but because he has made it clear that no matter what report comes forward from the Social Security Advisory Committee he is in a mind to reject it.
      Mr. Rossi: No.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has already said—
      Mr. Rossi: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Buchan: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman has already said that it will cost too much. He tells us that it will cost £100 million to bring short-term benefit on to the long-term rate. What is that but rejecting in advance anything that might flow from the report?
      Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that we would reject the report—far from it. We shall study it in the greatest depth and give it the greatest consideration. We shall do what we can to implement it, whatever recommendations it may contain. I said that at this stage we are not in a position to do what we have been asked to do—this is what I was saying about the £100 million—any more than the Labour Government were able to act when it would have cost £85 million in 1979. That is not to say that we shall not be in a position to implement the report's recommendations when we receive it. We shall have to consider the issue when we read the report. We have not prejudged it as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Buchan: We usually say "I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave way". On this occasion I am glad that I gave way. The answer has completely justified and three-line Whip underlined what I had to say. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government will not pay the £100 million today no matter what the report contains. He does not mean that it will be paid tomorrow either. He made a bad opening, he has made a bad defence and I regret to say that he made a bad intervention. We shall vote against new clause 3.
      Mr. Rossi: Against it?
      Mr. Buchan: We shall vote for it. The hon. Gentleman is getting me in the same state as he has been in himself. We shall vote in favour of it despite our earlier inclination to use it as a trial. New clause 4 is associated with it, but I shall not be calling for a Division on that.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) will put his feet where his mouth has been. In effect, we have been discussing the amendment that he introduced in Committee, which led to one of the famous tied votes. It was tied not because the hon. Gentleman voted for the Opposition, despite the fact that it was his amendment, but because he voted against his amendment. Let us have a little honour tonight. The hon. Member for Abingdon can support us on new clause 3 because he is neither bound to it nor ashamed by his vote. He can now start with a clean sheet and vote for the right thing.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Frank Hooley: I sympathise with the Minister's argument that it probably would not be advisable for the Secretary of State to issue a stream of directions to the advisory committee on what it should do. However, it is a proper duty of Parliament, if it regards a matter as of great urgency and importance, to say to the advisory committee that it regards such a matter as of the highest priority and one to which the committee should give urgent and serious attention.
      Parliament cannot give such directives except by means of this sort of resolution or clause. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that it would be reasonable for the Government, because they regard the matter as important, to accept the clause, because all it does is to say to the advisory committee that we are glad that it has undertaken the study, that we regard the matter as of the greatest
      842
      urgency and importance and that therefore we should be grateful if the Committee would expedite its considerations and get on with the report. By passing the clause, Parliament will have shown its deep and vast concern at the problem of long-term unemployment.
      Most serious commentators are now emphatically saying that unemployment will rise to 3 million by the end of the year or early next year. I discount the arguments about how much hidden unemployment there is. If that is correct, the matter of the long-term unemployed will become much more serious.
      I cannot see what the Government have to lose in any way. They are not committed to a single penny of expenditure by the clause. If the House of Commons passes the clause, as I hope it will, it will clearly show our profound concern about the long-term unemployment problem. We welcome the fact that the advisory committee has put something in hand, but we wish to get on with the job and have an urgent report in the shortest possible time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 277.

      Division No. 184]

      [9.18 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Dempsey, James

      Adams, Allen

      Dewar, Donald

      Allaun, Frank

      Dobson, Frank

      Alton, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Anderson, Donald

      Douglas, Dick

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dubs, Alfred

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunn, James A.

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Eastham, Ken

      Beith, A. J.

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      English, Michael

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Field, Frank

      Brown, R. C. (N' castle W)

      Fitch, Alan

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Flannery, Martin

      Buchan, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Ford, Ben

      Campbell, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Cartwright, John

      Freud, Clement

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      George, Bruce

      Coleman, Donald

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Graham, Ted

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Cowans, Harry

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Crowther, J. S.

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Cryer, Bob

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Haynes, Frank

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Homewood, William

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hooley, Frank

      Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Horam, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Howells, Geraint

      843

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Richardson, Jo

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, George

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Roper, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Sandelson, Neville

      Kerr, Russell

      Sever, John

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Lamond, James

      Silverman, Julius

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ronald

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Snape, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Soley, Clive

      Litherland, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Stallard, A. W.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stoddart, David

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      McNally, Thomas

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McWilliam, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Magee, Bryan

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Tilley, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tinn, James

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Torney, Tom

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Maxton, John

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Weetch, Ken

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Welsh, Michael

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      White, Frank R.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Whitlock, William

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Newens, Stanley

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Ogden, Eric

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Woodall, Alec

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Palmer, Arthur

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Parry, Robert

      Penhaligon, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prescott, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton.

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Race, Reg

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Best, Keith

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Alexander, Richard

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Alison, Michael

      Blackburn, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      Body, Richard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Banks, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Brinton, Tim

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brittan, Leon

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      844

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hooson, Tom

      Buck, Antony

      Hordern, Peter

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Butcher, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Knox, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lang, Ian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Latham, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cope, John

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lee, John

      Corrie, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Critchley, Julian

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Crouch, David

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Loveridge, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Luce, Richard

      Dover, Denshore

      McCrindle, Robert

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      MacGregor, John

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Eggar, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Elliott, Sir William

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Emery, Peter

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Major, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Marland, Paul

      Farr, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Fell, Anthony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mawby, Ray

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Mellor, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fox, Marcus

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fry, Peter

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moate, Roger

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Goodhew, Victor

      Monro, Hector

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Gow, Ian

      Moore, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Morgan, Geraint

      Gray, Hamish

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Greenway, Harry

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Mudd, David

      Grist, Ian

      Murphy, Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Myles, David

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Needham, Richard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parris, Matthew

      Heddle, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Henderson, Barry

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      845

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Porter, Barry

      Stokes, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Tebbit, Norman

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Raison, Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Donald

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Renton, Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Trippier, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Waddington, David

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Wakeham, John

      Rossi, Hugh

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rost, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Wall, Patrick

      Scott, Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Walters, Dennis

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Ward, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Watson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Shersby, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Silvester, Fred

      Wheeler, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Speller, Tony

      Wickenden, Keith

      Spence, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sproat, Iain

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Squire, Robin

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Stanley, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Peter Brooke.

      Stevens, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      TAKE-UP OF BENEFITS (No. 2)
      'At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (1) he shall cause to be published a report on the number of children for whom no child benefits are paid because they are in the care of a local authority; and any proposals he has for altering this situation.'—[Mr. Rooker.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      '(6) The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the adequacy of the current level of child support provided through the child benefit, supplementary benefit and social security schemes and this report shall be laid before Parliament.'.
      No. 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      '(6) the Child Benefit Act 1975 shall be amended as follows:
      (a) at the end of section 17(1) there shall be inserted the words "provided that no regulation to take effect on annual uprating shall have the effect of increasing the total child support by less than the figure for inflation adopted by the
      846
      Secretary of State for the purposes of section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975."
      (b) in section 17 there shall be added a new subsection—
      "(1A) in subsection (1) above the words 'total child support' shall mean the combined total of child benefit and any increase of benefit payable under section 41 and Schedule 4 Part IV to the Social Security Act 1975".'.
      Mr. Rooker: My remarks will relate to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will discuss new clause 5.
      I make no apology for making almost the same speech as that which I made in Committee. The amendments are exactly the same as amendments Nos 35 and 36 which I tabled in Committee. I can reproduce them word for word because the votes on those amendments were tied, thanks to the Minister being away on a foreign junket on behalf of the Government.
      The problem is simple. The amendments deal with suppot for the children of parents who are sick, unemployed, disabled or widowed. It is not easy to explain what the Government have done, because they have juggled the books in relation to how such children are maintained under the social security system.
      Before November 1980 such children received £5·70 a week. That was made up of £1·70 for the person who was sick or unemployed and £4 for the mother in child benefit. When the uprating of 16½ per cent. was made last November the £5·70 should have been increased by about 95p. That would have taken the weekly payment from £5·70 to £6·65. That would have been made up of £4·75 in child benefit and £1·90 for the parent. However, that did not happen. The child benefit went to £4·75 but the dependency addition was reduced to £1·25, making a total for each child of £6. That was an increase of 30p a week for each child.
      Let us take the £6 as the starting point because since then there has been another uprating. For the majority of people the social security benefits will increase by 9 per cent. in November this year. For the parents of about 500,000 children the child benefit will increase by 50p. However, national insurance payments for the sick, unemployed and industrially injured will be reduced from £1·25 to 80p a week.
      The total child support remaining after last November's increase at £6 is going up this November to £6·05. In two increases, between November 1979 and November 1981, the total increase for a child of someone who is sick and unemployed will have risen from £5·70 per week to £6·05—an increase of 35p over two years—which is well below the rate of all other social security benefits. The increase this year amounts to 0·8 per cent., less than 1 per cent. on the increase of benefits for children of those in the positions I have mentioned.
      The cost of keeping a child has risen by more, I suspect, than 35p per week over two years. The Government have actually cut £45 million to £50 million which rightfully belongs under the law to those families. The Government have not had to change the law to do this statistical juggling. That shows that there is a gap in the law, which was not put right by the last Labour Government or the Labour Back Benchers at the time.
      The system which operated last November and will operate this November has largely brought about the travesty that I have described. The year 1977 was the first year in which the first child in a family received the family allowance. The increases involved were substantially less

      847
      than they are today. I tabled these amendments so that the Opposition and, one hopes, the odd Tory Member, might ask the Government why, over this period, the families of sick and unemployed lost £1·15 to £1·20 per week for their children.
      That does not square with the Prime Minister's oft-repeated statement that the Government have maintained child benefit. It is not fair for the Government to say that all assessments took place from November 1979. The country will judge the Government from the day they took office. The Government owe the House and the hall million children and their families an explanation of why they have cheated in this way.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
      I shall remind the House of some of the events that took place when we had a Labour Government. There was considerable disappointment at the level at which child benefit was introduced. One of the arguments used against us by the press was that the Government were giving a lot of help to children via the subsidy on school meals. We were continually told that that was one of the ways of providing support for the family. I did not believe that that was a valid argument then, but if it was part of the argument about the original fixing of the level of child benefit it ought to be taken into account now that the Government have reduced the amount of subsidy on school meals. If it is claimed that child benefit has kept pace with inflation—which it has not—it ought also to be shown to have kept pace with the reduction in the subsidy on school meals. That is an important point.
      I come to new clause 5. I am a foster parent. Therefore, I am one of those who might be affected by the new clause. Also, because I am a foster parent, I am frequently contacted by other foster parents who feel that it is unfair that for the child they are looking after they do not receive child benefit.
      The way in which this matter is supposed to work is as follows. Children who are in care do not attract child benefit because the local authority receives money from the Government via the provisions to support the rates. What is supposed to happen is that in the Government's allocation to local authorities there is a sum to compensate for the fact that child benefit is not paid, and then the local authority takes account of that when it works out the boarding out allowances which are to be paid.
      That is the theory. In practice it does not work like that. We know that when the Government were considering the level of the rate support grant and the new arrangements last autumn they did not know what level of child benefit they would be introducing in November—or, if they did know, they did not even tell some of their Ministers at the time what level had been chosen. They had not made up their mind about the level. They made a notional calculation of what child benefit would be. Having done that, they made their grant to the local authorities.
      When the local authorities receive that money, they do not necessarily pass it on to the boarding out allowances, anyway. It can get lost in all the other areas of local authority expenditure or even within the budget for the personal social services. When it comes to November, when child benefit rises for other children, most boarding
      848
      out allowances of most local authorities do not rise to take that into account. It can be argued "The local authority anticipated that and paid out the extra in April" when the authority did not do that.
      This is an anomaly. It would seem to be much fairer and much more practical to most foster parents if the child benefit were paid for children who were in care in just the same way as it is for other children. I think that most foster parents do their best to ensure that the foster child feels in exactly the same position as other children do. I argue strongly that paying out child benefit for a foster child would be one of the ways in which we can reduce the differences that such children feel exist in the system.
      I finish with the plea that we ought to be giving much more support for the family, and particularly child support. There are very strong arguments for the Government increasing the level of child benefit all round.
      Mrs. Chalker: I thought that this debate would be a little longer and a little more substantial. However, I shall do my best to answer the questions put by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in their usual way. They are not unexpected questions.
      Perhaps I could explain my rather strange absence from the end of the Committee stage, which has caused these three issues to come before us again tonight. It was that I had understood that there would not be a tying of votes, for whatever good reason. Had I been in any doubt about the matter, I would have gone about my other business several hours later and remained in the Committee. I can only apologise to the House for detaining it on these three issues. These matters sometimes catch us all short.
      To return to the issue in hand, let me deal first with new clause 5. The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that he was a foster parent of long standing. I think it right to say, not just to him but to all those who take over this onerous task, that no one underestimates the enormous value that fostering has for children. I can only hope that more people will follow the hon. Gentleman's excellent example—although he must find it more difficult than most fathers, in his position. It is something that gives stability to the lives of children who may, for whatever reason, not have been able to find such stability in their own families.
      It is with some regret, therefore, that I say that I cannot accept the new clause. First, the new clause would oblige the Secretary of State, concurrent with the announcement of benefit upratings, to report the number of children for whom no child benefit is paid because they are in local authority care, and, further, to say whether the Secretary of State has any proposals for altering the child benefit provisions relating to such children. I am sure that his intention is as he hinted—to stimulate the change in the provisions.
      9.45 pm
      Let us examine that for a moment. First, the regulations under the Child Benefit Act 1975 provide that child benefit is not paid for children who have been in local authority care for more than eight weeks unless they return home each week for at least one complete day from midnight to midnight, which ends up being more than what the hon. Gentleman or I might consider to be one day. It is really a day and a half or two days. It is also payable for any child when the child returns home for a complete week from local authority care.

      849
      As the hon. Member knows, and certainly other hon. Members will know, one of the most complicated questions about the payment of benefits relates to those moving in and out of temporary care. Therefore, if there were the continuing payment of child benefit, it might make it administratively more convenient. We do not do things in this House necessarily for convenience, but, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North said, whereas child benefit is seen as a contribution towards the cost of a child's maintenance, once the child leaves home and goes into care the onus for maintenance lies with the local authority. It in turn receives Government funds for the purpose through the rate support system.
      It is perfectly true that a local authority can require a parent to make a contribution towards a child in care, but once that parent ceases to receive child benefit any contribution can be expected to be reduced accordingly. There are, therefore, no real grounds for continuing to pay the benefit for the children in care, particularly where there is the provision to pay when the child comes home either each week for at least one day or for whole weeks at a time.
      We pay the child benefit to the parent for the first eight weeks that a child is in care because, fortunately, some children are in the care of a local authority in a home, or with foster parents, for only a very short while. If we did not continue to pay it for the first eight weeks, there would be a considerable problem about terminating or adjusting benefit for short periods of care.
      Information is not at present collected about the number of children in care for whom benefit is not currently in payment. It would be expensive to set up a procedure for obtaining it under current circumstances. That does not mean that it is not possible to do it. At present, I do not believe that the expense would be justified.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Government work out the grant they give to the local authorities to make up for the benefit they do not pay out?
      Mrs. Chalker: As far as I am aware, it is done on the basis of the returns made by the local authorities of the children in care whose parents obviously would otherwise be entitled to child benefit if they were not so in care or if they were in care only for up to eight weeks. If I am in error on that point, I shall send the hon. Member a short letter about it.
      I understand the role that foster parents play. I appreciate, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee on Tuesday 24 March, as reported in columns 239 and 240 of Hansard, that foster parents should have extra help when other parents receive increased child benefit but that local authorities had not had the additional funds from Government to provide it. I gather that, in the estimate of the support given through the block grant system to local government, the figures for the number of children in care over the previous period are taken into consideration. It is important to allow local authorities to take into account expected expenditure on a range of items, which would include allowances for foster parents.
      Wide changes are taking place in many local authority areas. Many authorities feel that it is better to allow children to be with foster parents than have them in community homes. Because there is such a wide variation in practice it would be wrong for the Government to say just how local authorities should allocate the money they
      850
      devote to this purpose. Local authorities that already have discretion in the use of their resources can make decisions on the basis of the needs of the children within their area. I sincerely believe that that is the sensible way for them to allocate resources between their competing priorities.
      I realise that this does not give the hon. Gentleman what he would like. He wants more money going through the child benefit route to children who are in care with foster parents, but I think this is a better way to decide the resources to be devoted to children in care of the local authorities.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It seems to be anomalous for two sets of foster parents, possibly living fairly close together but having children from different local authorities, to receive different boarding-out allowances for children of identical ages.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the question of boarding-out allowances is being discussed in my Department by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health and personal social services. I shall draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's comments. I remember raising the issue when I sat on the Opposition Benches. Yes, I understand that there can be some difficulties, and there are always anomalies. If we believe in decentralised local government we shall always have anomalies between one authority and another.
      As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr said, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with a complicated issue. The hon. Gentleman took us carefully through the figures. I commend to hon. Members a written answer which appears in the Official Report, on 6 April 1981, in c. 209 in reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). We ran into difficulty in Committee because we had no blackboard, so we decided that a question and answer in the Official Report was probably the best way to deal with a complicated matter.
      The hon. Member for Perry Barr is right. We discussed this issue at length in Committee, because, as we seek to improve child benefit, the support going to children in all families, regardless of whether the parent is unemployed, sick or in work, so the child dependency additions have been squeezed down in the way described by the hon. Gentleman.
      Paul Lewis of the National Council for One-Parent Families put the case very fairly in a letter to me in March, to which I have replied in detail. What we are doing is perfectly legal. Many hon. Members object to it because they say that we are not helping those who are hardest hit. The people on supplementary benefit, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would readily agree, are likely to be hardest hit. For families dependent on supplementary benefit we have sought to increase the age-related additions for children a beat deal more than the child dependency additions because taking the two years together, we felt that they were the people who were most in need of help.
      The rate for a child under 5 went up from £5·20 to £7·30, and from next November we propose to increase it to £7·90. Therefore, over the two years, that is an increase of £2·70. On that basis, the increases over the two years, for families dependent on supplementary benefit, for children between 5 and 10, 11 and 12, 13 and 35 and 16 and 17 are 21 per cent., 35 per cent., 21 per cent. and 32

      851
      per cent. respectively. In part, that has been the result of the decision last November to reduce the number of age bands from five to three.
      We have sought to concentrate the limited resources at our disposal on those families dependent on supplementary benefit. We have made no secret of the fact that by not raising the child dependency additions of national insurance benefits we are working towards an objective which I believe both sides of the House have acknowledged to be the right thing to do, namely, that same amount goes towards the cost of children, whether people are in or out of work. The costs of a child do not change simply because someone is out of work for whatever reason. We appreciate that there must be extra help for those who are hardest hit, and that is why the resources, where available, have been concentrated on those on supplementry benefit.
      I could say a lot more on this issue, but that would not change the situation that we face. It was a situation faced by the Labour Governnent in 1977 when they made a similar decision to uprate child benefit but decided not to uprate the child the dependency addition for national insurance beneficiaries by the same amount.
      While I understand the Opposition's case, I cannot give the hon. Member for Perry Barr the assurance for which he has asked. As I said to the deputy director of the National Council for One-Parent Families, we have ensured that the available resources are concentrated on families on supplementary benefit who are in real need.
      While I understand the problem that has been raised, I hope that the Opposition will realise that there is sense in the move that is taking place. I am sure they agree that we should protect those who are most in need—those on supplementary benefit. We are seeking to ensure that the support for children is the same for people in and out of work by taking gradual steps along that path.
      Mr. Rooker: We agree 100 per cent. with the Minister's final remark. Support for children should be the same whether the head of the household is in or out of work. There are two ways of going about it. The Government have chosen to reduce child support for those out of work instead of increasing child benefit for those in work. We agree that the figures should be level. It is iniquitous that there is a gap. However, it would not be the intention of the Opposition—I suspect that the Government have done so by mistake—to reduce the benefit to those for whom it brings greatest gain.
      This has been a somewhat briefer debate than we envisaged. We shall divide the House on new clause 5, but we do so only for the convenience of the House and our own arrangements, because our discussions on the Bill overlap today and tomorrow. Basically, we wish to divide on amendments Nos. 9 and 10, but it would be wholly impractical to leave those Divisions until tomorrow because of the time constraint under which we shall operate. The record will show that we are dividing on new clause 5, but we do so to show that we are in favour of amendment Nos. 9 and 10.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 266.

      Division No. 185]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Allaun, Frank

      Adams, Allen

      Alton, David

      852

      Anderson, Donald

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Graham, Ted

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Beith, A. J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

      Haynes, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)

      Homewood, William

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hooley, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Campbell, Ian

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      John, Brynmor

      Canavan, Dennis

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Kerr, Russell

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Cook, Robin F.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cowans, Harry

      Lambie, David

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lamond, James

      Cryer, Bob

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      McElhone, Frank

      Deakins, Eric

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McKelvey, William

      Dempsey, James

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dewar, Donald

      McNally, Thomas

      Dobson, Frank

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dormand, Jack

      McTaggart, Robert

      Douglas, Dick

      McWilliam, John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Dubs, Alfred

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dunn, James A.

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Eadie, Alex

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Eastham, Ken

      Maxton, John

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Meacher, Michael

      English, Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Ewing, Harry

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fitch, Alan

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Flannery, Martin

      Newens, Stanley

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ogden, Eric

      Ford, Ben

      O'Neill, Martin

      Forrester, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Palmer, Arthur

      Foulkes, George

      Parry, Robert

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Penhaligon, David

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Prescott, John

      Freud, Clement

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Race, Reg

      George, Bruce

      Radice, Giles

      853

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Richardson, Jo

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Robertson, George

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Tilley, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tinn, James

      Roper, John

      Torney, Tom

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Ryman, John

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Sever, John

      Watkins, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Weetch, Ken

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Welsh, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      White, Frank R.

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Silverman, Julius

      Whitlock, William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Winnick, David

      Stallard, A. W.

      Woodall, Alec

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Stoddart, David

      Stott, Roger

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. George Morton.

