Sitting of 4 February 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD
    RIVER) BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 February.
    ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL(By Order)
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No.
    BILL (By Order)
    LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL (By
    Order)
    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By
    Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the equivalent level of welfare of animals kept intensively is maintained in those systems using extensive methods.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The animal welfare provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 apply equally to all commercial farm livestock.
    Mr. Spence: With regard to non-intensive methods of keeping animals, including poultry, has the Minister any means of measuring or registering the distress, as well as mortality, to animals, including poultry, occasioned by the recent inclement weather, with snow and flooding, with a view to bringing some balance to the animal welfare debate?
    Mrs. Fenner: Animals kept in controlled environments are not subject to the vagaries of the weather, but
    524
    my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be dealing in a later question with the effect of the severe weather on agriculture.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Does my hon. Friend agree that today, when most poultry is kept by intensive methods, the national poultry flock is probably healthier than ever before?
    Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend makes a point that undoubtedly has a basis in truth, but he will know that, in company with the rest of the European Community, we are seeking to ensure the best methods of intensive poultry-keeping.

    Marginal Land
    Mr. Peter Millasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to make a statement on the inquiry into marginal agricultural areas in England and Wales.
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to make a statement about the designation of marginal land in the United Kingdom; and what forms of specific assistance are to be made available to these areas.
    Mrs. Fenner: The marginal land surveys in the United Kingdom are now complete and my right hon. Friend is at present considering with colleagues the case for extending the less-favoured areas that might be submitted to the European Commission.
    Mr. Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous economic benefit that would arise to the rural areas if this process went forward quickly, particularly for the lime spreading and drainage contractors? In view of the terrible loss of agricultural land to roads and buildings, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to increase home food production from marginal land?
    Mrs. Fenner: As soon as the results are fully examined and the interested parties consulted on the scope of the case, it will go to the EEC Commission. However, care must be taken because we need to submit a watertight case as soon as possible. The NFU has agreed to this approach. I accept my hon. Friend's comments, but we have always said that there is no Government commitment to provide funds if areas are designated. The first step is to put the case to Brussels.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend recognise the urgency of the case? We seem to have been talking about the problem for all too long a period. Does she agree that the reintroduction of a lime subsidy and enhanced rates of grant for drainage and fencing, together with similar farm improvements, would not only be cost effective but would raise the output from marginal areas?
    Mrs. Fenner: I accept that there has been a slippage of a few weeks in our original timetable. This has been caused partly by a backlog of work at the computer centre following the industrial action that was taken last summer. I have reassured my hon. Friend that as soon as consideration of the survey is complete the case will be put. I agree with his comments in the latter part of his supplementary question.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does not the accelerating decline in rural areas, which is reflected in the closure of

    525
    village schools, the loss of bus services and the second homes problem, from which many in rural areas suffer, show an urgent need to improve the viability of such areas? Does the Minister agree that extra support for marginal land is one way of assisting an improvement in viability? Will the hon. Lady think again about her statement that there is no commitment to extra resources? It will be of no satisfaction to the agriculture community if the Government take resources from one heading and allocate it to another without increasing the total sum available.
    Mrs. Fenner: I canot answer for the aspects of rural life to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, the survey has been completed and we are considering the case to be put before the EEC. It is necessary to obtain the approval of Brussels for an extension of the marginal land areas before we consider whether the case for extra assistance is such that extra funds could be found.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What does my hon. Friend consider the criterion of marginality to be? Is she considering it in the context of half the world being underfed and desperately needing more food to be produced, or is she considering it in the parochial context of a temporary surplus of some foodstuffs within the EEC? The two concepts are very different.
    Mrs. Fenner: Consideration is being given to areas that are so marginally less-favoured as to come into the EEC scheme for the less-favoured areas.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that if the EEC accepts new definitions the Goverment will make extra resources available? Will she publish her findings?
    Mrs. Fenner: I have nothing to add to my comment that there is no Government commitment. We are studying the survey most carefully and the information suggests that a good case can be mounted. We are still studying the results of the survey and we want to put a watertight case to the Commission.
    Mr. Strang: As the inquiry was begun by the Labour Government, is it not surprising that a sense of frustration is building up among marginal farmers, especially as they are among the hardest hit at present? I welcome the resources that the Government have provided, but will the hon. Lady make it clear that the Government intend to submit an application to Brussels to extend the less-favoured areas? If that is the intention, surely it will make sense to do so before this year's price fixing is completed.
    Mrs. Fenner: The survey could have been completed earlier had it not been for industrial action at the computer centre. I regret the delay as much as anybody else. We believe that a good case can be mounted, and it will be mounted as soon as we are ready.

    Dutch Horticulture Industry (Gas Subsidies)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved by the European Economic Community in eliminating Dutch gas subsidies for horticulture; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): At the last meeting of the Council of Ministers virtually all member States pressed the Dutch
    526
    Government, together with the Commission, to see that a situation arose where there was an elimination of the gap between the industrial and horticultural tariffs operated in Holland. This item is on the agenda for the meeting of 15 February, and I expect on that occasion some positive proposals to be put, and, I hope, an elimination of this unfair advantage to the Dutch growers.
    Mr. Latham: As the real answer is that no progress has been made in Brussels—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and as my right hon. Friend has had to introduce welcome national aids to prevent local growers from being destroyed, will he now make it plain to the Dutch that if they want to play it tough and rough so can we?
    Mr. Walker: If the Dutch Government do not present firm proposals on 15 February, I have no doubt that they will be taken immediately to the European Court. That is the correct procedure to pursue. We have introduced national aids in the interim, and until the matter is settled it will be my policy to ensure that the aids continue.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: When does the Minister expect British producers to compete on equal terms with Dutch growers?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that that will be in the near future. The hon. Gentleman knows that I inherited a situation where the gap already existed.
    Mr. Torney: Take action now.
    Mr. Walker: No progress of any description had been made. If the gap is eliminated in the coming months, it will be considerable and important progress.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that he will be party to a decision so deferred as to lead to the destruction of the British glasshouse industry? Is he aware that his procrastination and that of the Commission is putting the whole of the British glasshouse industry at risk? We welcome the aid that the Government have given, but does he recognise that no part of that can offset the damage that has been done?
    Mr. Walker: To take up the words of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), who sits below the Gangway, there was total procrastination by the last Labour Government. They did nothing on this issue and they were completely lethargic. I am glad that in the near future some decisions will be taken.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that kerosene is the fuel used most widely by the Vale of Evesham growers? Does he understand that if we take into account the £4 million subsidy when comparing the fuel costs of British growers with those of the Dutch, British growers with those of the Dutch, British growers are paying about three times as much as Dutch growers for their fuel?
    Mr. Walker: The Dutch Government are under considerable pressure from all the countries represented by the Commission. That pressure is not confined to the British. I hope and believe that on 15 February the Dutch Government will announce the basis upon which they will eliminate unfair competition.
    Mr. Torney: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman became so excited. Despite what happened when the Labour Government were in office, does he agree