      Straw, Jack

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Alison, Michael

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Arnold, Tom

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Cope, John

      Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Corrie, John

      Banks, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Denshore

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Best, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eggar, Tim

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Blackburn, John

      Emery, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Body, Richard

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Farr, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bright, Graham

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Brittan, Leon

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fox, Marcus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fry, Peter

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Buck, Antony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Budgen, Nick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Gow, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Gray, Hamish

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Greenway, Harry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Griffiths, B.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grylls, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      854

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Hannam, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hastings, Stephen

      Parris, Matthew

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Heddle, John

      Pawsey, James

      Henderson, Barry

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hicks, Robert

      Porter, Barry

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hooson, Tom

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Hordern, Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Renton, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lang, Ian

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Latham, Michael

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lee, John

      Rost, Peter

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Luce, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Sims, Roger

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Spence, John

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Major, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, John

      Mather, Carol

      Steen, Anthony

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stevens, Martin

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stokes, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thompson, Donald

      Moate, Roger

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Molyneaux, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Monro, Hector

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Waddington, David

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wakeham, John

      Myles, David

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Needham, Richard

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wall, Patrick

      Neubert, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Newton, Tony

      Walters, Dennis

      855

      Ward, John

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Watson, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wheeler, John

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Whitney, Raymond

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

    New Clause 8

      PART-TIME WORKING
      `The Social Security Advisory Committee shall inquire generally into how best to provide for the accommodation of part-time working capacity within invalidity benefit and in particular shall consider the importance to a disabled person's well-being of being able to do such work as his condition permits, the possibility of combining part-time earnings with a reduced rate of benefit, and how the social security system may best encourage rehabilitation, and shall report as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a second time.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Mr. Alfred Morris: New clause 8 is an important proposal that is of deep interest to all the organisations concerned with disabled people. Again, we are only asking for a report. If this new clause is resisted, as were the earlier new clauses, Ministers will be open to the charge of obscurantism.
      At present, there is a strong disincentive to part-time work for people whose disabilities make full-time work impossible but who might be able to work for more limited hours if the opportunities were available. The social security system does not encourage them to work. The people who are involved fall into two broad categories. First, there are the people whose disabilities are permanent and who could never cope with full-time work. Nicole Davoud's important research has drawn attention to the extent of the unsatisfied demand for part-time work among multiple sclerosis sufferers. A characteristic of that condition is that sufferers tire easily and exceeding the fatigue threshold can exacerbate the condition. As a result, many sufferers are forced to give up work. Often they would be able to continue working part time, if part-time employment were available and financially feasible.
      Multiple sclerosis is far from unique in causing a fatigue problem which rules out full-time work. Many chronically sick and disabled people who cannot manage an ordinary day's work or the standard working week could work for more restricted periods. The OPCS survey, "Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain," found that
      856
      one in three disabled people under retirement age who had given up work for good had done so because they were unable to work the hours required.
      The second major category is of people for whom part-time work may be appropriate, or even essential, as a stepping-stone to normal employment. There are three important sub-groups in this category: people who are recovering from major surgery or a serious illness with a prolonged convalescence period; people who have been permanently disabled by accidents or illness, and who might ultimately be able to work full time again, but for whom a gradual process of rehabilitation is necessary if they are to do so; and, finally, people who are psychiatric patients.
      The problem arises because part-time work is poorly paid and because it is not possible to combine it with the receipt of invalidity benefit. According to the new earnings survey of April 1980, with figures updated to December in line with the average earnings index, average male part-time earnings are about £46 per week and average female part-time earnings about £38 per week. However, many part-time jobs pay less.
      By comparison, invalidity pension for a married couple is £43·60 per week, with an additional £7·50 for each child, with a possibility of an invalidity allowance also. Those receiving invalidity benefit can earn up to £15 per week therapeutic earnings before losing their benefit. That is not sufficient to permit a person to take a realistic part-time job, nor is it an unconditional entitlement to work. Any work must be medically approved as beneficial to health. The underlying problem is the assumption written into our social security system that people are either wholly fit to work or wholly unfit to work.
      In a recent parliamentary reply about the proposal to raise the therapeutic earnings limit, the Minister said:
      "Invalidity benefit is an incapacity benefit and to extend the present therapeutic earnings limit to the level suggested would be incompatible with this concept."—[Official Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 290..]
      That shows precisely the flaw in the invalidity benefit scheme as it currently operates. The concept of incapacity on which it rests does not correspond with medical reality. In truth, as I have shown, a large number of people are incapable of full-time work, but could work for two or three hours a day without endangering their health.
      The purpose of the new clause is to draw attention to the needs of such people within the invalidity benefits scheme. To cater fully within the scheme for those who work part-time, not full-time, four changes are necessary. First, entitlement to invalidity benefit must be extended to anyone whose physical or mental condition prevents him or her from working a normal working week. Secondly, the requirement that any work done should be "therapeutic" must be abandoned. Thirdly, the earnings limit must be raised substantially. Fourthly, a taper should be introduced so that there is no longer a sharp cut-off point above a certain level. Reduced benefit would then be combined with earnings, the benefit gradually disappearing as earnings increased. I have heard from employers who very much want to employ disabled people on the basis that the DHSS would pay a proportion of the invalidity pension if they were unable to work the standard working week.

      857
      The new clause uses the word "rehabilitation" in an important context. As the Minister will appreciate, rehabilitation is about emphasising what disabled people can do, rather than what they are no longer capable of doing. That is an important point. We must this year, above all other years, emphasise that disabled people have abilities as well as disabilities. It is one important aim of the International Year of Disabled People to set in relief the considerable abilities of disabled people. Often rehabilitation of newly disabled people can be hastened by their having a part-time job that they can successfully hold down.
      The clause is about helping the disabled to do as much as they can. Most of the disabled want passionately to use their abilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive response. I know from my time at DHSS that there has been a good deal of work carried out on the implications of a partial invalidity benefit. The Minister would, therefore, have much helpful information to convey to the Social Security Advisory Committee in preparing a report. He said earlier that he did not want to burden the Committee with requests. I hope that he will be able to indicate in his reply that it would not be unacceptable to him if the committee were to spend some time on this important issue for the disabled.
      Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for the way in which he proposed the new clause. The Govenment sympathise with the intention underlying the clause. A problem has been highlighted that requires close investigation. I am not very happy about the way in which the present therapeutic earnings rule applies. It is something that we need to improve upon. However, there is the ever-present problem of resources and definition.
      There is the need to give assistance to the disabled, to help them become integrated and to enable them to be more useful in society, to make it easier for them to do work and not to allow benefits to act as a disincentive to work. On the other hand, we must avoid the danger of producing a benefit the result of which would be merely to subsidise part-time work and make the issue of disability possibly secondary. It is a narrow path that we have to tread—it is almost a tightrope—if we are to achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed and with which I am in full sympathy. We must ensure that we do not create a system that can be readily abused.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked for an investigation so that we may consider the issue and come to a decision on the best way to solve the problem. I accept that. However, I do not wish to create the precedent of the Government or the House telling the advisory committee how to do its work. That is the danger of the clause. I think that I attracted a certain amount of sympathy for that proposition not only from the Opposition Front Bench but from the Opposition Back Benches when we were discussing new clause 3. I then trespassed into the merits of the clause and that meant that a Division was called. I am therefore hesitant to enter into merits and demerits now in case my comments lead to another Division.
      The advisory committee has given itself the task of considering social security benefits for the disabled. I invite the House to be content with that. Let the committee
      858
      perform the task that it has set itself and let it produce its report voluntarily and not by compulsion of the House. When that has been done we shall be in a position to debate among ourselves such indications as it gives us of the way ahead.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister's reply was a little disappointing. I accept his argument that he should not have to tell the Social Security Advisory Committee what it should be doing. He also tells us that it is looking into a wider topic. I believe that it is in a specific area where finding a solution is difficult.
      In the new clauses today we have been asking for inquiries to be made. This proposal runs into a major resources problem. I suggest to the Government that the amount of money required would be small compared to that required for the other inquiries. The problem is to find a scheme which is fair and just. This, therefore, is one of the areas in which the Social Security Advisory Committee will not be asked to look at the matter specifically. However, there should be a request for an inquiry which specifically goes into the problems and comes up with a solution in a short period, so that we can look at the problem of resources.
      Mr. Rossi: I said that that was being done. Therefore, a request, directive or diktat from the House is not required. I was hoping that I had satisfied all hon. Members that that was so and that, therefore, it was not necessary to press the matter.
      Mr. Bennett: I thought that the Minister said that the Government were looking at the whole question of supplementary benefits and the disabled. I am suggesting that this is an important section which needs to be considered in great detail so that a workable scheme is produced. If the Minister its saying that within its general inquiry, the Social Security Advisory Committee is looking at this specific area and will come up with a specific workable scheme., I shall take back some of my words.
      Mr. Rossi: My information is that the committee is considering this specific matter as well as the generality of the need for social security benefits for the disabled.
      Mr. Bennett: I welcome that. I hope that it will be in the committee's first report and that the implication of the resource will be considered. I hope that the Government will be able to implement that proposal shortly.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for the information which he has conveyed to us tonight. I hope that the Social Security Advisory Committee will move as quickly as possible in reporting on the financial problems of disabled people. I do not feel that we should press the new clause in the light of what the Minister has said. Therefore, I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide.
      Mr. Buchan: It is my formal duty to withdraw the clause. I thank the Minister for being a little more

      859
      forthcoming and gracious in his reply than he was earlier. We are pleased that he is at least working on the Social Security Advisory Committee. We shall look forward to the report. I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has not pre-empted his decision on possible resources. I am glad that that is left open.
      860
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Gummer.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  The People's Bank
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Gummer.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Marcus Fox: It is with some trepidation that I introduce this Adjournment debate, which is concerned with The People's Bank, which to many people might imply that it is related to the People's Republic of China. I hasten to assure the House that it is nothing of the kind. The People's Bank is concerned with the Provident Financial Group, which is based in the city of Bradford.
  At this stage I must announce that I have not brought my notes with me because the Adjournment debate came on so quickly. Therefore, I can hardly blame the Minister for not being here. In a sense I am not quite as unbriefed as he is.
  The Banking Act 1979 was introduced because of the secondary banking collapse in 1974. It was felt that protection should be given to those who innocently put their money into financial institutions. Under the Act, the Bank of England had to accord recognition to any organisation that wished to use the name "bank". Sensibly, the Bank of England is operating a screening process, but I am concerned about the way in which it is doing so.
  We have a creditable banking institution in Britain. The major banks provide services in the High Street that people are satisfied with, but the services do not reach everyone. About 40 per cent. of our adult population—some 17 million people—do not have a bank account, which hardly shows that the system is working, yet the Bank of England is removing from certain organisations the right to use the name "bank".
  One criterion in the Act is that whichever organisation seeks to use the title must be of sound financial standing. In addition, it must operate a wide range of banking services or—and this is crucial—it must provide a specialised service. Last year the Bank of England decided that the People's Bank, which is based in Bradford, should not use the title. The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street must come down from her pedestal. She behaves as if the People's Bank has sprung out of thin air. It has not. It is part of the Provident Financial Group—in the old days known as the Provident Clothing Co.—which has been a byword in my part of the world for 100 years. It has more than 400 branches in the United Kingdom, 10,000 agents and 1 million customers. I can remember the Provident being in Yorkshire all my life.
  Its claims go further. [Interruption.] I must ask my hon. Friends to listen carefully. I have no notes and am speaking from my heart. In the secondary banking collapse the group maintained its reputation, which was not easy. The people who had invested money with the group continued to do so. It came through the crisis with its reputation enhanced. The way in which the Bank of England is operating the 1979 Act is incredible. During that period some banks were in difficulty. They had to take to the lifeboats. I shall not specifically mention those in difficulty, because some of them are household names in banking. Some of the 300 banks that have been recognised had recourse to the Bank of England's rescue operation.
  This company passed through that period unscathed but has been told by the Bank of England that it cannot use the
  862
  title "bank". It is perfectly natural for the leading cheque trading company to offer its customers a sophisticated service. That is all that it seeks to do. The People' s Bank was bought in 1971. It was not until 1978 that the bank opened branches on a fairly large scale. The customers responded. One should consider the great "unbanked" of this country.
  I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He will have no difficulty in replying to the debate. He knows that this issue has been before a tribunal. Shortly, the tribunal's findings will be on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desk. The Provident Financial Group has 1 million customers. It is natural that it should say that it needs to provide a wider service. Its customers want such a service.
  What sort of service can be provided? With 10,000 agents calling weekly, people will be able to save on a regular basis. The bank now has 10 branches. There are branches, not only in Yorkshire—which is my main interest—but in the Midlands, Hanley, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Washington and Bristol. The head office is in Yorkshire. Therefore, I must kill the idea that the People's Bank is a small operation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday a system whereby those entitled to benefits could have them paid into a bank. Incidentally, I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is on the Front Bench. That concept must be right. Later in his statement my right hon. Friend made it clear that we should move away from cash transactions and go towards the transmission of money through the banking system. Therefore, if people are to receive their benefits, they must have bank accounts..
  My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows about the subject of this debate. He should keep in close touch with the Secretary of State for Social Services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State implied that more people should have bank accounts and that people should be more sophisticated. Hon. Members have often advocated that the weekly wage should be paid not in cash but through the banking system.
  The company has been established for 100 years and has £140 million in assets, but the Bank of England has decided that it does not have the necessary financial standing. That is nonsense. The Bank of England must realise that the 1979 Act was not intended to enable it to operate a closed shop or to protect the High Street banks, which have been in business for many a long year and yet have left many people without the benefits of the services which I have described. [Interruption.]
  The Opposition should be careful about showing hilarity on the subject. Many of their constituents would benefit from the services of the People's Bank.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fox: No. I refuse to give way. This is an Adjournment debate.
  The services offered by the People's Bank include being open six days a week from 9 am to 5 pm, including Saturday. If that does not qualify under the Act as a specialised service, I do not know what does. The bank gives 2 per cent. interest on current accounts and a much higher rate on deposit. Its success is such that between August 1978 and December 1980 more than 15,000

  863
  accounts were opened. The need is there. Amongst the 300 recognised banks are some strange names, such as the Well's Fargo Bank. The People's Bank is worth far more than the Well's Fargo Bank.
  I remember my school days and the Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. It was established in the 1800s by a philanthropic capitalist—such people existed in those days—who wanted to protect his workers from the money-lending fraternity. At school we were encouraged to put a penny a week aside. When we had saved £1 an account was opened at the Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. It cost the bank £2,000—a lot of money—to provide that service. The success with the help of teachers was such that in one year 2 million transactions took place. The Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. is now a big bank in every sense of the word and is recognised as such. Under the 1979 Act it would never have got off the ground.
  How can a bank offer a wide range of services if it is not allowed to start operating? The Bank of England is trying to prevent it. I do not blame the Minister because he has not yet seen the submission from the tribunal. Parliament never intended to stop new entrants into banking. It never intended that a closed shop should operate, and yet that is what is happening.
  I make no apology for raising the issue tonight.
  Many people in this country are still outside the so-called Establishment. I consider myself to be part of the Establishment. I do not use the word in any derogatory way. I simply mean that we do not open up all our institutions as we should do. The banking fraternity is a classic example. I imagine that my right hon. Friend will say "But if they have to remove the word 'bank' from their title they can still operate as licensed deposit takers". That is the expression used in the Act. That will not do. What is a licensed deposit taker? Imagine that 10 sign writers appear in the branches that I have described, in Washington new town, in Bristol, in Swindon and other places, put up their ladders and scrape off the word "bank". What will that do as far as confidence is concerned?
  There are hon. Members in the Chamber who are much more able than I in coining words and phrases. I know of no word other than "banking" to describe the services involved in this field. If anybody can suggest another word, I will accept it, but it will put the banks in what can only be described as a secondary position.
  This financial institution has been going for 100 years, with an unblemished record of success, with profits of £8 million this year and £140 million worth of assets. It wants to open six further branches this year and eight more every year from now on. The Bank of England has got it wrong. It had better look very carefully at the way in which it is recognising banks of the sort that I have described. There are more than 300 on this list.
  In view of what took place yesterday, it would be a great disservice to many of my constituents if this bank were treated in this way. It does not deserve it. It has every right to continue to use the term "the People's Bank." Parliament, in its wisdom, should encourage more people to open bank accounts and to be thrifty. I should have thought that my Government, my party of all parties, would want to see this service extended.
  When we think of the problems facing Barclays, the Midland, National Westminster and Lloyds, we cannot
  864
  pretend that the major banks are succeeding in providing the service for which many of our constituents are asking. The People's Bank is providing a unique service. It it is tapping a market that no one else has gone for, and I believe that it will be able to do so with increasing success. I wish it every success. I am staggered that its submission to the Bank of England for recognition was turned down and that no appeal tribunal has sat. I do not know what report has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In all fairness, the Bank of England ought to allow this bank to continue as it has done so successfully.
  10.48 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The House knows full well the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) over this matter. The People's Bank to which he has referred is in the part of the country that he represents with such distinction. It is right that he should bring this matter before the House.
  This issue stems from the Banking Act 1979. [Interruption] That Act was introduced by the previous Government—which the ill-mannered semi-sedentary intervention from the Opposition Front Bench might not have led the unwary to understand. That Act provides for a statutory framework for the authorisation and supervision of deposit-taking institutions by the Bank of England. It is the Bank of England's responsibility under the Act—
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lawson: No, I am not giving way; I have very little time.
  Dr. Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Lawson: I am not giving way.
  The Bank of England has to implement this Act. The Act lays down a two-tier system of recognised banks, on the one hand, and authorised deposit takers, or licensed deposit-takers, on the other hand. In reaching its decision, the Bank is required to judge each application against the minimum criteria for deposit taking institutions, which are set out in the Act. These criteria, which were approved by Parliament during the passage of the Banking Act through Parliament in early 1979, are laid down in schedule 2 to the Act—part 1 for the recognised banks and part 2 for licensed institutions.
  The criteria which are set out in part 1 of schedule 2 provide that the distinctive attributes of a recognised bank are not only the high reputation and standing that an institution will have built up over time in the financial community, but the provision in reasonable depth of a wide range of banking services in this country.
  There is a provision for appeals. Under section 11 of the Act, an institution which is aggrieved by a decision by the Bank, as is the case with the People's Bank, can appeal against the decision to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor is then required to refer all these appeals for a hearing before persons appointed for the purpose. The appointed persons are then required to hear the appeal and submit a report to the Chancellor with their recommendations for the determination of the appeal.
  In deciding on an appeal under section 11 of the Act the Chancellor is obliged to act in a judicial capacity, and in no other capacity. That is not necessarily quite the end of

  865
  the road, because under section 13 of the Act an institution, or the Bank of England, may appeal to the court on a point of law—I emphasise that—arising from a decision by the Chancellor on an appeal under section 11
  I turn to the specific appeal by the People's Bank. On 9 September last year the People's Bank lodged an appeal to the Chancellor against the Bank of England's decision to grant it a full licence instead of recognition. This appeal was heard on 15 and 16 January this year before the persons appointed by the Chancellor for the purpose. These are professional people, altogether outside Government.
  I can confirm that the appointed persons submitted their report to the Chancellor last week, with their recommendations for the determination of the appeal. The Chancellor is now considering the report and recommendations and will be announcing his decision very shortly. In those circumstances, because the matter is to that extent sub-judice—as I emphasised, the Chancellor has to act in a judicial capacity; that is the law—I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the Bank's decision in this case. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw the Chancellor's attention to the points that he has made in this debate.
  I have little time left. I turn briefly to the provisions of the Act which deal with the use of banking names and descriptions. My hon. Friend was particularly concerned that the People's Bank would not, if the decision goes against it, be able to call itself a bank any longer. That does not mean that it will not be allowed to continue in business. Of course it will, and long may it do so. If an institution wishes to start up, it will be able to do so. Indeed, the scope of the two-tier system set up under the Act is relatively limited. Nothing whatever in the Act
  866
  prevents a licensed institution from offering or providing any type of banking service, but it cannot call itself a bank. That is set out in section 36 of the Act.
  One of the main reasons for that distinction is that it reflects in a more codified form the informal system of supervision and surveillance which existed prior to the passing of the Banking Act. It is an integral part of the two-tier system that the two tiers should be clearly identifiable as such by members of the public. [Interruption.] Although hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are sniggering, the protection of depositors, particularly small depositors, should be a matter of some importance to us all.
  Clearly, there would be no point in any two-tier system if the institutions that had not gained recognition as a bank were none the less able to represent themselves as such. The provisions of section 36 dealing with banking names and descriptions are, therefore, a natural concomitant of the two-tier system. They enable depositors to distinguish between the recognised and the licensed sectors.
  Under the provisions of the Act, any depositor can be certain that any institution that holds itself out to be a bank and accepts deposits from the public has both a high reputation and standing and offers a wide range of banking services to the investing public. That is surely of value and benefit, particularly to the small depositor.
  There are bound to be cases on the border line whenever a two-tier system of any kind is established. It is impossible for me to comment on this specific case because of its sub judice nature and the fact that the papers are at present before the Chancellor. I can only repeat that the Chancellor will certainly read what my hon. Friend has said and take it fully into account when he makes his judgment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o' clock.

TRADE
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Official Receivers (Appointment)
  Official Receivers (Appointment)
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  Aviation Security Levy
  Aviation Security Levy
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schools (Strontium 90)
  Schools (Strontium 90)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departments of Nursing
  Departments of Nursing
  Modern Languages (State Schools)
  Modern Languages (State Schools)
WALES
  Health Visitors and District Nurses
  Health Visitors and District Nurses
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Milk Distribution
  Milk Distribution
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Communiity Schools
  Communiity Schools
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  African Development Bank
  African Development Bank
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. C. E. Loveday
  Mr. C. E. Loveday
  Passports
  Passports
  Southern Italy (Earthquake Relief)
  Southern Italy (Earthquake Relief)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Questioning of Suspects (Tape Recording)
  Questioning of Suspects (Tape Recording)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Radio Stations
  Community Radio Stations
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Dartmoor Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  Birmingham Prison
  Birmingham Prison
  Prison Officers (Training)
  Prison Officers (Training)
SCOTLAND
  Burst Water Mains (Compensation)
  Burst Water Mains (Compensation)
  Housing (Rehabilitation)
  Housing (Rehabilitation)
  Exports
  Exports
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  CBI and STUC
  CBI and STUC
  Local Government (Report)
  Local Government (Report)
  Road Equivalent Tariff
  Road Equivalent Tariff
  Youth Unemployment (Dundee)
  Youth Unemployment (Dundee)
  Jobs
  Jobs
  Unemployment (North Lanarkshire)
  Unemployment (North Lanarkshire)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Chairman)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Chairman)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Civil Service (Dispute)
  Civil Service (Dispute)
  Sheriff Courts
  Sheriff Courts
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Coastal Quarry (Report)
  Coastal Quarry (Report)
  "Crime and the Prevention of Crime 1975"
  "Crime and the Prevention of Crime 1975"
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Rents
  Rents
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Workers (Pay)
  Agricultural Workers (Pay)
  Dairy Herdsmen
  Dairy Herdsmen
  Dairy Producers
  Dairy Producers
  European Community
  European Community
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
EMPLOYMENT
  Research and Development (Departmental Expenditure)
  Research and Development (Departmental Expenditure)
  Working Population (West Midlands)
  Working Population (West Midlands)
  Unemployed Persons (West Midlands)
  Unemployed Persons (West Midlands)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Consultant Gynaecologists (Salaries)
  Consultant Gynaecologists (Salaries)
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  General Practitioners (Retirement)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Family Practitioner Committees (Budgetary Control)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Budgetary Control)
  Unemployment Benefit (Share Fishermen)
  Unemployment Benefit (Share Fishermen)
  International Standards Organisation
  International Standards Organisation
  Drug Abuse (Ethnic Statistics)
  Drug Abuse (Ethnic Statistics)
  Foetal Malformations
  Foetal Malformations
  Technical Aids (Handicapped Children)
  Technical Aids (Handicapped Children)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Reseach and Development (Departmental Expenditure)
  Reseach and Development (Departmental Expenditure)
  Hip Replacements
  Hip Replacements
  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Contraceptive Advice (Teenagers)
  Contraceptive Advice (Teenagers)
  Brook Advisory Centre
  Brook Advisory Centre
DEFENCE
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Salvage and Recycling
  Salvage and Recycling
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
ENVIRONMENT
  "Assistance with Housing Costs"
  "Assistance with Housing Costs"
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Unemployment and Bankruptcies
  Unemployment and Bankruptcies
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Housing Asociation Tenants
  Housing Asociation Tenants

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

Lord Molloy
William John Molloy, Esquire, having been created Baron Molloy, of Ealing in Greater London, for life—was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Bruce of Donington and the Lord McCarthy, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Consumers and Nationalised Industries
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 when they expect to make a Statement on the report dealing with the position of consumers and the nationalised industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, a Statement will be made as soon as possible.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, why are the Minister and the Government being so secretive about this Statement? Does the Minister recall that seven months ago his noble friend told the House that he expected it to be made before the end of the year and that the Minister himself on 19th March (two months ago) told me that it would be made very soon? Since I have now lost faith in what the noble Lord means by the English language, can he go a little further and tell us?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, this is a complex, and indeed a very important, matter, and I am afraid that it has proved even more complex than we at first imagined. But, as I have said, we are doing our best to produce the Statement as soon as possible.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if he takes much longer, the matter will become more and more complex and the Government will become lost in the end? Can he give us any hope that a Statement will be made before the Recess?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while I cannot give a categoric assurance that we shall be able to do that, would say that I very much hope so.

Local Authority Publications and Propaganda
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is legally permissible for local authorities to issue political propaganda at the expense of their ratepayers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, local authorities have wide powers under Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 to arrange for the publication within their area of information on matters relating to local government. Whether these powers may have been exceeded in any particular case is a question which can be decided only by the courts.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that certain socialist councils have been issuing political circulars through the post, while notifying their ratepayers of massive rate increases? Further, is he aware of the manifesto that was issued by Walsall Council, which to my mind is a blatant attempt to subvert democracy? Does my noble friend not agree that the duty of the local authorities is, where possible, to maintain the level of services and of course to upgrade them, but not to spend the ratepayers' money on political propaganda?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in my view some of the publications are indeed deplorable, but the question of whether they exceed the authorities' powers is really for the courts to decide. With regard to Walsall Borough Council, I should have thought, with respect, that the actions to which my noble friend refers come within the context of the next Question that I understand he has down on the Order Paper.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any defalcation in relation to local authorities which publish political matters is not a question for Government interference? A ratepayer has the right to appeal to the public auditor, and the auditor, upon auditing the books, will determine where there is a case and it will be taken to court and decided. Noble Lords should not be so biased against socialist organisations, because the Tories do the same.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thought that that was the answer that I had given: that at the end of the day it is for the courts to decide.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, why should the Minister suggest that this is a matter likely to be taken before the courts when Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives local authorities the power to spend up to a rate of 2p in the pound on any objective which the local authority considers to be in the interests of the people in the area? If they consider it to be in the interests of their people to issue information which the noble Lord or his friends may think has a political

557
bias—or even if it is a Tory authority doing it and the socialists consider it politically biased—is that not within the powers that Parliament has conferred upon local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is not within the powers of local authorities to spend ratepayers' money in a manner which the district auditor may decide is unreasonbable. That would be for the district auditor to decide. From the mass of correspondence which we in the DOE have received from ratepayers incensed by many of these publications, I think the noble Lord should accept that the answer that I gave in the first place was correct and sums up the position as it is.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the ratepayers are also frequently very incensed at the fact that they do not receive sufficient information about the activities of their councils? Are not councils to be praised for circulating as much knowledge about their activities as possible?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is not information about which people complain but the political propaganda which is very blatant. This Government more than any other are determined to ensure that more information of a meaningful kind is given to the ratepayers and to everyone concerned.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would the Minister not accept that, while democracy is vested in the law, the ultimate sanction is with the voter in the area; and if this propaganda was issued prior to an election and the voters voted for the party which issued it, then it would seem to carry the sanction of democracy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this does not get away from the point that I made a few moments ago; that there are certain user of ratepayers' money which could be considered to be unreasonable, but that is a matter for the district auditor to act upon should he so feel and then for the courts to decide.

Local Authorities: Staff Selection Criteria
2.54 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is legally permissible for local authorities to practise political discrimination as to whom they employ.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the Local Government Act 1972 empowers local authorities to appoint such officers as they think necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. They are entitled to choose the criteria by which they make such appointments. But an authority which made an appointment solely or chiefly on consideration of the candidate's political beliefs might be held to be acting beyond its powers.
558
Moreover, it would be destroying the political impartiality of the public service, which I believe to be a vital feature of British administration.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend very much for that reply, with which I heartily agree, will he not agree that, if this habit of councils employing people according to their political labels continues, it will lead to great injustice and amounts to corruption?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am glad to say that I know of only one case, the Walsall Borough Council, and this has received general condemnation. I hope it is not a precedent. We shall have to watch the situation carefully. The Walsall Labour Group Manifesto, which they have now adopted as council policy, said:
"It is obvious that if by appointment or influence we could direct the basic philosophies of the council staff in general, this would have a far-reaching effect beyond any single policy matter and would have effects which, unlike some policy, would transcend elections".
That says enough to indicate its total unacceptability to most people.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that even more unacceptable than the conduct described is that people are not employed because of political opinions? I understand that the noble Lord may have information which indicates that some people are refused employment because of their political affinities.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with respect, I understand the point the noble Lord is making. Without going into more details and more quotations—which I am tempted to give—I can only repeat what I have said before: that this is a most dangerous philosophy and one which is giving concern to all political sides in the country. I hope that it is the only example that we shall see.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, has the Minister never heard of employers indulging in political discrimination? If they can do it legally, why not the local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, briefly, perhaps I may quote this. It comes from what is now the council policy at Walsall. It says:
"In principle"
—and this applies to employers, too, if you think about it—
"where staff posts for legal and practical purposes require formal qualifications, such qualifications should be kept to a minimum thus allowing primary consideration to be given to the individual applicant's social awareness akin with our philosophy".
What that has to do with competence in employment is beyond me.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although I asked a question which might indicate that I take a biased view on this subject, I should prefer that there should be no political discrimination whatever? In a civilised society, that should be regarded as deplorable and illegal.

Deaf Handicapped People
2.58 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name, I declare an interest, in that it is my affliction and I am connected with various societies for the deaf; but with your Lordships' permission, I should like to state that the motivation for the Question comes from one of the councils for the Year of the Disabled. Having said that, 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 in the International Year of Disabled People 1981 they will consider assisting deaf handicapped people by affording them concessions similar to those already enjoyed by the blind.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government believe that financial help for disabled people can be more effectively provided through the social security system.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I cannot do other than thank the noble Baroness for that somewhat unsatisfactory Answer. Would she not consider the possible ways in which deaf people could be assisted in, say, the field of television? I refer to Ceefax, Prestel and Oracle. Could the Government bring pressure to bear on the manufacturers so that in future all television sets would carry Teletext facilities? Would she bear in mind, also, as indicated in the Question, that there are various things given to the blind which, one would like to suggest, could be applied to the deaf? Would she finally remember that if you are blind you are cut off from things, but if you are deaf you are cut off from people.
Baroness Young: My Lords, may I say that I appreciate very much the very severe handicap that deafness brings and also that I recognise that there is a very real anomaly in the provisions that are made for blind people. However, I have looked at this carefully and it is the view of the Government that it would be wrong to extend the special provisions to different categories of disabled people and better to press for there to be general provisions for all disabled people. Could I confirm in this connection that there has been over the last 10 years an enormous improvement in the standard range of national Health Service hearing aids? There is also the new worker with the new qualification of a hearing therapist who has special responsibility for helping adults who become deaf and who experience difficulty in adjusting to their impairment. The Government are giving special grants to mark the International Year of Disabled People, which includes a grant to the Royal National Institution for the Deaf.
Lord Brockway: May I declare an interest? Is the Minister aware that, as the questioner has stated, many old people now who are hard of hearing are being denied many of the amenities which others enjoy,
560
particularly listening to television. We cannot hear it. Is this not a real burden on the lives of many old age pensioners? They have not the ability to pay for the amenities that can cover these difficulties. Will the Minister look again at her decision?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to confirm again that there is a wide range of services provided for deaf people by the National Health Service and also by local social services departments. The prime responsibility for the decisions about the development of these services for those for the deaf rests with health authorities and with local authority personal social services. I accept, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that this is a terrible disability. But it is encouraging that modern science is developing a number of ways in which deaf people can be helped. This is one of the most encouraging developments of our times.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that registered blind people are in receipt of a free television licence? I wonder whether she would consider some step down in the licence charged for registered deaf people on the grounds that they only receive, so to speak, half the service.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite correct about the television licence fee for blind people. The concession is £1·25p less than the full licence, for either a colour or a black and white set for blind people. I recognise, as I have already indicated, that there are various provisions for the blind which do not apply to other disabled people. In a sense, although this is very valuable, this is an anomaly. It is the view of the Government that this should not be extended.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to tell me whether there is a possibility that suitable equipment can be provided which plugs into a normal wireless or telephone and which acts as an additional hearing aid for the deaf? If there is such equipment, would this not qualify for some kind of subsidy from the social services?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I understand that new equipment has been developed for the deaf which will particularly block out background noises so that they hear exclusively the television programme. These are available—not on the National Health Service—and can be purchased.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that when we were sitting in the Royal Gallery it was suggested that there should be reports of Parliament on the television with captions so that the deaf could be relieved of the condition which may exist now when they cannot listen to proceedings in Parliament on the radio?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. This is one of the many modern scientific developments which are of enormous help to deaf people. The point that I am making is that they are available, but of course they are not all currently available on the National Health Service or through the social services department.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, is their not a fundamental mistake here? The noble Baroness and others who have exchanged question and answer with her seem to connote blindness with partial deafness. Surely if one can have an aid to hearing on the telephone, the radio and the television, this means that one is partially deaf. Is not the equivalent of the treatment given out to the blind the treatment that might be given to those who are totally deaf?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding about the position of blind people is that if people are sufficiently badly sighted to qualify as registered blind persons, as determined by a local authority or the National Health Service, they are eligible both for tax reliefs and other particular benefits. We would in this connection be comparing like with like, because we are talking about people who have impaired hearing but who may not be totally deaf.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, could the noble Baroness answer more specifically the suggestions in my supplementary question about the assistance in Ceefax, Prestel, Oracle and Teletext facilities? They are now only available—as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out—to those with a considerable amount of money. Could not some equivalent for deaf people, as given to the blind, apply to those aids for the licence as we know it today?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of the suggestion and I shall refer it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because I understand the feeling of the noble Lord. At this stage, it would be wrong for me to suggest that we could extend the social services in this way, although this is the kind of desirable move one would like to take were there more money available.

The Housing Situation
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk rose to call attention to the difficulties arising throughout the country owing to the housing situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for my lack of voice. I hope that it carries through. This Motion is expressed in moderate terms, although the human privation and misery resulting from the housing situation arouses strong feelings and often harsh words. It is almost a year ago since the 1980 Act received its Second Reading in this House. It was then that I stressed that the Government's policy moulded in that Bill would have to be judged against the current bleak housing background. Since then it has turned out to be far worse than it was ever assumed.
There has been a disastrous collapse of new housing starts which have been sacrified on the altar of savage cuts in public expenditure of which housing took a disproportionate three-quarters of the weight. Housing declined in Labour's last years, I readily admit, due to the IMF stringencies. It declined from a high peak of 50 per cent. over a period of four years, but the
562
decline has recently been 51 per cent. in two years from an abysmally low level. Fears expressed then have been corroborated recently by a series of reports from a wide variety of bodies documenting the alarming state of housing in Britain; the Association of Municipal Associations, the London Boroughs' Association, Shelter, SHAC, the Catholic Housing Aid society. Only yesterday I had a letter from Age Concern, which is extremely worried about the plight of the elderly.
The report of the House of Commons Environmental Committee was the most damning of them all. There was a committee of the House with a majority of Conservatives on it whose projection of the future of housing from the evidence that they received was very gloomy indeed. They also referred to the fact that the Secretary of State did not come forward and give any projections or hard facts from which they could work. It is not only that the position is far worse than we even assumed it would be. On present trends there is the chance and the danger of even more serious deterioration in the future.
In new housebuilding there has been a further fall since last summer, when we discussed this matter on what is now the Housing Act. There were 54,000 new council starts executed in 1980. That is the lowest figure since 1924–25. When I use these figures—and I unfortunately have to use a few figures—I hope that they will not be looked at just as figures, whether they are percentages or numbers of starts, whatever they are, because each one of these represents a family, or individual, who is either getting housing or being deprived of housing. It is in that light that we must look at what on the face of it appear to be very dry statistics.
In Birmingham, from which I have just received their recently proposed programme—and programmes will be coming in now from other local authorities—in 1981–82 they had hoped to start 1,190 new dwellings. They will actually be able to build only 169. What is more, most of the council's programme is for small units and dwellings for specialised needs, so this means that less accommodation will be available and transfers will be more difficult, under-occupation will be made worse when you cannot transfer elderly peope. More families will remain in high-rise flats, which are quite unsuitable for family living, as I think we would all agree. Waiting lists are increasing. I spell this out because I fear the same story is going to come from councils all over the country, whatever their political views.
The private sector has also been very badly hit. It is true there has been a slight increase recently, but the House Builders' Federation and the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, together with a host of other organisations with whose names I will not weary your Lordships and who are not known to be ardent supporters of the Labour Party, have expressed their fears, alarm and great sadness over what is happening in the building and construction industry today.
Furthermore, we have an alarming state of disrepair in our housing stock. It is true that it has increased over the years but if resources are not put into it immediately the situation can only get worse. Nearly a quarter of all the houses in London are substandard

563
and nearly one-third of the houses in Liverpool a well. I am quite sure that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches will be discussing Liverpool in some depth. In Birmingham, as regards housing built in the inter-war years, they had hoped to renovate those houses but they have had to stop their programme almost entirely. Local authorities are turning more to renovation, as they have been asked to do by the Government and, although the percentage is higher, it is true, we must remember that this is taken out of a drastically reduced housing cake so that in real terms the improvement slice is very much thinner.
According to the Association of Municipal Authorities, in 1981–82, the Housing Investment Programme, the HIP allocation, has meant that 18 per cent. of authorities in England are no longer going to be able to give improvement grants at all and 40 per cent. are restricting them very severely. I do not think I can do better than quote briefly from an article in The Times on 5th May 1981 by the Planning Reporter:
"Evidence from a range of sources is showing that the condition of both public and private housing in London and other large cities is deteriorating far more quickly than the Government admits. Unless it is prepared to reverse its spending cuts and make more money available for repairs, improvement and modernization, many buildings will become uninhabitable within a few years".
It is not with any satisfaction that I build up what I think is a pretty hard case against the Government. I do not think there is anybody in this House or outside it who would be at all happy about the housing situation at the present time. What we need is to see very much more growth in housing. Waiting lists were over a million in 1980 and, according to Shelter, the time that people would have to be on that list before they get a place is eight years, and 23 years in London. It is estimated that by 1984 the waiting list will be up to 1·8 million and the waiting time will be 21 years.
I have heard the Minister say before, and he will probably say again today, that the housing waiting lists are often unreal. I accept there are a certain number of people on them who have not taken their names off but, on the other hand, there are people who have not put their names on waiting lists because they believe the situation is so desperate that it is not worth their while. The level of homelessness has reached a record in which we can take no pride. More than 58,000 families were accepted by local authorities in the year ended June 1980 under the Homeless Persons Act. In London, according to SHAC, there will be insufficient council lettings by 1983–84—only two years from now—even to accommodate the homeless, let alone single families, from the waiting lists; and London of course is a very hard case indeed.
The Government's policies enshrined in the 1980 Housing Act are failing to tackle the problems. During the passage of that Act we had many debates not only in the other place but also in this House, and one of the hard-fought areas was on shortholds, where the Government were quite convinced that that was going to be the answer to the clamp-down on lettings and that lettings would emerge and there would be very much more property which people could find to rent. But despite the rhetoric that came from Ministers, the latest reckoning shows 680 shorthold tenancies in
564
England and 24 in Wales. The Minister will no doubt say, as the Minister said in another place, that the Labour threat to repeal the Act is having a detrimental effect on landlords who might otherwise be prepared to let. I think this is wrong, for two reasons. First, it is possible to let on shorthold for a period anywhere between one year and five years, and unless people think that the Government are going to last less than a year—maybe they do—people could still let for just a year. So I do not think that has much force. Secondly, if the Government had accepted some of the amendments we pressed so hard and which were in the original Brandon Rhys-Williams Bill on shorthold, for instance, giving the sitting tenant a first refusal at the end of the lease, then there would have been less opposition from this side of the House.
Then if we look at the right to buy, this does not produce one single new home: I do not think there can be any disagreement about that. But although the Government may say it is early days, there have been very few sales indeed. In London, whether Tory or Labour councils are concerned, there have been practically none. In fact I believe that in Kensington there have been no sales although there have been 8,000 inquiries, or something like that. One of the reasons is that many of these are for flats, and it is very hard.
But what is much more important is that in spite of the decline in the situation the Government are still prepared to continue with what I can only call "asset-stripping", when we are so short of houses and flats for people to rent and when the building of units is going down considerably, and to take out of the rental market—which after all was what council housing was started for—all these houses and flats which they hopefully want to take out in order that people should have the right to buy. I think noble Lords will remember the battle we had even to get exemption for the elderly in sheltered housing, and what a battle it was! But there there was great support for our amendment not only from the Liberals and the Cross-Benchers, but also from a number of Members of the party opposite. The Act, as it is at the moment, is so tough in this way that I have had letters from Tories, particularly in rural parts of the country, who were delighted that we got that amendment through. They have since said how difficult it is to house people in rural areas, and how hard it still is to help elderly people.
We have seen an unprecedented increase in council rents. However one argues that there are some rents which should have gone up—possibly there were—there is no reason or justification for the amount by which a number of rents have gone up; and, as I understand it, the Secretary of State has certainly not ruled out the possibility of a further increase. There is a curious factor about what is happening. In an Answer the other day in another place, the Minister for Housing and Construction said that 46 per cent. of tenants can afford to meet the rent only with help from supplementary benefit or rent rebate. That means that nearly half of the people paying council rent have to be given help from another Government pocket, which means a considerable increase in bureaucracy. I shall not quote—because I am not sure of it—the very large figure which is floating

565
around of what this will cost, but it is considerable. It is a piece of public book-keeping that is expensive and socially unsound. It also means that more and more poor families will be caught in the poverty trap.
As regards future prospects, I wish I could say that we have got over the hump and that things will be better. Unfortunately, it does not look at all like that. The National Council of Building Materials Producers expect output to drop by nearly 10 per cent. in 1981, and, even according to DoE figures, new orders for construction work are down and are very bleak. So the future is not a very happy one.
Houses are for people. They are not for straightening out the books or to be played around with by Governments as just another piece of public expenditure, without weighing the social necessity and the consequences. After food, the next necessity that is required by everybody is a decent roof over their heads. I say"decent", because so many people are living in such ghastly housing conditions that others who saw them for the first time would be absolutely amazed and would find them quite incredible.
The public expenditure cuts are an easy ride to take for a Government which is following a monetarist policy, and which is being so severe towards public expenditure that it is causing a continuous increase in unemployment with colossal sums being paid out, at the rate of something like £6,000 a year for a married man and wife with two children. As unemployment is probably over the 3 million mark, when we take in all the hidden unemployment as well, the cost is absolutely tremendous.
But building is a very labour-intensive industry and people could be set to work. We would deplete the ranks of the unemployed and would be building houses for people to live in, if the Government did not stick fast not just to its housing policy, but to its whole monetary and financial policy, under which housing is suffering terribly. I would remind your Lordships that 75 per cent. of the cuts in public expenditure came from housing.
The tentacles that reach out from insufficient and bad housing are absolutely infinite. We see the breakdown in marital relationships. Young people have nowhere to live. Young married couples cannot find a house or flat. Older people cannot manage in their own dwellings, and the last Act has not helped them very much. It means either that they have to go into residential homes, or that they stay, often unwillingly and not very happily, with relatives which does not work out very well.
We have seen increases in vandalism and in delinquency, and when you speak to probation officers you find they say that the two major factors which affect these increases are unemployment and bad housing. In some council estates, as well as elsewhere, there are many people, particularly women, who are today constantly on tranquillisers, because they find it so hard to cope with miserable housing conditions and with overcrowded families. They find that they just cannot cope at all.
What we need to do, is to recognise the extent of the need. The Government must recognise that this is a social need and it is something that should he on the nation's conscience. It should not be looked at only from a financial point of view, though, even from that
566
point of view, it is extremely short-sighted not to realise that building houses and flats, and putting enough money into improvements before the dilapidated buildings completely fall down will benefit future generations. It is part of the stock and the wealth of the country.
We must take some of the political prejudice out of this whole housing question. One is not asking for something which is a luxury. One is not asking for people to have more than their share. One is just saying that the citizens of this country should all be entitled to decent housing conditions, somewhere to live and something to which they can look forward.
If we could achieve that and start thinking along those lines, instead of getting into these almost cast iron compartments, we might start to get somewhere. But the Opposition certainly cannot do this on its own, and the Government must take a completely new look at housing, and see it as an entirely different ingredient when it is considering public expenditure. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on initiating this debate. I should also like, as I am sure your Lordships would, to commiserate with her on suffering the worst possible infirmity that can befall a politician. I do not know what she has in that glass, but it seemed to improve the quality of her performance as time moved on. Perhaps she will give me the recipe later on.
It is apposite that the noble Baroness should have initiated this debate. As she said, it is about a year after the coming into force of the Housing Act, and it gives us an opportunity to review the position after that Act and the very serious housing position in this country generally. I welcome the debate, too, because, as the noble Baroness said, I come from a part of the country, Merseyside, which probably has some of the worst housing conditions in the country. But I do not intend on this occasion to dwell on that, except to say that, in the area that I used to represent on the county council, we recently demolished a block of flats which had been built only 18 years ago to accommodate 240 families, because they were no longer inhabitable or possible to let.
That is the kind of thing that is happening in other parts of the country with monotonous regularity. I only wish there were more examples of the experiment that has been so successfully carried out at"Terror Tower"in Edinburgh, which has been refurbished and revitalised. I hope that, instead of the demolition of comparatively new multi-storey blocks, we may, in the early future, be seeing their conversion and improvement and, if that is possible, the making of them vandalproof, as has been done in Edinburgh.
I also think it is a happy coincidence that my honourable friend Mr. David Alton is this afternoon introducing a Ten-minute Rule Bill in another place to amend the 1936 Public Health Act, to seek to ensure that public health inspectors will enforce minimum standards and that every tenant will be entitled to running hot water, an inside lavatory, and a bathroom. The 1976 English House Conditions Survey estimated that 39 per cent. of people over 65 years of age lived

567
in property built before 1919, of which 50 per cent.—to say the least—was, according to the survey, unsatisfactory. It has been estimated that since 1976 there has been a considerable increase in the deterioration of this accommodation. One need hardly underline that the absence of basic amenities such as those to which I have referred, and rising damp, hit the elderly particularly hard because they are less able to cope with such conditions and are probably less able to afford to carry out the repairs which are required.
With the increasing proportion of elderly people in this country, the extremely low level of slum clearance—with only 29,152 demolitions in 1979 compared with 70,000 a year in the early 1970s—and the fact that 66 per cent. of local authorities with slum clearance problems have either cut back or delayed their programmes, coupled with the fact brought out in a survey published in March 1981 showing that improvement grants were not being taken up, as the noble Baroness has said, owing to the cut in HIP, the future for the elderly and indeed for all tenants and owners of pre-1919 property is not a very encouraging one.
I am delighted that the amendment by my noble friend Lord Banks which was carried at the Report stage of the Housing Bill and which enabled many elderly people to benefit from an extension to the Option Mortgage Scheme, is turning out to be of great practical help to the elderly. This is one of many projects which Help the Aged and other voluntary organisations have been able to use in assisting elderly people, such as the Gifted Housing Scheme, home improvement and insulation projects and others. The cut-back in local authority spending after the Housing Improvement Programme allocations has resulted in as much as 38 per cent. of current cuts falling on sheltered housing, which I should have thought was a very shortsighted policy on the part of both local and central government.
At the other extreme, students and undergraduates are suffering from the housing problem. Every autumn, colleges and universities throughout the country find themselves with hundreds of homeless students and with many more inadequately housed in private accommodation of an inferior quality. The building of halls of residence has virtually stopped, and while I believe that many of the luxurious halls of residence built in the 1960s and 1970s were often wasteful of finance, I consider that in areas of housing stress such as London the Government should make funds available for building or extending halls of residence.
At the same time, rents in halls of residence are rising, according to estimates from the National Union of Students, by figures ranging from 25 per cent. to 70 per cent.—44 per cent. in Wales—while the grant allocated to students is rising by only 7 per cent. I fear that this will force students out of halls of residence which they cannot afford into the already overcrowded private sector. In the private sector students are particularly vulnerable to Rent Act evasions such as non-exclusive licences to occupy and bogus holiday lets, as many of your Lordships warned the Government during the progress of the Housing Bill a year ago. I refer in particular to the provision in the Housing
568
Act 1980 allowing landlords to charge a deposit of two months' rent, which may mean that a student has to find a deposit of £170. This, together with his first month's rent, means that a student is having to pay out 42 per cent. of his first term's grant on rent alone. That cannot be a satisfactory position, and I hope the matter is one that the noble Lord the Minister or his collegaues will look at.
I have mentioned these examples of the plight facing the elderly and the young to draw attention to my belief that we, as a country, have become complacent because of the great burst of slum clearance and house improvement programmes of the 1960s and 1970s. In fact we now face—as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has pointed out—intense housing problems in this country. First, we are neither building nor renovating enough dwellings to meet the challenge of providing 900,000 more households by the late 1980s brought about by the huge increase in births in the decades since the war. Secondly, there were fewer housing starts in 1980 than there have been for 50 years. In 1980 only 152,000 starts were made compared with more than 300,000 starts five years before. In the public sector there were only 44,000 new starts last year, which was the lowest figure since 1920.
From the statistics which are available it seems to me that housing is bearing the severest brunt of the Government's spending cuts. By 1984—that magic year to which we are continually referring—housing will account for only 3·9 per cent. of Government spending, compared with 7·3 per cent. last year. I am afraid that whatever Government have been in power since the war, housing has always been a popular target for cuts, because it is so capital intensive that a single cut can appear to make a large saving without being immediately seen to affect pressure groups and others who have a strong lobby in their favour. In fact it affects the future housing of new generations and also the housing of the homeless, groups which are less easy to mobilise into protest.
So the miserable thing goes on, with one round of cuts justifying another. If we go on as we are, it is likely that by 1983 less than 30,000 council houses will be completed, which is fewer than the number suggested by the Select Committee on the Environment and which compares with 100,000 only three years ago. It is projected that by 1984 this will leave an absolute deficit of 500,000 houses, even if housing deficit in one part of the country is offset against surpluses in another and even accepting the highly doubtful assertion that most single people do not want a house of their own. On this projection there will be over the country as a whole a total deficit of 500,000 houses.
As the noble Baroness indicated, higher rents will not drive out tenants into the private sector, as might have happened before the Housing Act; the tenant will merely buy, under the very generous provisions of the Housing Act 1980, without creating a single new available letting. The need of tenants, local authorities and the building industry is a period of stability with a steady programme of building and rehabilitation, not subject—as the housing and building industry has been—to wild fluctuations depending on the whim of successive governments and successive economic problems. We need a simplification of the

569
system of housing finance and the substitution of a housing credit system for the present complex system of mortgage interest relief, insurance relief, council rent subsidies, rent and rate rebates, and supplementary benefits.
I am glad that some building societies are trying to break—if only at the margins—the extremely conservative image that the building society movement has had over the years. Much needs to be done by the building societies themselves to encourage loans for less conventional dwellings, and possibly to less conventional borrowers, and to reappraise the policy of"red-lining"whole areas as not being available for building society mortgages.
Competition from other financial institutions would be healthy. I welcome the fact that in a small way the joint stock banks are beginning to compete in this area. The creation of new forms of ownership and tenure would be helpful. Clearly as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, for one reason or another which I do not intend to debate at the moment, the shorthold scheme has not yet taken off, though I believe that, with safeguards, it might have been a useful addition to the various types of tenures available.
My belief, therefore, is that unless we are willing to face, and I hope none of us is, an extreme housing crisis in the next five years—as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is a human crisis; any housing crisis is a human crisis—and also the virtual destruction of the building industry, an industry with 350,000 unemployed (as Shelter have said"The present level of activity in the construction industry will significantly and perhaps permanently reduce the industry's capacity to respond efficiently to increased demand in the future") there must be, I repeat, because this is the key to the whole problem of housing, a period of stability and a very considerable and consistent growth in building starts and rehabilitation, including the rehabilitation of hard-to-let multi-storey property. There must be an improvement in the housing investment programme allocations, simplification of housing finance, innovation in financing the private sector, experimentation in new kinds of tenure and special assistance for the elderly and the young, including students and undergraduates.
If we do not take steps of this crisis kind, we shall be creating a crisis that we ourselves and certainly our children will have to face of an extremely serious nature in terms of the basic human right of people to have a house and a home of their own.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for initiating this debate. I hope her sore throat will soon be better.
Any debate on housing is really a debate on homes. To a society which is family orientated, a home is one, though not the only basic need of a family. But in our society there are those who either have not got a family or who, because of their particular problems, cannot live within the orbit of their family. Some of them are on probation; some are discharged prisoners; some of them are drug addicts. There are those who have been discharged from mental hospitals; there are the homeless and there are those who are unable to sustain a job. And, very sadly, there are those very
570
young people who cannot get jobs in their own areas and who think that by coming to a big city they will find one. Then they find themselves without a job and without a home to live in. Today, therefore, I should like to talk about hostels and the provision of positive shelter for those in our society who are the most vulnerable.
If we support the hostel movement, and I think most Members of your Lordships' House do, we support it because it is a way of helping vulnerable people along the road to self-survival in the community in which they live. There are some hostels which provide accommodation on a long-term basis while there are others, most important in our community, which supply a stepping stone towards independence.
Administratively, the situation is extremely difficult. Three Ministries are involved: the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security. May I make three points to show how difficult it is when three Ministries are involved. The staffing ratios in hostels for those most vulnerable in our society who need skilled help from people who are able to tolerate that very difficult life are laid down not by the hostel staff, not by the voluntary organisations running the hostels, not by the Home Office who understand those who have come from penal institutions. They are laid down by the Department of the Environment. If you appoint more than the number of staff laid down by the Department of the Environment, then you are in trouble with that department. If, on the other hand, you do not supply sufficient skilled and helpful staff who are committed to their work, you are running the hostels at a loss because you are not cost effective and helping people to be rehabilitated in their communities.
That is one problem. The second problem is that the rent per person is laid down again by the Department of the Environment. The department lays down the rent which must be paid by each person in the hostel. If a man is on social security, the rent is paid by social security. If, however, a man finds a job which pays him less than his social security—this sometimes is the case, because he loses a number of other benefits—then he cannot afford to pay the rent for his accommodation in the hostel. If he cannot afford to pay the rent he must leave the hostel, which means that he is on the streets and has nowhere to go. Quite clearly, therefore, the Department of the Environment has not completely understood the needs of that particular man, woman or young person. This is a disincentive to work.
It is well-known in your Lordships' House that at the moment many men are moving about the country. They are leaving their families and seeking work in different parts of the country. If they cannot find other accommodation, perhaps they can find it in a hostel. When they go to a hostel they find that they can be accommodated and paid for by supplementary benefit. But if they get a job they cannot afford the rent and then they must leave the hostel.
My third point relates to the Home Office. The Home Office funds men, women and young people who have been in penal institutions or who are on probation and who need hostel accommodation. The House of Commons Expenditure Committee pressed

571
in 1978 for more hostel accommodation. In 1980, a Government White Paper said that it was hoped that resources for expansion would be forthcoming, but nothing yet has happened.
Therefore, different Government departments are ruled by the Department of the Environment, which provides grants through housing associations, with voluntary organisations running the hostels, yet they do not provide sufficient funds to enable those hostels to be run efficiently. May I therefore ask the Minister to say in his reply whether or not it would be a good idea to have a joint committee consisting of the three Ministries, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Voluntary Hostels Association, so that one co-ordinated policy can be laid down for the different types of hostels and the different types of needs.
I speak with very deep feeling. I have been responsible for running hostels. The administration was appalling. The Home Office paid for perhaps two beds, while supplementary benefits paid for perhaps three beds, and great difficulty arose, because of the need to submit different accounts to different Ministries while at the same time trying to fit in with the Department of the Environment. Would it not be possible to have an all-departmental committee together with the voluntary organisations, or a co-ordinating committee which would lay down help for all hostels for all people? I submit that this is not asking for money and in the end it would probably prove to be cost effective.
I wish to mention two other sectors which present problems. One concerns evictions. Those of us who have to deal with families being evicted know that this is an appalling problem. We acknowledge that there are rent arrears; there are families with children and they are evicted for non-payment of rent. The children are accepted into care, which is very costly and not at all the right emotional situation for the children, nor for the parents, or alternatively the families are perhaps placed in lodging houses, boarding houses, even hotels—something which is even more costly than the rent arrear which has built up. I would make a plea on two counts: first, that housing departments should look closely at their rent arrears and offer support to families at a very early stage. Once rent arrears have built up there is no hope of ever getting them paid off.
Secondly, one goes round big cities and sees an enormous number of houses empty and yet there are families who have been evicted and placed in hotels and boarding houses and who have nowhere to go. I submit that it would be far better for such families to be housed in those empty properties, pending their use. The families could be housed, not necessarily as tenants but as licensees, and therefore they would not come under the Rent Act.
I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, on the subject of students. Coming from a university city, I know that the students are in great difficulties and I know that this matter will be pursued by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. So I would ask the Minister whether he will consider those who are most vulnerable in our society, not necessarily for more money—although I am quite sure that we could
572
do with more hostels and more money—but with a view to developing a different procedure so that we can deal with them and help them more effectively.
3.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, I, too, would wish to express appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the opportunity which she has provided for us to debate this subject. I believe it is difficult to exaggerate its importance for people and for the well-being of our society. I should like to develop two of the points which the noble Baroness made in her speech. First, she said that it was a social need which should be accepted by our society and, secondly, she said that it was short-sighted not to recognise that a housing stock was part of the assets of our country and of our society.
I am sure that many of your Lordships at the present time of recession and economic difficulties share my own experience of receiving pleas from those who are engaged in very worthy and deserving causes which have suffered or are likely to suffer as a result of financial cuts. Many of these pleas arouse our deep sympathy but, however sympathetic we may feel and bearing in mind that the financial resources of the nation are limited, our only responsible course is to assess priorities. When it comes to the assessing of priorities I believe we must recognise that housing must take a very high place indeed, not only in its own right, allowing people to have the basic right to be adequately housed, but because, when we come to look at many of these causes which are pleading their cases with us, many of the situations which they have been created to remedy have arisen in large measure from the housing problem. Therefore I very much welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said when she spoke about it being shortsighted not to realise that this problem must have the very highest priority.
I think no one can deny that there is an evident correlation between the provision of adequate housing, both in quality and quantity, and the stability of our family life, and it is to that point that I ask your Lordships to turn your minds for a moment—the stability of our family life, which is in such urgent need of being strengthened at the present time. In my experience, some of the causes which we are asked to support exist to meet needs which are exacerbated, if not caused, by the housing situation.
A month of so ago I was preaching at the service held in our cathedral to celebrate the centenary of that fine institution, the Church of England Children's Society. As a boy I was brought up in Battersea, where my father was a priest. The Society was then known as the Waifs and Strays—and waifs and strays I certainly saw as I lived in that part of London. They were waifs and strays who certainly suffered physical deprivation. When I was preaching my sermon at the centenary of that society I said that the waifs and strays of today are not merely those who suffer physical deprivation but also those who suffer psychological and spiritual deprivation because of their family and their housing situation. It is that spiritual and psychological deprivation which is often the result of the instability of family life to which in

573
adequate housing or homelessness is a contributory factor. One has only to ask in any school to find evidence of the relationship between delinquency, disturbance and the situation of the family, particularly in regard to its accommodation.
A moment or two ago I mentioned homelessness and, as your Lordships know, that is the most acute and distressing aspect of the problem. The number of homeless households has more than doubled in the last five years. I only mention this to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that 69 per cent. of homeless households in 1978 were those with dependent children, which means that it has a particularly acute effect on family life. If I do not speak further on this aspect of the problem of homelessness, it is not because I do not care; on the contrary, it is because I believe it needs particular special and expert attention and because it is in effect the tip of the iceberg of the housing situation generally. Although we may have to do what we can for homelessness as a problem, what we can do there will, in the long run, avail little unless we are trying to do something about the housing situation generally.
It is to certain aspects of that problem that I would now ask your Lordships to turn your attention. I want first to speak of the effect of the housing situation on those who are newly married. In a recent discussion paper published by the Policy Studies Institute entitled Public Policy in Family Life, Mr. Bradshaw, drawing on another publication, Who Divorces?, states that disadvantaged housing, especially in the early years of marriage, is more typical of those who have suffered marital breakdown than of those who are continuing the marriage, as also is friction between parties in shared accommodation. In general, he points out that marital stability and a stable accommodation history in the first years of marriage go hand in hand. Many of us would rather have suspected that that was the case, but it could not be taken for granted; it does seem now that clearly that is so. It seems that divorced couples, for example, undoubtedly tend to have had more frequent haphazard and even forced moves during the early years of their marriage.
I am not, of course, suggesting that housing problems are the only or even the prime cause of divorce. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that there is an evident correlation between inadequate housing and marital breakdown, and that at a time when children are particularly vulnerable. The Church of England report Marriage and the Church's Task made a similar point. It drew attention to the fact that the serious housing shortage has a particular effect on the ability of young married couples to set up house and results in them very often starting their marriage in very unsatisfactory conditions.
The report of the Research Working Group under the chairmanship of Sir Douglas Black, entitled Inequalities in Health, drew attention to the known deleterious consequences for children of high-rise living and to the association of poor housing, and particularly overcrowding, with a number of indicators of mortality and morbidity. Correlation has been found between the proportion of population living at one or more persons per room and the mortality rate among children up to the age of four. The report
574
maintained that adequate housing of families with children must be a priority if class inequalities in health are to be eliminated.
So far as housing and elderly people are concerned, the report A Happier Old Age, published by the Stationery Office in 1978, drew attention to the fact that, although most old people live in the community, their ability to do so can depend as much upon the kind of accommodation they occupy as upon the support they receive. This, I believe, is a very important point that we need to bear in mind. It is one of which I am particularly conscious in my present diocese, where we have many old people, happy to live on their own, with independence, but finding it increasingly difficult to do so because of the quality of the accommodation they have; and the very quality of that accommodation, coupled with the high rise in energy costs, means that too often they cannot continue where they are, with the resulting demands that they make upon our existing already overstrained health services.
The report of the Policy Studies Institute, to which I referred earlier, recommends that elderly people who are on their own should be encouraged to live communally but with privacy. I was very glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said just now about hostels and housing associations, because I believe that a good deal of accommodation could be released by proper provision of this kind of housing for elderly people, in which their privacy and their independence is recognised but they are able also to live in community.
I have sought to remind your Lordships of some ways in which the housing situation affects our family life and makes it a matter of such grave concern. I could have referred to certain specific problems, such as, for example, those of the disabled. The only point I want to make here is that it is not so much a question of what special provision for the disabled you make in the accommodation provided as the fact that in a situation of pressure their position is always made more difficult for them; in other words, if you have disabled members in your family, family life comes under greater stress if your accommodation is inadequate. Therefore, I believe this is another reason for seeing our housing problem in this overall family context.
I was going to mention the particular position of students, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for having made that point effectively for me. What I believe is needed is that there should be a clearer overall policy for housing which really takes into account the rate of the formation of new households, which is something we cannot control; it is not for us to say whether people should get married or not and whether they should then have families. But the rate must have a direct bearing upon our housing policy. Secondly, the overall policy must balance improvements with the rate of deterioration of houses, and, as one has heard already in this House today, the situation is not a very happy one. A large percentage of our housing, particularly in London, is in a state of serious deterioration. Thirdly, it must ensure that inroads are made in the backlog of had conditions.
I am, of course, well aware of the financial difficulties of today, but in the first place I think we must re-emphasise again and again that the need to help people to enjoy the basic human right to acquire

575
adequate accommodation must be heard loud and clear. Your Lordships notice how I phrase that—to enable people"to enjoy the basic human right to acquire adequate accommodation". My experience of those countries in which housing is wholly the responsibility of the state does not encourage me to think that this is the way to solve the problem. Nor do I think that it can be done by a laissez-faire attitude towards housing, in which council provision is regarded as a kind of stop-gap, or even a kind of supplement, without the two being related.
I believe that there is a need for a clearer and more evident relationship to be made between housing generally, in the private sector and its provision by local authorities, and that we must not think simply in terms of either state control or laissez-faire supported by a degree of state provision. The two must be seen as part of a coherent housing policy which takes into account the whole stock of housing which is available in this country.
I believe that our basic concern must be to enable the individual to enjoy the basic right to acquire adequate accommodation. It may be that he will have to be given that right through council provided accommodation. It may be that he can be helped in other ways to do it for himself. Either way must be respected, but the two need to be related. Failure to look for an overall housing policy which takes both sectors into full account and seeks to relate them can only serve to increase the number of homeless and those who suffer because of their accommodation problems. But I also believe that such a policy will bring its rewards, and happy rewards, in terms of the future of this country. I believe that we need to take a much more positive look not merely at housing but at housing in the context of family life and in the context of society and to see it as one of the fundamental problems which we have to grasp today. If we do not do that we shall cause people to suffer, and I believe that we shall also be found wanting as a society in fulfilling our responsibilities.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Greenwood of Rossendale: My Lords, in the teeth of very great difficulties, my noble friend Lady Birk made what I thought was a splendidly robust and vigorous speech, and once again my noble friend has placed the House in her debt. I should also like to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. I think that I agreed with most of what he said and I am hoping that the right reverend Prelate induced in your Lordships a frame of mind which makes it easier for me to crave the indulgence of the House if I leave it for about an hour soon after five o'clock. I have the responsibility of welcoming a number of your Lordships at the annual reception of the AMA. I feel that that must have priority for at any rate part of today.
I wanted very much to speak in this debate because for the past 15 years I have devoted more thought to the housing problem than to any other problem. I have at times declared interests in your Lordships' House and I do not want to go over them again. I shall simply say that all my experience in most sections of the housing world leads me to form a
576
sombre view of the prospects that lie ahead. My earnest hope today is that perhaps we can find some common ground, some general acceptance of what we need and what we can afford. I am quite sure that it is wrong that housing should be used as a financial regulator. We must have stable approach to the housing problem. Fifty per cent. cuts in public expenditure on housing just do not make sense by anybody's reckoning.
If today, I seem critical, I can assure your Lordships that my criticisms are not in any way directed against individuals. I have a very high regard for Mr. Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the conscientious and industrious way in which they approach their responsibilities. What I am complaining of is the Government's overall strategy and the effect that it is having on the housing situation. It would be wrong to blame individual members if house building does not begin to soar. It is the Government's responsibility. If the Minister's colleagues in the Treasury are not prepared to make the resources available to the housing Ministers, then it is wrong to blame the housing Ministers for any shortfall.
I do not want to go over again the figures that were given by my noble friend and also by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. I shall simply say that we are in a situation in which public sector housing has come almost to a standstill. The payment of improvement grants has been cut by something like 60 per cent.; slum clearance has been slowed down; we are losing our existing stock and we are not producing new houses on the scale that is required. I find that a most depressing picture.
My noble friend referred to the 350,000 unemployed building workers. Of course not all of them would be involved in the building of houses. However, there is surely something desperately wrong when we have 350,000 men with skills at their fingertips and we have homelessness probably actually increasing at the moment and we cannot bring the two together. I think that the public may well ponder over the policies that the Government are pursuing when they are spending no less than £2,000 million a year on keeping building workers out of a job. If only the men, the money, the materials and the land could be brought together! There is no earthly reason why that should not be done. I am afraid that many members of the public may well become a little sceptical and frustrated when they look at this situation. I am bound to say, as one who has been worried about the lack of young people going into apprenticeships, that I can hardly blame them for hesitating to go into apprenticeships when we can waste manpower in the way in which we are doing at present.
I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the voluntary housing movement. We are both involved in it, and it has, I think, shown remarkable resilience in the last six months or a year. It has handled its case with very great skill indeed and I think that it has had a good deal of help from the housing Ministers in that respect. Nevertheless, there was for half the financial year a moratorium. In 1979–80 there were going to be 34,500 homes approved. However, that was reduced first to 21,700; then it was reduced still further to 14,700 and the final figure was,

577
in fact, 11,170—a cut of about 60 per cent.; and a number of new schemes were slashed.
The offices of the National Federation of Housing Associations now estimates that the voluntary housing movement is working to only 50 per cent. of capacity. I am genuinely afraid that, if the voluntary housing movement does not get further off the ground in the near future, we shall lose a lot of people from it; a lot of skills will be lost and it will be difficult to repair the damage that has been done. I am a little worried, for example, by the fact that a great deal of energy has been switched from the provision of rented housing to the purchase of houses for improvement and sale. That is an interesting and exciting job for housing associations, but I cannot help feeling that the priority should be the acquisition of new properties for the homeless rather than the rehabilitation of houses for sale after improvement. I agreed with everything that the noble Baroness said about the hostels. I am sure that she is on the right lines, if I may say so with all modesty, and, indeed, it is good to know that her thinking is along those lines.
In my view there are three lessons which I suggest we should all learn from our difficulties—and they should be learnt not least by many who share my own political point of view. The first is that if planning is too restrictive it greatly favours the land owner with planning permission. It gives him tremendous power and it raises the price of houses. The second lesson is that if the provision of houses does not keep pace with supply of mortgage finance the cost of houses will be forced up. The third lesson, in my humble submission, is that standards are not immutable. I would much sooner see some dropping of the standards if it meant the provision of more houses than I would the concentration on too high a level of standard with a smaller total. I think that that is something that we shall have to think about seriously.
Finally, I am not at all sure whether for a very long time we can repair the damage that the cuts have already done. But if we are to remedy the situation, we must stop bashing one another about in order to do it. I strongly believe that we must reach a consensus on the basic provision of housing below which no Government of any party would allow it to fall. An essential feature of a secure and happy people is to maintain such a consensus instead of allowing the figures to fluctuate wildly between 150,000 homes a year and over 400,000 homes a year.
It was that consideration that a few months ago led me to write a letter to the Daily Telegraph, and perhaps I could read to your Lordships what I wrote:
"Until we take housing out of the political cockpit the building industry will be at risk, local authorities will be frustrated, the voluntary housing movement will lose momentum and many of our people will be without homes or living in slums.
It should not be impossible to get agreement on the number of new homes we (i) need, and (ii) can afford.
Once that is decided … Ministers, councils, and building societies will know how much finance is required; builders will know the demand for labour and materials; the planners will know what land must be freed for development.".
I believe that none of this is incapable of achievement. The Housing Centre Trust was kind enough to set up a working party to consider the points that I made in that letter, and it will be reporting in about 10 days' time. The working party was chaired by Mr. Richard
578
Edmonds, a former chairman of the Housing and Planning Council and chairman of the planning committee of the old LCC; Miss Joan Ash was the Secretary of that working party.
However, I think that I must make just one point before I conclude, and it concerns my reference to the "political cockpit". I do not, for a moment, suggest that we should stop arguing about housing. There are so many aspects of the housing problem that lend themselves to lively controversy: the sale of council houses, rent policies, what should be the social mix, are all examples of the kind of matter about which we should be arguing. No, I want to stop"targeteering"—to stop the parties promising to build more than their opponents. I want them to reach broad agreement on a basic standard of housing below which they will not allow it to sink. I want them to agree on how many houses we need a year, how much we can afford, and perhaps on the broad allocation of available funds to new building, redevelopment and rehabilitation. I hope that this debate today will have helped to clarify our minds on some of the basic issues upon which we have to decide. Like your Lordships, I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate this afternoon.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder—not wishing to interrupt his absolutely excellent speech—whether he could help on this matter. He said that we should bring together the building trade workers who are out of work and the money that is being drawn in supplementary benefits for those men to be out of work. Can he indicate how this could be done? Because in this sector and in other sectors many of us would like to see this done but are in some difficulty over trade union law and as to how much a man should be paid over the supplementary benefit.
Lord Greenwood of Rossendale: My Lords, I appreciate the point of view of the noble Baroness, but I do not think that one can take a block of money there and a block of workers here and just bring them together. This entirely depends on getting the house-building industry moving again so that money is made available by the Government and the local authorities. If we can put them back to work, the state as a whole will save approximately that amount in a year.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise that you have to accept me instead of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. Apparently the Whips Office made a mistake, and when the noble Lord withdrew his name they thought that I was the person withdrawing; hence my name does not appear on the list. All the same, it is a stroke of good fortune, because it enables me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who has made an excellent speech on this particular subject, and I am happy to be able so to do.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, that the objective should be to decide how many houses we need to build and how many houses we need to keep in repair. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro that the question must be

579
one of the relationship of households to dwellings. The trouble about the question of this relationship of households to dwellings is that it cannot be worked out in a nice round figure, which is what Ministers often try to do. They often tell us that there are, in fact, enough dwellings for the households. Sometimes they are right and the overall figure balances; but it is the areas that matter.
I have a few figures for London which I should like to quote. To take Brent, there are, infact, 2,500 more households than dwellings; in Harringey there are 2,100; in Ealing there are 1,400; in Lambeth there are 2,400; but in Richmond there are only 200, and in Wandsworth there are only 900. So this question of the balance between households and dwellings is very important, but it must be borne in mind that it is a local balance, and it is the local balance that must be achieved.
I want to ask your Lordships to look at this housing problem in terms of what goes on at the moment. Let us start, for example, with the waiting lists. I know that the Minister will tell us that the waiting list is not an accurate record of need, and I accept that. But it is an indicator, because just as there are many people on the waiting lists who have put down their names in order that if, in a few years' time, they need a house, they are on the list, so there are many people who do not put their names on the list. I can assure the Minister that in my medical surgery—I am not talking about political surgeries—I come across many people who have got themselves into housing difficulties. I tell them that they must go and see the council, and then I discover that they have never put their names on the waiting list. So there is a balance there: there are people who are on the waiting list merely"on spec", and there are people who need houses but who are not on the waiting list. Therefore, although the waiting list is not an accurate indicator, it is an indicator.
There are at this moment in England and Wales 1,144,000 people on council housing waiting lists. In 1979 that figure was 1,020,000. This means that it has increased by another 24,000 in a year. I have the London figure for 1979 but not for 1980. For 1979 the London figure was 228,000. What is more, there were 57,200 people registered as homeless who had reported as being homeless in 1979. Again, I do not have the 1980 figure. But, again, 30 per cent. of those were here in London—17,368.
There has also been a survey of the condition of houses in Greater London. This survey showed that we had 241,000 unfit dwellings in London; 140,000 of which were in fact in inner London. There are 417,000 dwellings in disrepair. Of those 154,000 were in the private sector, and 208,000 were owner-occupied. The percentage of houses in disrepair again was higher in inner London than outer London. In inner London there were 21 per cent. and in outer London 17 per cent.
What was also found in the survey was that by and large local authority houses were in fair condition, the private rented stock was in the worst state, but there was also a disrepair problem in owner-occupied houses. In fact, a comparison of the unfit dwellings situation in London as opposed to the rest of the country showed that 9·2 per cent. of London dwellings were unfit; the England total is 4·6 per cent. Lacking basic
580
amenities, London was about the same as the rest of the country, it was 5·4 per cent. to 5·3 per cent. But with dwellings that required repair costing more than £3,000, in London there were 18 per cent. whereas the rest of the country was 6·4 per cent. Admittedly some of that would be due to the fact that houses in London are more expensive than in the rest of the country, but I know that that could not be the whole answer. There is obviously more disrepair here in London than there is in the rest of the country.
That is the situation. We have these huge waiting lists, these houses in disrepair, and all the surveys show that the older houses are steadily getting worse and needing repair. What do we have as an answer? In 1980 only 128,000 houses were started of which, as we heard earlier, only 44,000 were in the public sector. The rest were in the private sector. I know that the Government's strategy is to allow the private sector to provide the housing that is required. I know that that is their strategy, but it is quite obvious that the private sector is not yet in a position to provide the houses required.
Therefore, I should have thought that a Government concerned about the welfare of the people—and I am not suggesting that the Government are not—would, pending the period when the private sector would take up the slack, make sure that there is not that big a slack. That would be my condemnation of the Government. In every sphere at this moment we are falling down. It is not just that the starts are less. In the case of improvements there are less. There were only 75,000 improvement grants given in 1980 to private owners. You have to compare that with the 192,000 in 1974 to realise what has been happening. Take slum clearance. In 1980 only 29,152 slums were cleared. Again you must compare this with the 70,000 a year that were cleared in most of the 1970s.
Not only are we not providing the new houses, we are not repairing. We are not dealing with the slums. Therefore, we are heading for a serious housing crisis. We are bound to. In fact, the AMA has estimated that we should be 430,000 houses short by 1986. This is a serious matter; a matter to which the Government ought to be directing their attention. But what we have is the direct opposite. What we have is a steady cut in the housing investment programme allocation. It has been cut year after year.
I know that the Government expect that the sale of council houses would meet some of that. In fact, that was the reason why I was insisting when the Housing Bill was going through this House that the reduction rate that would be given to the people who are buying council houses should be paid for by central Government. The Government estimate that there will be £413 million available for capital investment next year in their allocation. If in effect the discount was also met by central Government, there would be another £200 million to be used for house building and house improvement. This was the point that I was making—I made it unsuccessfully—during the period of the Housing Bill.
There is a certain category of people for whom it is the public sector who have to provide houses. We have heard about the elderly and about the students. In the case of the elderly the problem is really one of repair. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of

581
Government to work out a system under which these old people, who own their properties and cannot maintain them, can be given a much bigger grant, in fact the full 100 per cent. grant, to enable them to put them right, rather than the present situation. There is a straightforward way in which the old people living in houses which they cannot maintain can in fact be helped.
However, I have not heard anything said so far about the disabled. They are also a group for whom special provisions should be made by the Government. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need to make special provisions for the housing of the disabled. The other group I want to talk about are the single people. By and large the council housing association or even the private sector give priority to families over single people in terms of housing. Again speaking from my own experience in my practice, I have run into a lot of single people who are homeless. This seems to be something to which in fact the Government can direct their attention and try to make some special provisions for single people.
What I am saying, and hoping that the Minister is taking in, is that the Government, while sticking to their ideology—and I am not challenging it at the moment—can still do a lot more than is being done to bridge the gap between the people who are in need and the existing provisions. I hope sincerely that as a result of what we are discussing this afternoon the Government will remember this. I must conclude by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for introducing this debate, and I thank your Lordships for your patience in listening to me. I hope that the Minister will take some of the things I have said on board.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is clear if we look at the whole post-war period that there have been considerable advances and improvements in housing conditions. It is true today that the vast majority of people are at least adequately housed. However, none of that gives any reason for complacency, and here I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said. We need only think of the special needs of particular groups—those, for instance, mentioned in her eloquent speech by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and some of those touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt; we need only think of the geographic areas of special need—the obsolete and decaying Victorian houses, particularly in the older industrial areas; or of the obsolete council housing needing large sums to be spent on repairs, improvements and sometimes on total replanning; and the housing stress areas, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in London and elsewhere, where housing need and other acute forms of social problem are found in the same place.
Those of your Lordships who live in the country will know well that in almost all rural areas there is now an acute shortage of houses to rent; we had quite a lot to say about that last summer.
Alas, these situations are too little understood in what I would call the safe Tory seats, and that may perhaps explain why during the last 10 years when I have sat in your Lordships' House we had first the Housing (Finnace) Act 1972 and then the Housing
582
Act 1980. My views on those two measures are on record in Hansard and I will not go on further about them. Suffice it to say that neither of those Acts grappled with the fundamental problem of personal finance for housing, and I regret that very much. However, before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her noble friends get too excited, I must tell them that I regret also the failure of the Labour Party, both in and out of office, to grapple with our inherited mixture of housing subsidies, rebates, allowances and systems of tax relief.
What is the fundamental problem of housing finance? I suggest that it is to encourage and enable individuals and families to pay for housing of a satisfactory standard and size. This will of course have repercussions on many things, particularly on the welfare and tax systems, and it will affect our whole approach to the maintenance of family income. There is, I suggest, a need for more equal treatment of existing forms of housing tenure. If this can be achieved, it will greatly help both choice and mobility in housing.
There is a need to develop new forms of tenure. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, touched on some of those and I would only add, for instance, equity sharing, leasehold schemes for the elderly, co-owner-ship and housing co-operatives. It may be that we shall need to devise some universal form of housing allowance which could be received either via tax relief or through cash allowances; or we may need a mixture of both forms available to the same person. It may turn out that individuals and families in this country need to become accustomed to spending a higher percentage of their incomes on housing and perhaps proportionately less on such things as cars and consumer durables.
I have spoken so far of finance for housing demand. But it is equally important to look into and to bear in mind the finance of housing supply. My guess here is that the really urgent thing to do is to get as much as possible of housing provision to take place without recourse to public sector borrowing. We in this country have some of the very best financial institutions in the world, for instance building societies, insurance companies, pension funds, trade union funds, benevolent funds and property companies. Concentrated in them is a great deal of expertise, perhaps second to none, and the time has come to liberate that large quantity of finance and considerable pool of expertise, so that those organisations are able to invest in a far wider variety of housing than ever before.
The Government took a small step in that direction when they brought in the assured rent scheme in the last Housing Act, but I do not think that will be anything like sufficient in itself without proper studies of the finance, of both demand and supply, have been undertaken. Will the Government put in hand the necessary studies of both personal and institutional housing finance as a matter of urgency? If they do not, I fear that we may arrive in the 21st century still in a great state of muddle and with no clear policy. Will the Government take the opportunity to learn whatever can be learned from methods developed and functioning in other countries? If such a Government study cannot be put in hand, one will be forced to appeal to other circles—to academic researchers and to

583
research institutions and trusts—to undertake a task which, in my opinion, is vital to the wellbeing of the people and to civilised living conditions in both town and country.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lady Birk for introducing this topic and to congratulate her on the improvement in her voice as the proceedings went forward. Of course, as a temperance reformer, I am sure that had nothing whatever to do with the contents of the glass on the Table, but only reflected the prescription of John Wesley who, referring to sore throats, said, "Preach them out". That was to some extent justified by the remarks with which my noble friend introduced the debate and I am grateful for the substance of those remarks.
The format of the debate is interesting in that we are calling attention to difficulties. My master at school taught me that the meaning of a difficulty was that which frustrated an intention; and until we know what the intention of the housing programme is, it seems rather facile to proceed to talk about the difficulties. I shall therefore presume first to say something about housing as I see it within the trinodis necessitas of decent government, which has a priority none the less with that of food and clothing. In fact, I believe housing is a service ministry; and therefore, when I am asked to consider those problems which arise and difficulties which emerge, I have first to ask myself, as other noble Lords have asked themselves this afternoon, what are the purposes of a housing Ministry and what is that condition of housing today which tends to frustrate those recognisable ambitions.
I think the answer falls into two separable, not separate, categories. The first is the bricks and mortar category; what are the difficulties which now present themselves because of conditions within the actual fabric of the housing world?—and the answer there is uncontroversial but deplorable. We know of the very large amount of property which is unsuitable and we know there are 2 million concealed households; that is, where they are living in conditions of necessary co-operation and sometimes confrontation with others in the same premises.
We know that there are a million households living in completely unsuitable conditions, and we know furthermore that there are about 4 million households living in conditions in which the standards of repair and suitability fall below what would be recognised by anybody as reasonable. Those are the facts, and they present a difficulty which to me is a very serious one. If we regard the provision of housing as something which as a civilised community we ought to guarantee, at least in large measure, then here is an alarming and deplorable gap.
But to turn this particular statement into more personal terms, I would point out that your Lordships have this afternoon already heard about living conditions for the elderly; 47 per cent. of the total number of the elderly are living in houses that are in desperate need of immediate repair. I shall not dilate upon what the noble Baroness said about hostels, although I have been involved in that world for the last 40 or 50 years, and there is no doubt at all that the conditions of many
584
of those who are condemned almost to vagabondage have worsened.
Here I should like to make a reference to what I regarded as the fascinating comment made by the right reverend Prelate about the Waifs and Strays Society. It so happens that in 1904 my mother, who was concerned with the Waifs and Strays Society, located 143 waifs after midnight on a Saturday night in Battersea—143! I believe that this kind of situation now involves an older age group. My own experience is that those who today have nowhere to live are in the early adolescence age group, rather than a younger age group, and that is due of course to the many benefactions of societies such as Dr. Barnardo's and the National Children's Home.
What I am concerned to say is that when the actual physical conditions are as deplorable or as inadequate as the facts that I have adumbrated suggest, there are certain immediate and equally deplorable, perhaps even more deplorable, conditions which prevail in the psychological field. I regard, as I am sure do other noble Lords, wife- and child-bashing as abominable. But, having had some contact with those who have been involved in this undoubtedly criminal and dreadful kind of behaviour, I ask myself how I would behave if I were clammed up in one room which had to be both the bedroom and the sitting room, with perhaps four or five children, at least some of them petulant, and perhaps some of them petulant all the time. I ask myself whether that is a tolerable prospect for anyone who is less than a saint; and indeed I should very much doubt whether a saint could put up with it for very long. The consequences in terms of stress and turmoil under those horrible conditions are such as would in my judgment plead for sympathy and understanding even for those who behave in such a brutal way as is evidenced to us quite repeatedly in the press.
That leads me to what the right reverend Prelate was saying about those conditions which ought to relate to adequate housing; and it is not merely a question of bricks and mortar. May I divert for a moment to offer what I would believe to be at least a contribution, no matter how badly I put it, to this kind of debate? Homelessness is not only the absence of a house. Homelessness is a condition which might indeed prevail in a most expensive house. Homelessness is concerned with the lack of that principle which turns a house into a school of behaviour.
I have been fascinated, as I dare say have other Members of your Lordships' House, in reading Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. My confidence in quoting him is all the greater because he did not proceed from a Christian standpoint, as I should try to do. What he said, in almost immortal prose, is that the characteristics of a true home form the kind of basis upon which it is possible to lead a good life, and when those characteristics are not there it is all the more difficult to find them elsewhere.
There are many varieties of home life; of course there are. There are many varieties of the matrimonial condition. We recognise that, but from a Christian standpoint I should like to invite your Lordships to consider the following point. Where would we get the vocabulary of fellowship which in Christian terms is a vocabulary domestic in essence?—father, mother, the word at the family table and at the hearth fire.

585
Is it not true that the impoverishment of the home as a concept and basis for the education of true living is one of the most calamitous of the troubles from which we suffer?
In one sense, there is of course the cynicism of the man who says,"Home is the place where you hang around when somebody else has the car". Therefore I am by no means of the opinion that it is necessarily a question only of bad housing. As the right reverend Prelate insisted, there has been a general decay in the characteristics that belong to a true family. But if you do not have the vocabulary of, say, brotherhood, motherhood, fatherhood, if these do not belong to the home and cannot be called upon, where do you build up your fellowship? If you lose your vocabulary, you lose your communication. If you lose your communication, you become alienated. Those who have been trying to pinpoint the true reasons for the deplorable conditions in, say, Brixton the other day, have said,"Racism of course"; they have said,"Violence of course". But they have also included bad housing as a reason. In so many respects bad housing is the reason why people find their lives to be outside the natural context which can best support those things which I believe finally belong to truth and beauty.
Your Lordships will forgive that interruption of a general argument on much more mundane matters, but I ventured to introduce it for the following reason. I share with my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the conviction that the recovery of home life is indispensable to the future prosperity of any community.
I recognise, finally, that there is surely an indictment against any Government in which 75 per cent. of what they require as cuts are made in the housing area. I regard it as a further indictment that whereas a few years ago for every pound spent on defence a pound was spent on housing, today for every pound spent on defence only 33p is spent on housing. I do not believe that you can so curtail this indispensable characteristic of civilised life, whatever may be the needs of defence. I invite your Lordships to believe that my own contacts, such as they are, would confirm the belief that there is an increasing cynicism about the immense amount of money that is spent on defence, because very few people believe that it would be adequate or even workable.
Therefore simplistic though it might be, I would plead for a vast infusion of public money for hostels and for work of repair affecting the 47 per cent. of elderly people who live in premises that are in desperate need of repair. It might sound simplistic, but perhaps that which is most required is a recovery of confidence that we have our priorities right in the community in which we live.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend that we have at least been invited to consider this question of housing on a larger canvas, against a larger background than merely that covering certain provisions of Governments past and present. I believe—and I make no bones about it—that only when the priority of housing is regarded with the same insistence as the priority of food and clothing, shall we be within measurable distance of meeting those needs from which so many of our contemporaries living in inadequate and bad housing now suffer.
5 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, considering she is not feeling in top form, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for coming to the House today and initiating the debate with an interesting speech. I hope that she will soon recover. I would thank also my noble friend Lord Bellwin who has been sitting through this debate. He came to this House after a distinguished career in Leeds and understands the problem of people and housing. He was thrown in at the deep end when he arrived and had a very tough time. I think we must thank him for the attitude he has taken. I hope that when the economic situation has improved somebody will be able to say, "Yes, Minister" to him on certain occasions. I would thank him for coming down to Southwark to see the Humming Bird Building Association. I am sure he will be pleased to know that we now have another piece of land and hope to go on building.
I am delighted to see here the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro and I hope that when he becomes Bishop of London he will remember the West Country. We need adequate support in that area. I should like to go on to what he said about the impact of overcrowding on general health and wellbeing. It can, I think, have an even greater effect on living standards without basic amenities. I tried to bring this matter up in the recent debate on the Housing Act. The yardstick most often used to measure civilised housing standards, the legal standard for overcrowding, remains appallingly inadequate. Once the minimum standards have become in many parts of Great Britain the maximum, the enforcement procedures are largely defective. Not since 1935 has the Government had the courage even to glance in the direction of this neglected area for fear that large numbers of overcrowded households might find their way into the statistics. This is very frightening. I am delighted with what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said about hostels. She knows that I have had to close my hostels for the 17 to 23 year olds purely for lack of money and lack of adequate backing from various Ministries. I hope from what she said today that there may be a possibility that I can start again. I am always willing to have another go.
I was interested to read that the Nationwide Building Society estimated in January 1981 that the surplus of dwellings over households in Great Britain in 1980 was over 900,000. That is nearly 5 per cent. of the dwellings. It seems unfortunate that they should have all these, because apparently those dwellings are not in the right places at the right times when people need them. It is interesting to note that the two parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, have built approximately the same number of houses. The Conservatives (I imagine in an equivalent number of years) built 5.4 million and the Labour Party 4.7 million. The standard is improving also. In 1951, there were 600,000 overcrowded households and in 1977 only 73,000. We have heard of the things that are not right in this country, but, strange to say, Britain has one of the highest proportions of dwellings equipped with basic amenities of any country in Europe. Having been for some time chairman of the Local Government Committee in the Council of Europe, know that this is correct.

587
But still the problems remain. One-sixth of our housing stock is still unfit and lacks basic amenities and is in a serious state of disrepair. The local authorities in 1979 had to find housing for over 56,000 households under the Homeless Persons Act 1977. One of the encouraging things is the building for sale by private builders on local authority land; 93 local authorities have agreed to this. I am interested in homesteading or the sale of unimproved homes to purchasers with a waiver of interest on mortgages for up to five years Among the authorities who have an enormous number of empty houses are Manchester, Islington, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camberwell. All have over 1,000 and some nearly 2,000 empty houses. I make a plea that some of these will go to people who would be willing to go into them and to do them up on the homesteading scheme. I went to a small council in Essex and saw some of these houses done up by the local people and the scheme was working very well. I hope that more people may be able to undertake this homesteading.
I should like to mention the question of fire precautions in hostels which was dealt with in the Act. Last July when the Housing Act was in its closing stages in this House, the Government introduced a new schedule to the Bill (Schedule 24). This schedule consolidated the existing powers of local authorities to see that hostels were equipped with effective means of escape from fire. It gave the Secretary of State power to designate by order certain types of hostels as premises in regard to which local authorities would then have a duty to require the installation of effective means of escape. On the Third Reading on 13th July, I moved an amendment to this schedule which I called the"Kilburn amendment"—recalling the tragic hostel fire there earlier that year—and which had the effect of ensuring that premises occupied by three or more households or six or more individuals would be covered by this duty. I was supported by the Bishop of London. I hope that when we get our new Bishop of London he will continue this support.
The fire tragedies had evoked support from all sides of the House. The Minister replied, however, that he would need to consult with local authorities about the scope of the new duty before it could be brought into effect; and after assurances I withdrew my amendment. Nine months later, regrettably, no designating order has been issued by the Secretary of State. Despite all the concern expressed by the House, hostel residents like those of Kilburn can still remain inadequately protected. Only last month there was a serious fire at a commercial hostel in Eastbourne used to provide shelter for homeless single people in which one man died and 10 others were injured. It was a four-storey building like that in Kilburn.
The Department of the Environment consulted the local authority associations as they said they would, and voluntary bodies like CHAR and the National Federation of Housing Associations. I understand that the period of consultation ended on 31st January, 1981. Since then, the Minister in another place has replied to two Questions which provide ominous and worrying signs that no order is going to be made. On 4th March, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg said he was still considering the views put to him in the consultations
588
"on the possible making of an order". We still have no order, and I shall be grateful if my noble friend when he comes to reply will give an indication of whether we are likely to get one.
Another point concerns caring hostels provided by housing associations. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Last September, the Housing Minister, Mr. John Stanley, announced a most welcome"hostels initiative". He allocated £12 million of the Housing Corporation's budget for 1981–2 for housing associations to develop small community hostels to enable homeless single people to return to the community through supported accommodation. There are two points that I should like to mention. First, in 1981–2 housing associations throughout the country have put in bids amounting to some two-and-a-half times the allocation, the potential of the voluntary housing movement, to develop this much needed housing. Secondly, many caring hostels require revenue funding of small amounts to cover care costs over and above housing association grant. Such revenue funding has to come in the main from social services or health authorities. Since September the DoE have been discussing with the DHSS the possibility of more central co-ordination for this funding by the DHSS. So far as I understand it, these discussions have produced nothing from the DHSS. I should be very grateful if my noble friend could say a word about that when he comes to reply.
I mentioned that I would say something about students, and I want to refer to shortholds. I have been in discussion for some time—not on behalf of students but for others—in regard to shortholds. I understand that only 680 shortholds have so far been established in England and Wales. It is possible that this low figure will rise in the autumn and when the students start to return to their colleges. I therefore realise that it is too early to say how shortholds will operate in practice. There remains the concern that this type of tenancy might deprive occupiers of security of tenure. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me know how this scheme for shortholds is growing and whether it is satisfactory. I am very pleased that we are having this debate today and I am certain that we shall get helpful answers from the Minister.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, I should like to thank my fellow journalist Lady Birk for this opportunity to speak, because it was as a crime reporter that I became politically sensitised and largely because of this matter that we are discussing tonight. There is no question whatever in my experience—a fairly extensive one in this area—that the identification of crime and of misery—particularly misery—with bad housing is a paramount problem of our society. It is something which still remains with us, although I thought that over the years we were doing something substantial about it.
In Glasgow in the 1920s the slum situation was probably the most notorious in Europe. With this went what we called the "Saturday night murders". On one occasion—one of many because Saturday night murders were regular—I found myself in a slum house as a result of a perfectly meaningless murder in

589
which the husband with the help of the drink "Red Biddie" had cut his wife's throat. I do not know what was peculiar about it except the self-evident circumstances; it was so common and so repetitive. I carried out a study of what had brought it about. It did not merit more than 10 lines in the paper. It was just an ordinary Saturday night murder. But I later produced what I called, The Tragedy of the Middle Door. The middle door in a Glasgow tenement was the single room between the butts and bens on the storeys of the tenement. This was where young people set up home as a start. So often they never got out. It was precisely that story. The story of a young couple who has come from the country and hopefully set up home hoping that Glasgow—as they would now think of London—would provide work. They finished up after years in appalling conditions in a single room in a dreadful tenement. It was the story of progressive deterioration of a young couple and their family, their misery and malnutrition, and eventually their decline into hopelessness.
This kind of degeneration was manifest and clear in so many circumstances and crimes that we became accustomed to it in Glasgow. It was just the Saturday night murder. It was rather like putting in the football results. You just expected it on Saturday night. When I later came to London I began to get involved in the problems of housing in the inner city in a less directly painful way.
During the 1930s we still had appallingly bad housing—a great shortage of housing—but we did start to make some movement towards better housing conditions with new housing estates. Indeed, after the war when we were building the new towns and the new housing estates, short of the high-rise buildings which came eventually, we were doing rather well in getting to grips with the problems. In fact, we were doing extremely well. My daughter at that time was a sociologist. She was hired by the Building Research Station to answer the question which has been asked so often here today:"When does a house become a home?". It is not a question of so many cubic feet and in fact it is not a question of what facilities are built into it, but of how people take a house and convert it into a home.
People today are not getting either the houses or the opportunities to convert them into homes. We are now losing those opportunities. It is a sad picture all the way round because, as I know from academic university student conditions, not only are there great shortages of reasonably priced lodgings—no longer are Halls of Residence being built—but there is the appalling problem of young students and where they are going to go and what they are going to do. They become a kind of academic vagrant or vagabond. The same thing has been pointed out and is true of the declining conditions of the old. It is certainly shown in the shocking reappearance of the homeless, the waifs and the strays and so on.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Soper that a great many of the explanations for broken homes, wife-beatings, baby-bashings and so on, and for the numbers of people in our streets and the problems of people exposed to drug-taking come down to housing conditions. I noticed in the television film of the Brixton riots one boy who looked very intelligent and
590
who was asked why he was on the streets looking for trouble. He said, "I was not on the streets looking for trouble. Have you ever stayed at home?"In fact it is a case of what we used to call in Glasgow the "Sunday afternoon delinquent" because Sunday afternoon was when everybody was crowded into the one-room house, and they could not take it.
What we are looking for now is what has been suggested as a real appreciation, a real evaluation, of what we as a civilised community regard as not just measurement standards, not just cubic feet, standards for housing, but what should be the conditions to make it possible for a house to become a home. When the Labour Party were putting through their housing programme after the war everybody was referring to living units. Churchill got up and more or less chanted:
"Mid pleasures and palaces,
Though we may roam;
Be it ever so humble,
There's no place like a living unit".
We are not thinking now of what problems we are going to have of actual physical coverage, but of how we can provide not just the bricks and mortar but the conditions under which, as has been properly pointed out here, we are going to have a vigorous, healthy and economically stable society. To get that, we need good housing.
It seems to me that we are now reaching the point of no return. Not only is our housing stock declining in numbers—at least the renewal is declining and in many cases we are slipping into the kind of slums we have been using bulldozers to get rid of. But I want to reaffirm the fact that with the decline of the building industry with 340,000 builders unemployed and obviously with no inducement for anyone to follow through as apprentices and so on in an industry which is not replenishing itself, I do not know how we are going to be able to get people to build the houses we are going to need. That seems to me to be a crisis of our time, because we shall be in a situation from 1984 in which we shall not be able to do what we want to do, even if the money is available. We shall start taking shortcuts in standards again, and I say this with feeling, because one of our troubles, even when we had the money was that we turned out buildings that were certainly not consistent with decent living—I am thinking with some horror of high-rise flats, and in Glasgow I am thinking of creating the various non-home circumstances we were trying to avoid.
We should not start doing that kind of thing again, nor, as deplorably as we have done, use bulldozers to tear the hearts out of cities, calling it slum clearance, or indeed knocking down houses which, no matter how grubby they look, are sound houses and which when rehabilitated become extremely valuable property, as in some parts of London such as Canonbury, Chelsea and now parts of Lambeth. They are highly desirable properties. There is no reason why we should not return these properties into decent habitations. I think it is a sin that we have destroyed houses which were part of our heritage, simply because they were dirty and nasty and they were labeled "slums". Let us have another look at these; but, above all, it is absolutely imperative to turn from the course we are

591
pursuing and envisage a policy where we are not running down our housing stock.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it is required that I apologise to the House because my name was not included on the list of speakers. I had intended to speak in this debate and I take the opportunity now, with permission of the House. In a sense, the noble Baroness who did us the favour of introducing this debate illustrated one of the problems of this comfortable place. In speaking she, to pick up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, lacked the means of communication in the early stages of her introduction of the debate. She found difficulties in communication; she found the vocabulary but not the means, for a while, of expressing as clearly she would have wished those things that she felt.
We all know there are homeless people in this country and that there are overcrowded houses; yet our well-fed and modulated voices this afternoon will tomorrow morning fall as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals upon the ears of those who are actually homeless and overcrowded, because they will see much of what we are saying as being largely irrelevant to what they are feeling as we speak here. This is the classic dilemma of any democracy. It is not a criticism, in party political terms, of what we are putting forward in this debate. Yet it is a fact that, while we know and care, we find it difficult to appreciate the depths of degradation and feeling that come to those people who are homeless and overcrowded and who suffer from it.
So because I might find some difficulty in expressing the things we have been trying to express in this debate this afternoon, I chose instead to find focus in an article by a young journalist called Gwenda Richards. We have heard the voices of older journalists already this afternoon. Gwenda Richards, in the capital city of Wales, Cardiff, this week took five cases of homeless and overcrowded people and examined them in an article in which she said:
"Five per cent. of Welsh families live in overcrowded conditions and like Carol and Tom"—
those are the people she quotes first of all—
"will pay the price of the health, welfare and development of their children, while parents risk their mental health and the chance of a normal relationship".
If you think that I am using journalese" there in order to emphasise a point, then I plead guilty to it, because it illustrates a fact that I did not know, that the law as it stands allows as many as 14 people—six adults and eight children under 10—to share a three-up and two-down terraced house, and that Shelter, the housing charity, are calling for the reform of what they call"that ridiculous standard".
My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale has emphasised certain standards this afternoon. We have heard little of that one, which affects and blights the lives of a new generation of people in Great Britain as we debate here. I will return in a moment to the point that was made by Shelter and I want to take up, too, the situation in a town just a little way up the road from Cardiff—Newport, in Gwent. I will quote:
"Newport's resources for dealing with homeless people
592
have been plunged into crisis by the dramatic rise in the number of people without a roof over their heads, the borough housing committee was told yesterday.
"Families who have to be placed in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation get somewhere to sleep only at night—they have to move out during the day".
In 1975 61,000 families were awaiting council housing and, of that number, over 3,700 were in the Newport area. Even then, 25,000 holiday homes were in existence in Wales. I will come back to that again in a moment.
In taking these illustrations I want to make the point that not only is homelessness or overcrowding a problem, and not only are the social difficulties that have been emphasised today problems for the people suffering, but they create further problems and we have a "cannoning-on" effect, in which the whole of society—and this too has been illustrated time and again this afternoon—the social fabric and democracy itself is in the end threatened by our failure.
I am the last to point to Ministers sitting opposite and to suggest in any way that the Minister who is presiding over this debate does not share my concern about these facts. We know him to be a caring man and references have been paid to him, quite rightly, in the debate this afternoon. The councillors of Gwynedd—that is in the North of Wales—illustrate one problem; they are concerned because the ownership of second homes has become magnified as a problem.
In speaking in this debate, I have to disclaim for a moment my responsibilities under the rules as a chairman of a statutory body, and I have to say that I speak now simply as a Member of your Lordships' House. I have also informed the Welsh Office that I intended to speak in this debate and to make these points. It is often claimed that there are 30,000 second homes in this country, and in the county of Gwynedd alone there are 8,000. In just the same way that the problem of the squatter in unoccupied premises in London is an additional dimension of the problem, so is the second home, which is vacant at certain parts of the year, another dimension of this problem throughout the country.
It is quite wrong to assume—and I want to make this point, because it was made to me by the Welsh Office—that the 30,000 houses, identified as second homes, are all truly that. Many of them—11,000, I think, in the survey conducted on behalf of the Welsh Office—were identified as being second home dwellings, and 19,000 were houses which had been constructed for specific purposes, such as for renting for holiday purposes and so on. The councillors in Gwynedd have become so concerned that they lack adequate housing, on the one hand, and that there is a certain housing stock, on the other, that they have identified the problem of the second home as one that they wish to see treated to quite separate and distinct legislation.
In a very short intervention in your Lordships' debate, all I wish to do is to identify problems which are incredibly difficult for any Government to tackle, and to point out that those problems are seized upon by those who have no sympathy with the points that are being made carefully in this debate in order to win support for legislation to remove the causes. They are seized upon by people who would use them to their own advantage, and who focus upon them acts which your Lordships and I, and, indeed, the

593
majority of people in democratic society, would not only reject but despise. But it is a fact that we have a situation where, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said, even when we care, and even when we know, it is possible for us to give the impression that we are complacent about the situation.
In case we are, and in case it should be thought that there is some kind of party political nuance in my contribution, let me say this. Shelter went on to condemn not simply this Government, but all Governments in Britain for some considerable time. It said this:
"No Government in recent years has dared to tackle the standard".
That is not the standard of the house, slightly larger or slightly smaller. It is not the standard of someone having two houses, while other people have none. That is not the point that is being made. The point that Shelter is making is that no Government in recent years has dared to tackle the standard under which 14 people, adults and children, can be expected to be crowded into totally inadequate houses, with all the danger that that implies to society and the social fabric, because it would mean heavy demands for more housing.
In 1945, after the war, a massive effort was made to rehouse people. Lloyd George had carried—although he possibly did not deserve it any more than the rest of us—the shadow of the "homes fit for heroes" scandal. The Labour Party had at its disposal in 1945 orders in council and particular circumstances that no democratic government usually expects to find, and was able to carry out a great rehousing programme. That programme was taken up again under Sir Harold Macmillan, and he went on to build 300,000 houses, with a change of standards, but presenting a new attack and a new opportunity. The nation, having willed the fact, set about providing the means to do it.
All I want to say, as I conclude, is that I agree with the right reverend Prelate, as I agree with my reverend friend and as I agree with those who have spoken in this debate of the social consequences. I quote the words of Shelter here:
"Meanwhile, thousands of families will continue to suffer stress, frustration, bad health, broken marriages and poor achievement at school, at work and in society".
As I walk through the streets of Cardiff, the capital city, I am conscious that I see wandering through the streets an alienated young generation—truants now, malcontents later, actual breakers of the law later than that, and a threat not in themselves but in their alienation from the standards that we had hoped we shared with them, because the conditions under which they live, the classes to which they go in school, the society which they will inherit are, at this moment, unable to measure up to their caring, to their consideration and to their knowledge. And what will it matter to the homeless tomorrow, if they hear of our debate and know that, as a consequence of it, very little will be done?
5.35 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we are all agreed that we are very much indebted to my noble friend Lady Birk for initiating this debate, and for the
594
courageous determination with which she persisted and succeeded in doing so against considerable difficulty. Indeed, we had hoped to have more Members from this side of the House taking part in the debate, but invalidism has struck down two or three of them during the last few days.
I must admit that I start my speech with a rather different kind of disability. It is usually considered to be the duty of he who winds up a debate from the Opposition side to reply to any disagreements that there have been with his noble friend who opened the debate. But in this debate there have not been, so far as I have been able to discover, any substantial disagreements with the case made by my noble friend Lady Birk. There have been some very valuable and interesting speeches. We have ranged over many facets of the housing problem. We have had illustrations of the effects of the developing housing situation in London, in Wales, in Cornwall and in other parts of the country.
But all this has been against the grim background that we have embarked in the last two years on a process of cutting public expenditure on housing, which will mean that over four years it will have been cut by 53 per cent.—an operation for which there is really no previous parallel. That means, for example, that whereas in 1978 there were 89,000 starts in the council housing sector, by 1980 that number had fallen to 43,000 and it is anticipated that it will go down to 30,000.
We on this side of the House are sometimes charged with laying too great a stress on the part played by council housing in solving the housing problem, though if we do so it is because it is council housing that meets the housing need of those who feel it most acutely. But we are not, in present circumstances, able to say or to hope that the rapid decline in council house building will be met by an advance from the private sector. In 1978, there were 160,000 housing starts in the private sector. In 1980, there were 100,000. It is expected that that downward decline will also continue. If we hope that home ownership will be a remedy for declining council housing, we have to notice that whereas in 1978 some 800,000 home loans were granted, that number had fallen by about one-sixth by 1980, and that local authority grants and loans to housing associations had been reduced over those two years by nearly one-third.
Then—this concerns the private sector—we have the complaints mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk from the president of the House Builders' Federation and from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors about the decline in the market for their work, about the break-up of firms, particularly small and moderate-sized firms with skilled teams which have been engaged in house-building and which, once gone, will be very difficult to replace.
I want to look next at some devices which it has been suggested could be a remedy to the decline in the actual building of houses. It can be argued that one can make up for that decline to some extent by the improvement of property which, given a certain amount of money spent on it, could be made fit. Local authorities are being urged to shift their resources from new building to improvement, but what has actually happened? As a result of the attempt to

595
shift things in that direction, between the year ending spring 1979 and the next year there was a decided leap forward in expenditure on improvement, but in the following year—the year just completed—spending fell back again and is now lower than it was two years ago. The amount of public money being spent by local authorities on improvements, either to improve their own property or in making grants for the improvement of privately owned property, has dropped. I hope and trust that in the coming year the position will be better than this, but clearly improvement work is not continuing on a scale which could remedy the alarming decline in actual house building.
I suppose we may hope that something can be done by securing properties which are now empty and bringing them into use, but how many such properties are there? They represent some 4 per cent. of the total national housing stock. That is not a terrifically wasteful arrangement because at any time there is always a certain proportion of the housing stock out of use. If it were otherwise there could be no mobility of labour. Therefore, we can expect that if Government, local authorities and private landlords put their minds to it there will be some reduction in the number of empty properties. But we need not imagine that that will make a very large contribution to solving the total housing problem which has been created by the alarming decline in housing starts.
In passing, perhaps I might point out to your Lordships that the Government's own survey showed that the number of properties which it could be said were empty due to the operations of the Rent Act was very small. The hundreds of thousands of houses depicted in the Tory election statements as being made empty because of the Rent Acts really did not exist. The number of houses shown in the Government survey was 31,000 and that is not hundreds of thousands; the Government said that 550,000 homes were empty and that 31,000 were empty due to the operation of the Rent Act. It is wrong that any property should he empty if it can be filled, but not all properties can be filled, and do not let us imagine that an improvement in the empty property situation can be on a scale which offsets the terrific decline in housing starts which we have witnessed and will continue to witness during the next two or three years.
Another suggested remedy is the sale of council houses. I will say only a few words on that subject because a great deal has already been said about it. I believe it is accepted that where sales occur these will be of the better council properties to better-off tenants. It is not a device that will help the poorest tenants. It is argued that this practice helps housing policy because local authorities will be able to use the proceeds from sales to build more new houses, but of course local authorities are not in a position to do that if they themselves have to provide the mortgages with which the houses are purchased. The majority of council house sales are going to be made with the help of mortgages provided by public funds; it is only when the mortgage comes from a private source that there is any—even initial—gain to the council. Over the long term—over the lifetime of a house—there will be a loss and the council will actually receive less than it would had the house remained its property. We
596
cannot expect a flood of funds to local authorities from council house sales which will make a substantial difference to the total housing shortage with which we are confronted.
I am certainly not opposed to improvement or to measures which will prevent properties from remaining empty unnecessarily. I would not even be opposed to council house sales if it is done by the free judgment of the local authority as to what is best in its circumstances. But I do say that if one adds all these together they will nothing like countervail the terrific decline in house building which has been going on for the past two years and which we are told we must expect to continue.
What are the effects of all this? One side effect has been the deprivation of local authorities' freedom; the freedom to decide what to do about the houses they own. The Exchequer subsidy which local authorities get is so planned as pretty well to compel them either to raise rents or rates—because the Government assume that the local authorities are going to get a certain income from that figure and plan their Exchequer subsidy on that basis, and the block grant system then creates a situation in which local authorities are almost obliged to make provision out of rents. We are now getting the position whereby central Government are increasingly controlling the housing policy of local authorities. I do not believe that is what the Government intended, nor do I believe it is what the public wants. There is pressure everywhere for decisions to be made wherever possible at lower levels and nearer the consumer. At the moment, Government policy is working in the other direction.
What are the effects on rents? If one applies to 1979 rents the figure of 100, rents are now on average at a figure of 183—an increase not far short of double, or an addition of five-sixths. This is creating an increasing cleavage between the house owner and the tenant because the Government are a good deal more generous about mortgage relief than about subsidies for council tenants. That has been so for some time and it is going to be increasingly so as a result of recent policies.
These effects on tenants, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, pointed out, will hit in particular some especially vulnerable groups. They may be vulnerable for many very different reasons. They may be vulnerable because of their old age, because they are students, or because they are disabled. In every case they are to be given a further push nearer to desperation. The shortage of houses and the rise in rents, together with the difficulty of obtaining rented accommodation, are doing increasing harm to the mobility of labour. Even in the present unemployment situation one encounters instances of a man in the North of England knowing of a job he can do and which is available to him in the South, but he cannot find anywhere to live if he goes there. This cut in the housing programme strikes at the amount of accommodation available and raises the level of rents, and is going to make that problem of labour mobility even worse.
References have been made to the situation in many different parts of the country. Naturally I thought particularly of London; of its 19,000 homeless and a quarter of its housing stock unsatisfactory by the Government's own standards, and of the fact that each successive estimate by the late Greater London Council

597
of the number of households it would have to provide has steadily risen year after year. We are cutting housing at a time when the need is steadily rising.
There also has to be considered the effect on building operatives. This can be summed up by the simple fact that about one quarter of the people in the construction industry are out of work. This brings us to a question upon which several noble Lords have touched. Is it not possible to bring together the fact that one has unemployed building labour and an immense housing need? At once we touch the tenderest spot of Government policy: the idea that if you propose increased public spending in any field you are destroying all their great work and putting everything at risk. But is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the Government have pursued that one goal at the expense of the industries of this country and of employment and, as we are now discussing, at the expense of the welfare of the home and the family and of any chance of the increase mobility of labour which we need if we are to get this country's industries right again?
I suggest that if you consider public spending on an increased housing programme it has these advantages. First of all, of almost all the forms of public spending which one can imagine today it is the one least likely to be inflationary because of the amount of slack resources and unemployed labour that there are immediately to hand. Inflation is most likely to occur if you increase spending in a field where the resources and the labour are scarce and where your increased spending shoves up prices and wages. In this field you have the resources and the labour waiting to be used. Public expenditure there would be at its least inflationary. Secondly, it would be at its most remedial. The amount of jobs you would create for every £100,000 spent would compare very favourably with public spending in other directions. Third, it would be a form of public spending which would make probably the least demand upon imported materials. All the arguments, then, surely are that the Government must shift from their absolute rigidity and increase public expenditure in the housing sector.
My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who unfortunately, to his own regret, has had to leave us before the conclusion of the debate, argued, if I understood him rightly, that we ought to make the number of houses to be built over a period of years a fixed, agreed target. There are very solid reasons for that. When you make cuts of the nature of 53 per cent. in four years, it is terribly wasteful of resources and it takes much longer to come back. You cannot turn the supply of building labour and materials just on and off, like a tap. The same is true of other fields of public expenditure. If any Minister of Housing ever succeeded in getting a Government to adopt my noble friend's interesting idea of a fixed, agreed target, the Secretary of State for Education and even the Secretary of State for Defence would, I think, be coming up quickly behind him.
Well, what then? Might it not mean that if a nation for any reason has to make reductions in expenditure as a result of a rise in oil prices or a world trade recession, it is better done by means of a reduction of private expenditure by the wealthier citizens than by the cutting of public service programmes? Unless you accept that proposition, you are bound to have the
598
housing, education and defence programmes made what my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale called "a football" between one Government and another. I think the Government have regarded the ability of wealthier people to spend as they choose as much more important than the need of the nation for certain essential services. And with regard to housing, I say deliberately "essential".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro pointed out, although I do not think he used this word, the primacy of housing among certain public services. If the family is not decently housed, a great deal of what may be spent for their welfare in other directions will lose in its effect. An ill-housed child will not get the benefit from anything done to its health or its education that a well-housed child will get. We are dealing with the home and all that that implies.
Several noble Lords and Baronesses on the other side urged particular kinds of measures. Eloquent speeches were made regarding hostels. But you cannot provide hostels or even adapt present dwellings for hostels without a certain amount of expenditure. Whether we like it or not, we are left with the hard fact that if you start cutting housing expenditure on this scale you will have the effects which have been described throughout the debate. I trust that the noble Lord the Minister will reflect upon this debate and will consider whether or not there is, at any rate in this field, some ground for some modification of Government policy.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, before I come to the carefully prepared parts of what I plan to say, may I try briefly to make a few observations regarding what has been said by noble Lords on both sides—and not in any special order. First may I say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that I want to study very carefully what she said about hostels. I do not know what are the implications of a joint committee to co-ordinate policy, but I would certainly want to talk with colleagues about her suggestion. Likewise, I would want to consider very carefully some of the other points which she has made. Similarly, may I say to my noble friend Lady Vickers, who has for so long been involved with hostels, as have so many other noble Lords, that I do not have the answer, as I stand here, as to when the order to which she referred will be made. In fact, I think my noble friend was more concerned as to whether an order will be made. I understand that indeed this will be the case, but I am sure my noble friend knows that as I stand here I cannot confirm this. Nevertheless, I undertake to write to her on that point and on the other points which she made.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Hylton, who put in a plea for a survey of housing finance, that this is always a tempting line to follow. Unfortunately, it is so often used as a reason for doing very little. It is so easy to say, "Yes, we will set up a survey" and then simply to carry on as before. There have been many instances of this, not least the 1977 Green Paper of the previous Administration, which I remember so well and which took things not only not very far but nowhere at all. I understand why my noble friend feels that there should be a survey. Nobody who has been in housing can fail to accept that there ought

599
to be scope for a better way of financing many aspects of housing. Certainly I accept that. However, whether or not a survey such as my noble friend suggested is the answer at this stage, I doubt. There are, of course, periodical surveys. I cannot, however, give my noble friend any comfort on that ground. All I can say is that I will talk to my honourable friend the Minister for Housing about that point.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro said that a laissez-faire attitude will not do. I agree with him. I shall try to show in a few moments that the Government's approach is anything but that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, is not here. I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, not least on housing. His background on that subject is very distinguished. Despite the points which were made by the noble Lord, I think that in making them he recognised some of the difficulties. Although to have a fixed figure sounds very tempting in many ways, where Governments have tried to do this in the past the attempt has not succeeded. Other than that, it was, as always, a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord.
So far as the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, are concerned, he knows from past debates with me on the right to buy that we differ on about every single aspect of it. He is no more likely to convince me of the rectitude of his approach than I am to convince him, so I think we might leave that subject on the table for the time being except that wish to say this—and in doing this I will save a little time by putting to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that her figures as to what is currently happening do not appear to be quite right. My figures are certainly that in the first three months in which the right to buy was in operation, well over 120,000 local authority tenants claimed to exercise their right to buy in England alone and between April 1979 and December 1980, 124,000 sales of council houses actually took place. I do not want to go into that at the moment because I consider it to be too early. It takes time, as I know from my own experience some years ago, to get these things off the ground, but, whereas think that we shall have cause to feel much pleasure in what we shall achieve in that direction, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may feel otherwise. However, in terms of what actually happens I feel that it is much too early to come to any conclusions.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps write to me on that because the number which he gave who have applied is not on the records. I should like to know the number of actual sales that have been completed, because I think that is where we probably differ.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I gladly undertake to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. When I refer to sales that have taken place, my understanding is that they have been completed, but I will write and confirm that to her.
I should like to say this: who would not really be moved by the eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry? It was also thought-provoking, particu
600
larly when he referred to the requirements, the limitations and the legal allowances at the present time for occupancy of homes. I am not sure that I quite understood what he was saying but I should like to study it closely and I thank him for his typical acknowledgement of the fact that there is no monopoly of compassion and care; differ though we may—and do—on how we get there, at the end of the day we are basically seeking the same thing.
I think we should keep it all in perspective, because, despite all the problems and shortcomings—and they are many and I have no wish to minimise them; there is a long way to go—even so I should prefer to remind your Lordships that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said on 8th May 1978:
"We as a nation can honestly claim to be better housed than ever before".—[Official Report, 8/5/78; col. 757.]
Indeed when I look back on many of the speeches that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made in her days at the Department of the Environment, I find more to agree with than I was able to discover in her remarks today. As early as 25th June 1975, she was telling us:
"The economic situation means that there is a need for restraint and that we must be very careful not to waste resources".—[Official Report, 25/6/75; col. 1548.]
This thought was still preoccupying her on 2nd November 1978—and no wonder—when she told noble Lords:
"The truth of the matter of course is that public expenditure growth must be controlled and the Government have been and are controlling it…We attach great importance to monetary aggregates and keep a watchful eye on the money supply. This is essential".—[Official Report, 2/11/78; col. 58.]
My Lords, had I been there on 13th July 1977 I would have applauded her assurance that:
"As a Government we welcome the clear desire of many to own their own homes, and we wish to facilitate this wherever we can".—[Official Report, 13/7/77; col. 1025.]
Yet once more on 8th May 1978, when speaking about the housing cost yardstick, she told the House that:
"A simpler system, providing local authorities with greater responsibility and incentives to seek out value for money, is definitely our objective".
Lore Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, allow me to intervene because my noble friend has a little difficulty in replying? May I suggest that all this hardly commits my noble friend Lady Birk to approval of a policy which has fiercely cut down house-building, which is heading towards the half a million shortfall and which is cutting down home loans and private house-building as well? She was speaking in an age before these things had happened.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord must allow me to continue; it all comes out as we go along. It is a pity that in all this the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was so often taken for the deed. How different it must all seem from the other side of the Dispatch Box! The noble Baroness will quite rightly accuse me of being highly selective in my quotations and I owe it to her to admit it at once, before she finds herself in trouble with her noble friends. In context her remarks were often qualified in ways which removed all risk of her earning the Conservative seal of approval.

601
At the same time, I am perfectly sincere in saying that most of her speeches at that time were noteworthy—and I mean that genuinely—for a thoughtful, constructive and moderate approach, which, unhappily, I have to say was far less apparent today.
My Lords, I do not need telling that it is simpleminded in the extreme to ascribe the level of housing activity in a given year solely to Government action or inaction. It reflects the state of the economy, the economic policies in force at the time and the consequences of previous economic policies. It reflects public expenditure priorities, too. I can see as well as the noble Baroness the problems that remain in housing, however much we may differ—and we do not always differ—on the best ways of putting them right. But it does no good to pretend that they are the only problems, or that money can be spent on them without reducing the resources available for other needs.
There is another reason, too, why I think the numbers game is dangerous. It encourages the belief that the housing problem is a simple one of numbers. At one time—for example in the late 'forties and 'fifties—it was not unreasonable to approach it in that way. The overall shortage fully justified the priority given to massive new-build programmes. In the 'sixties and 'seventies, however, the risks involved in concentrating on numbers of houses rather than on people's housing needs, started to become apparent. As the crude national shortage disappeared, we started to wake up to the fact that people had needs and preferences of their own which were not necessarily satisfied by the provision of a standard box of a standard size, equipped with the standard amenities—particularly if it was up in the sky, with nowhere for the children to play. We can all think of examples of the vast impersonal council estates, which cost a fortune to build, another fortune to repair and maintain, and, regrettably, in extreme cases, a third fortune to knock down. It is not without relevance—and my noble friend Lord Hylton touched upon it—that in West Germany over four-fifths of the capital used for the construction of rented housing has come from private and not public resources. And they have no council estates.
People's housing needs and aspirations, too, relate these days to tenure, just as much as to the type, size and location of the dwelling. Whenever they get the chance, large numbers are opting for owner-occupation. Of course many are happy to stay as council tenants and our policy must and does recognise that. In our view, the private rented sector remains important for those who cannot afford to buy but who seek greater independence and flexibility than council accommodation can normally provide. In other words what I am saying is that we must always have a mix. In my view, that is essential and I have thought that ever since I had anything to do with housing. If ever we get to a time when we have council housing on the one hand and owner-occupied housing only on the other, the situation will have deteriorated to a point beyond anything which we might be able to discuss in a debate such as we are having today.
Therefore the emphasis of policy is rightly shifting away from large-scale public sector building, towards more selective provision for specific needs, towards more choice and towards better and more flexible use
602
of the existing stock and greater ease of access to housing. In a moment I should like to review a number of our recent policy initiatives, but first I must say a word about another factor which has tended to lead housing authorities and others to take a dangerously "over-simple view of the nature and scale of housing needs—one or two of your Lordships today have touched on it and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, herself referred to it in the form of the council waiting list—or rather, as I would put it, there is a tendency to take the matter too literally. Appearances can be very deceptive, and the absurdity of the claims which are often made on the basis of the number of people on waiting lists is well demonstrated by the result of the last Government's own National Dwelling and Housing Survey. The survey showed that at the end of 1977 about 1½ million people had put their names on council waiting lists. But it also showed that of those people over one-third—that is, some half million—were already council tenants who just wanted a transfer. Of those people in the private rented sector who hoped for council housing less than half said that they were dissatisfied with the present conditions, and no less than three-quarters of the owner-occupiers on the lists were already in physically satisfactory dwellings.
My Lords, people ask to be put on waiting lists for a wide variety of reasons, even though many of them may already have homes which are not unsatisfactory. Often their names are just left on waiting lists. I know this from my own experience. Periodically we used to do a review and it was dramatic to see how many people were no longer there or did not wish to be on the list any longer. I do not want to over distort this, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, rightly pointed out, that does not mean that there are not areas and situations where the waiting list is a very real and significant thing. I hope not to spoil a good case by distortion. Of course there are those situations. But it does no good for the whole consideration of this subject, which concerns us so much, to spoil it by the kind of distortion that we create by simply taking numbers on waiting lists.
I want to say a word about improving the use of the stock we have. We must surely consider that that is a prime factor in this whole matter. An obvious failing in this respect is the number of dwellings lying empty. A number of noble Lords have touched on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said, "Well, it only represents 4 per cent"; but it is over half a million dwellings. No matter whether it is due to one cause or another, the fact is that it is over half a million dwellings. If we are all as anxious as we are about this whole matter we must consider what can be done to improve that situation. I am not seeking to put the blame on local authorities at all, because I know that there has to be a percentage of dwellings empty in any council's stock. You must have them empty because if you acquire them you have to repair them and you have to do many things that require some to be empty. So I am not seeking to knock anyone. But you cannot get away from the fact that these houses are there and are empty, and local authorities have over 100,000 of them. We can differ as to why they exist in the private sector, how many of them are due to the effects of the rent Acts or

603
whatever. With regard to those we can only deplore that that situation is there.
Let us look to see what local authorities can do. Here the problem is that, I think it is, 23,000 of these houses have been empty for over a year. There is no way you can justify having dwellings empty for over a year. I will not take the point that says, "We cannot afford to put them right". These dwellings were empty long before anyone could criticise what was being given or not being given by way of grants, allocations or anything else. The fact is that there are a number of authorities who are seemingly content to let them stay empty, for whatever reasons—and I have my own views about some of them. Frankly, it is not good enough and contributes nothing to the totality of the problem we are facing.
My Lords, nothing in the recent history of housing is sadder than the attitude which the Labour Party, both in Government and in Opposition, has shown, which has tended to drive out private landlords and destroy the private rented sector. The fact is that the last Labour Government presided over the disappearance of 125,000 dwellings a year from the private sector. The reasons are not hard to find. If we talk of the 1974 Rent Act, which gave lifelong security to all furnished tenants of non-resident landlords, there you have it. For 15 months on every Friday I came down and sat on the Francis Committee, and we studied the working of the rent Acts. At the end of the day we came forward with certain recommendations, as committees of that kind are wont to do. One of the things we said was that if ever you give security to furnished tenancies the most immediate effect will be that you will lose a great number of dwellings to let. That is exactly what happened, because in 1974 it was done, and the result was the one which we now all know.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that this case was argued in your Lordships' House, and the conclusion was expressed from his Benches and from the Cross-Benches that the extension of the rent Acts would create just the shortage which has actually occurred, especially among students.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Lord is agreeing with me, I thank him for that.
Lord Robbins: Yes, I am.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one is apt to be carried away by discussions of this kind, but then this debate is one which concerns people and caring and wanting to do things better, so if I am perhaps going on a little about it you will have to make allowances. We believe that the private rented sector still has an important role in meeting housing needs, particularly those of the young and the single and the mobile. That is why in the 1980 Act we have introduced shorthold, which I will quickly mention again in a moment. We have given six million public sector tenants the right to take in lodgers and to sub-let. We have simplified the rules for new lettings by resident landlords. We have extended the circumstances in which those going abroad, those in the Services and those owning a home to which they intend to retire, can regain possession
604
of their homes if they have been let. We have introduced assured tenancies, to which my noble friend Lord Hylton referred. I am happy to say that the Abbey Housing Association have already let the first units under this scheme, at Tower Hamlets, and approval has also been granted to Wates Limited to build under the scheme.
I have to say that when we talk of shorthold it is disappointing to hear noble Lords opposite persist in the line which says, "Well, it will not work, and, what is more, when we come into office we will get rid of it." How can they criticise the numbers being let, especially in so short a time since the Act came into force, when they tell people that they will do away with this? It is not good enough for the noble Baroness to say, "Yes, but, you know, that is a five-year life". They can let for three to five years, under shorthold. However one might differ about what it will achieve—and there may be differences as to what it will achieve—surely it is an attempt to do something. To do nothing is so easy, to sit back and bemoan the diminution of this sector. Even if it is not successful in the end, at least we are trying to do something; we are not complacent and satisfied to sit back and bemoan our fate.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, on the subject of short-holds, I wonder whether the noble Lord has seen some of the figures given by his right honourable friend in Hansard in another place. The figures seem to be very disappointing indeed for shorthold lettings—three in Chelsea, five in Kensington, a few in Camden: very few indeed for the whole Metropolitan area. It does not seem to be a success at all.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord says that with pleasure or with disappointment. His party is committed to doing away with it anyhow, so that should cause him great pleasure. If the figures are as he says, I say two things; first of all, I think the Labour party, for the reasons I have given, must take most responsibility for it; and, secondly, it is still very much too early to come to any conclusions about it. But even if it all fails, at least it is an attempt to do something as compared to doing nothing.
On low cost home ownership, widening the opportunities for owner-occupation lies at the heart of our housing strategy. I need mention only in passing the right to buy, about which we talked, and the low-cost home ownership programme. They are surely well enough known by now. I should emphasise the advantages of this policy to local authorities themselves. First, many who will purchase under these initiatives would otherwise have been seeking rented accommodation from the authority, and to that extent pressure on the authority's rented stock is relieved. Secondly, the policy gives authorities new opportunities to dispose of houses and flats which they have been unable to put to good use themselves. Thirdly, every sale of land or houses generates a capital receipt. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said, that not all of that comes in a cash form which enables them to reinvest in housing in general, but a great deal of it does do so and I speak from personal experience of having sold thousands of houses. The fact is that a lot of money

605
does come in and now, under the new rules which we have, 50 per cent. of that can be applied to any investment in housing. One can build, repair or do what one likes within an authority.
I have in front of me a great deal more that I should like to say, not least about private house building and so on. We have done a great deal. We have repealed the Community Land Act which simply created a vast bureaucracy and achieved nothing but clogged up the supply of land, as we always said it would. We have made the impact of development land tax less burdensome and more equitable. We have streamlined the planning system and the way in which it is administered. We have eliminated the wasteful overlap of planning responsibilities between counties and districts. We have taken many such steps.
I am sorely tempted to spell out the list which I have before me of the shortcomings, as it were, of the previous Administration in housing, but I shall resist that because it is history and, like most of the speakers today, I am more concerned not about scoring points but about where we go from here. That is the matter of concern. So in conclusion I should like to mention some of the things that we are doing in addition. Two years of this Government have seen further reductions in housing investment. That is the inescapable consequence of adjustment to economic reality—the reality to which the noble Baroness was referring in the quotations which I mentioned earlier. Yet in just those first two years we have seen more imaginative new housing policies—and, above all, more action—than our predecessors ever dreamed of.
We have taken a host of initiatives to encourage the release of land for private house building: we have repealed the Community Land Act, set up land registers and many more. Seven thousand acres of developable land have been sold by new towns, the Housing Corporation and the PSA for building purposes. A new subsidy system is now in place. It concentrates help where it is most needed. It does not scatter money at random across the country. It sets the context for a rational approach to rent-setting, while still leaving authorities free to take their own decisions. We now have a tenants' charter of statutory rights for public sector tenants—something which noble Lords talked about but which we have done—which, apart from the right to buy, has given tenants the right to decorate and improve; the right to take in lodgers and sublet; the right to security of tenure and one succession: and the right to information and consultation. That is now a fact. We have, in addition, a Mobility Scheme. We have given authorities undreamed of freedom to determine their own investment programmes within what the nation can afford. The yardstick has been swept away.
Finally, tens and hundreds of thousands of households will have cause to thank us for putting home ownership within their reach through the right to buy and the exciting and bold low-cost home ownership schemes which the Government are pioneering—and my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned one or two of them. Shared ownership; homesteading; selling local authority land for starter homes; improvement for sale; local authority indemnities for mortgages; licensing builders to build starter homes on local authority land.
606
What such comparative housing initiatives have any previous Government ever shown?
Not for one moment do I belittle the proper concern which has been expressed today. The housing problems and needs and changing situations, and the special needs of certain categories of people continue to abound, and, Heaven knows!, we are not complacent about them. We shall have them constantly in mind in all that we do. But, yes, we do care. However, no Government could put it all right or solve all the problems in two years, not least in times of financial difficulty. Even so, as I hope I have illustrated clearly enough, in their short term of office so far the Government have already a record in which we can, and do, take pride.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to say, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Birk, that I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MV "Derbyshire": Inquiries into Loss
6.25 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have completed their inquiries into the loss of the MV "Derbyshire" in September 1980.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope that the Government will be able to provide as much information as possible about the mystery of the sudden disappearance of a very large, modern vessel, the "Derbyshire" owned by a British company and in a completely seaworthy condition. Eight months have passed since the "Derbyshire" disappeared about 650 miles from Tokyo Bay. I know that the Government have been engaged in making as wide inquiries as they can.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne who is due to reply to this debate is a Minister in the department concerned—the Department of Trade. Many people in this country and abroad will be very anxious to learn what conclusions he tells the House this evening have been reached by the Government. This is a matter of concern not only to those in the industries and businesses involved, especially the shipping industry, but also to everyone connected with safety at sea. Members of the public, too, naturally harbour disquiet about what, at present, is still a mystery. It is also a disaster of huge proportions.
I declare a personal interest of a general nature in that I am a member of Lloyd's—an external member in the terminology now in use. About 80 per cent. of the insurance was placed, I understand, in London. Indeed, it has been said that the "Derbyshire" may become the biggest single British flag loss for many years.
I shall outline briefly what is known about the incident. My sources are Lloyd's Log and the Government's statement of 27th October last. The ship was built in the United Kingdom in 1976 and was 169,000 tonnes deadweight. It was owned by Bibby's

607
of Liverpool—a long-established company with a high reputation generally and a good safety record. She was a combination carrier—that is to say, she could be an oil tanker or she could carry dry cargoes such as coal or ores. She was carrying a cargo of iron ore from Canada to Japan when she disappeared on 9th September. The last message was that she was hove-to in a tropical storm. That storm became a typhoon named "Orchid".
Whatever happened must have caused the ship and those on board to be overwhelmed in a very short time. No distress signal was picked up and it seems that there was no time to send one. The 44 people on board have all been presumed lost at sea. They were the master, the crew and two wives of members of the crew. I understand that all except one were United Kingdom nationals. The House will wish to join me in expressing deep sympathy with the families of those who perished with the ship.
The Government Statement of 27th October recorded that inquiries under the Merchant Shipping Acts had been initiated. The preliminary inquiry into the cause of the casualty was then continuing. Today I hope that the Government can announce whether their inquiries have been completed and, if so, what were the results. In particular, why was no distress message ever received? Is the Minister now proposing to hold a public inquiry? If so, that would presumably now be carried out in the usual way by a court of formal investigation. I ask these questions because we must endeavour to find out as much as we can in the interests of learning any lessons and improving codes of safety. My noble friend may be able to tell us today that most of what it is possible to discover from scanty evidence will be in his statement.
The ship must have sunk approximately in the area from where the last message was sent. Accordingly, the wreck will be too deep down on the sea bed for examination. What traces of her have there been? I understand that the only significant trace was a lifeboat. It was sighted about six weeks after the disappearance of the "Derbyshire" by a Japanese vessel. Press reports indicate that though the Japanese vessel was unable to take what was a large lifeboat on board, it did positively identify it as belonging to the "Derbyshire" because the name was on the boat. That seems to be the only real clue which has been reported in the media so far.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend whether he can tell us more this evening. For example, can he indicate whether the lifeboat had been launched or whether it was simply a bit of debris? There might be a clue there. From the way in which the ship must have been overwhelmed, it seems more likely that the lifeboat, being a very buoyant item, wrenched itself free and floated. But it would be of interest to know whether there was any evidence to show that it had been launched.
The Government's inquiries may have been able to eliminate some of the possible causes which have been discussed since September. That would be useful. I should like to touch on two or three. First, there is the possibility of an explosion. This has been suggested because two Norwegian vessels—combination carriers of the same kind—are thought to have sunk after explosions. I refer to the "Berge Istra" and the "Berge
608
Vanga". They were carrying ore after voyages with oil cargoes. The theory has been advanced that an explosive gas can accumulate in those conditions. However, the "Derbyshire" had not carried oil for 11 months and her dry cargoes during that period were regarded as safe combinations. Furthermore, I understand that she underwent a thorough survey in April of last year.
Another possibility which must be considered, but which I suggest is unlikely, is collision. I would remind your Lordships that a few weeks ago a small tanker was sunk off the shores of Japan after a collision with a United States submarine. That Japanese vessel was very much smaller than the "Derbyshire". A ship of the size of the "Derbyshire" might be holed by such a collision but would not have foundered as rapidly as she obviously did. Moreover, a submarine of whatever nationality would have been lost or severely damaged in such a collision. So this seems a most unlikely cause, though one has to consider it, bearing in mind the collision that did recently occur in that area of the world.
Therefore, we must return to the typhoon as the probable cause. When he replies, my noble friend may be able to tell us about the method of loading cargo and the possible shifting of that cargo in very heavy seas. Another possibility which must be taken very seriously is that the ship broke in two. It did have a very heavy cargo—about 158,000 tonnes of iron ore. I am sure that all concerned with the design and seaworthiness of ships will study the Government's statements most carefully. She was a long vessel, of a kind which has been in favour in recent years. Might she have been suspended, momentarily, upon massive waves?—perhaps only two or three? Is it possible that her hull could not withstand such unusual conditions?
I do not pretend to know the answers. At present this must remain a mystery. If the Government cannot solve these problems today, I would advocate continuing research into the effects of tropical storm conditions on different strengths and designs of hull with cargoes in most suitable positions. Seafarers do not underestimate the fury of a typhoon. Joseph Conrad vividly conveyed the experience. More recently Herman Wouk also, in The Caine Mutiny, gave us a glimpse of the impact on men and ships of a raging tropical storm. Nowadays weather conditions and reports, aided by satellites, can help ships to pass round and avoid gales and storms on occasions. None the less, ocean-going vessels are expected to stand up to typhoons. They have to be able to withstand the severest of storms at sea. In order to do everything possible to avoid a recurrence of this tragic accident at sea, and to add to our store of knowledge of marine safety, I trust that the Government will continue to pursue any line of inquiry which might lead to an explanation of what happened.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but as a result of what my noble friend has said, I should like to inform your Lordships that I was a partner in a firm which was the agent for the Bibby Line in Bombay, and I can confirm what he said about the quality of their vessels, their design and their maintenance. We handled many

609
ships and I well remember having a row with the war transport people about the "City of Cairo" because the master would not take more than a certain quantity of manganese ore in her bottom. We were ordered to load another 1,000 tons, and the captain refused. I got into trouble for supporting him and said that the owners should be consulted. The owners cabled back saying "Consult master". The master took the view that this particular type of cargo in the bottom of this ship, to which he referred as a very "stiff" vessel, was too dangerous to contemplate taking round the Cape of Good Hope in the bad season.
I have sailed in the waters to which my noble friend has referred, but I have never experienced a typhoon. However, I have friends who, in their large ketch, were completely turned over by an enormous wave near Cape Horn. The story about that event includes a photograph which was taken from one of the German cruisers—their raiders—showing a vast wave which my friend described as the only photograph that he had ever seen which compared with the wave that turned them over.
This leads me to ask one other question of the noble Lord who will reply, because my friends attributed this vast wave which caught them, perhaps to a seismic disturbance. Would it be any contribution to our discussion to know whether the earthquake and seismic records in the neighbourhood recorded any large movement at the time of the loss of the "Derbyshire"?
6.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it must be of concern to all noble Lords that the "Derbyshire", a modern ship built in 1976 by a well-known firm of shipbuilders, Swan Hunter, should disappear without any trace in the Pacific with the loss of 44 lives. This ship was equipped with all modern navigational aids: magnetic compass; gyrocompass; automatic pilot; radar; echo sounder; speed log, and satellite navigator. It had, according to the investigations which have been made, complied with all standards that are laid down, and yet the disaster occurred. This contains a lesson for us, in that we have to be continually vigilant and continually ensure that those safety requirements are being updated all the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in bringing this to the attention of your Lordships this evening, for which I am grateful to him, spoke of the loss of the "Derbyshire" as one of the biggest losses for merchant shipping. Of course in real terms the loss of the "Titanic" was the major loss of a merchant shipping vessel. I am always conscious of the "Titanic", as the inquiry into that loss was presided over by my great-grandfather. Mention of that particular inquiry is important because out of that inquiry came the establishment of many safety requirements in the merchant shipping world. We need to know what was the cause of this particular disaster so that we can see that new standards are established to ensure that we do not in fact have further disasters of this sort. That is why it is so important that the Department of Trade should be continuing with all its inquiries to try to come up with the reason why this particular disaster occurred.
610
One cannot help feeling that very often the standards are imposed and those who adhere to those standards are building ships, or building bridges as the case may be, to too fine margins, with the effect that when something exceptional happens the standard has not proved to be high enough. This is an area of continuous concern. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to various possible causes for this particular disaster. He came to his own conclusion that it was probably a typhoon which caused this particular disaster. He raised the question as to what effect the typhoon can have had on the movement of cargo on this particular boat and whether, as a result of that movement, undue stress could have been placed on the hull of the vessel.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who has to reply to this debate, will be able to tell your Lordships of the results of such investigations as the Government have carried out, and will also be able to tell your Lordships that the Government are continuing, in carrying out their investigations, to try to establish the cause of this particular disaster.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I want first to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising this matter since, of course, the loss of the "Derbyshire" was indeed a serious and tragic marine casualty. It was without doubt one of the most serious losses sustained by the United Kingdom fleet for very many years, especially, and very sadly, in terms of loss of life. I recognise, therefore, that it is very important that I give your Lordships a full and clear account of my department's response. This, I propose to do, and I shall also take into account one or two points raised in the course of the debate.
Before proceeding further, however, I would like to say that, although this casualty occurred before I assumed my present ministerial responsibilities for marine safety, I have been very saddened indeed by the story, which brings home all too tragically the latent dangers of life at sea which are always present. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to be associated with my noble friend and I in expressing deepest sympathy to the next of kin in their great loss, and also to the owners of the vessel.
It would, I think, be helpful if I commence by outlining events as disclosed by my department's inquiries, which indeed do not depart very far from the story described by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The Motor Vessel "Derbyshire" was a combination bulk cargo vessel—of conventional design known as an OBO (oil-bulk-ore carrier)—owned by Bibby Tankers Ltd. On this fateful voyage the vessel sailed from Sept Iles, Canada on 11th July 1980 with a crew of 42 and 2 wives on board, carrying a bulk cargo of iron ore concentrate destined for Kawasaki, Japan. On 9th September the vessel was in the north-west Pacific about 270 miles east of Okinawa. Her last known message was to the owners on that day and read: "Now hove to due to severe tropical storm: estimated time of arrival Kawasaki 14th hopefully". The storm referred to was Typhoon Orchid.
When the "Derbyshire" failed to arrive in Japan as anticipated on 14th September an extensive air and sea search was mounted by the Japanese Maritime

611
Safety Agency who had been alerted by the owners and by my department. The search commenced on 5th September and continued until 20th September; routine patrols continued to search thereafter. I think I need mention only two details of significance in this context. On the first day of the search oil was seen bubbling to the surface in the relevant area which could conceivably have come from "Derbyshire".
A small sample secured by one of the Japanese search vessels, and later compared with bunker oil of the kind known to have been taken on by "Derbyshire", showed a degree of similarity but was not conclusive. Much later, however, on 24th October, a Japanese tanker sighted a drifting empty lifeboat and positively identified it as coming from the "Derbyshire". My noble friend has drawn attention to this. Unfortunately, the lifeboat could not be recovered for inspection and no further sightings have been reported, nor have any bodies or identifiable wreckage been recovered. The limited evidence available to my department about the condition of the lifeboat indicates that it was not launched and had probably been wrenched from the davits. My noble friend referred to this possibility.
Perhaps I might mention here the search operation. I should like to record Her Majesty's Government's appreciation of the efforts of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, and for responding so readily to our request for assistance. Their thorough and extensive search continued over a period of six days and I am quite sure that the Japanese authorities did all that was possible in the circumstances. I now turn to my department's inquiries to try to establish the cause of the casualty.
As with all serious marine casualties, once it became clear that the "Derbyshire" had to be presumed lost, my department immediately appointed an inspector under the provisions of Section 465, of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 to carry out a preliminary inquiry. The inspector's inquiries were exhaustive and included interviews with the owners and various crew members who served on the ship before her last voyage. He discussed the search operation with the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency and visited the dockyard at Sasebo, in Japan, where the ship had been dry-docked in April 1980. The inspector also went to Sept Iles to establish details of the loading of the "Derbyshire's" last cargo of iron-ore and witnessed the loading of ships with similar cargoes. In carrying out this difficult inquiry, my department has received the utmost co-operation from all concerned and this had been greatly appreciated.
I think it would be right for me to emphasise at this point that, as a result of our inquiries, my department has no reason to believe that the "Derbyshire" was in anything but good repair and seaworthy when leaving Sept Iles for her last voyage. The vessel had in fact been recently surveyed and held valid certificates in respect of all statutory safety requirements under the Merchant Shipping Acts. In reply to my noble friend, I would emphasise that the inspector's inquiries, and my department's consideration of his report, have been as thorough and careful as the circumstances have permitted. But the House will no doubt appreciate that the absence of the ship, any survivors, or any
612
wreckage, is a severe handicap in reaching positive conclusions.
It has to be asked: how can such a huge, modern and well equipped ship virtually disappear without trace, or at least some last desperate distress signal? On the question of distress communications, we have no reason to conclude that, given the opportunity, the "Derbyshire" could not have transmitted an emergency call. Due to the weather, the atmospheric conditions in the area were perhaps unfavourable at the crucial time, but it must be noted that early on 9th September the vessel was able to communicate with the owners when hove-to in a tropical storm. Our inquiries in this connection do not suggest that weather conditions were the most probable reason why no distress signal was heard.
There is one related point that I should perhaps touch on at this stage, since it may be noted that the "Derbyshire" was out of radio contact with the owners or any shore-based stations for several days, from the time of the last known message early on 9th September until she was overdue in Kawasaki on the 14th. It has been established, however, that such a period of radio silence should not be regarded as untoward on a voyage of the kind in question and, given the master's signal that at the earliest he expected to arrive in Japan on 14th September, the absence of a subsequent message in the intervening period would not normally be regarded as a matter for concern.
It does, therefore, appear from our inquiries that whatever happened to cause the loss of the "Derbyshire" was both immediate and catastrophic, providing no chance for those on board to react. What this was can only be conjectured: a massive explosion, a structural hull failure resulting in rapid sinking, or possibly the vessel was overwhelmed owing to a sudden shift of cargo. The fact is, regrettably, that we do not know, and I have to tell the House that it has not been possible to adduce any evidence to support any one of these theories; and, inevitably, the outcome of the inquiry has been inconclusive.
My noble friend asked whether there is to be a public formal investigation and, if not, what my department proposes to do in the aftermath of this casualty. As the House will know, powers are available under the Merchant Shipping Acts to order a public formal investigation into shipping casualties where such an inquiry is deemed necessary in the interests of marine safety. The primary purpose of formal investigations, which are quite independent of my department and are presided over by wreck commissioners, is to try to establish clearly the cause of marine casualties and to determine whether any lessons might be learned to contribute to the general interests of marine safety. Where a very serious casualty occurs, and especially one involving heavy loss of life as in the "Derbyshire", the question of the need for a formal investigation is of considerable importance, and I have accordingly given the most careful consideration to whether such an inquiry should be held into the loss of the "Derbyshire".
I have given particular thought to the possible expectations of the next of kin, who may well feel that the circumstances are such that they should be aired in public. I can, of course, readily sympathise with such reaction, but the overriding question, I believe,

613
is essentially whether anything would be gained by a public hearing; would such an investigation add to our knowledge of what happened and help my department formulate any necessary and relevant new safety measures? In the absence of any material evidence, I have concluded that a court could not reasonably be expected to establish clearly the cause of this casualty; as I said, we have no ship, no survivors, nor any wreckage with which to assist any further investigation. That, therefore, is my department's considered view, and I have accordingly decided that a formal investigation would serve no useful purpose and cannot be justified. I would add, however, that I should be prepared to reconsider this decision should any new and material evidence come to light, but I do not think that is at all likely.
As my noble friend rightly said—and I certainly do not need reminding, because I am very conscious of my important responsibilities for marine safety—we cannot leave matters where they are. It is essential to consider how best to react to the catastrophic disappearance of a vessel such as "Derbyshire" with the loss of so many lives. We have to decide what further measures may be desirable or relevant to marine safety in the future. Safety standards in the United Kingdom merchant fleet are acknowledged to be of the highest, but there is no absolute level of safety and we must never lose respect for the sea. Accordingly, my department intends to pursue further investigations in consultation with appropriate expert bodies; these investigations are concerned with the stability, survival after flooding assuming a major structural failure has longitudinal strength in relation to the loading conditions and wave parameters.
Additionally, there are several areas relevant to this casualty in which my department is presently pursuing research. These include a large-scale project into all aspects of ship stability which may lead to a review of current regulations and studies into the behaviour of mineral concentrate type cargoes where past experience has shown tendencies to shift during a voyage. Needless to say, if the results of this work indicate that further action is necessary to promote greater safety of ships, appropriate measures will be taken in concert with the industry and other interested bodies. This research, by its nature, will obviously take time and I am very conscious that in the meantime there are many having a direct and personal interest in the fate of the "Derbyshire", especially the next of kin, who may well seek to have factual details relating to the "Derbyshire's" last voyage. My noble friend no doubt also had such considerations in mind.
I have, therefore, arranged to make immediately available a factual statement concerning the loss of the "Derbyshire", based on my department's inquiries, which includes details of the ship, and her certification, voyages previous to the last one, the loading of the ore at Sept Iles, the voyage towards Japan, the typhoon
614
she encountered, and the search which was conducted when the ship became overdue. I am arranging for copies to placed in Libraries of both Houses.
Before concluding, I would refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, who asked in particular whether perhaps a seismic disturbance in the area, leading possibly to a huge wave, had been the cause of the disaster. I can tell him that our inspectors of course inquired into the sea conditions in the area around the time when the "Derbyshire" must have met her fate. While those sea conditions have indeed been reported as fairly bad, there is no evidence that there was any kind of freak wave in the area at the time, as my noble friend has thought possible. I hope that your Lordships will agree that my department has done all that it properly can in the circumstances to find a solution to this matter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to thank him for that very careful and considered statement and to add that, for my part, in the circumstances which he has described I would not expect a public inquiry, but I hope that the investigations that he has described will continue to try to see whether improvements can be made in safety.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that I had previously had no intention of taking part in the debate. First, with regard to the point about the "City of Cairo" and her being a stiff vessel, I would say that the War Department agreed to accept the captain's view that that was the way in which he wanted his ship loaded. Secondly, referring to the Bibby Line, I can say that the quality of their sailors and officers was very high.
With regard to the photograph that I told your Lordships about, I now remember that it is in a book entitled Once is Enough, by the well-known ocean sailor Brigadier Miles Smeeton, and the photograph was taken from the records of the raider "Graf Spee". It was extraordinarily interesting. It was only in conversation with the brigadier and his late wife, who was actually at the helm when the wave was encountered, that the suggestion of seismic disturbance was mentioned; I do not think that it is mentioned in the book.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have listened with great interest and very carefully to what my noble friend has said, and I would in particular confirm his view about the standards of operation of the Bibby Line, to which he also referred.

Barnsley Borough Council Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
  BLASPHEMY: LAW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
  BLASPHEMY: LAW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION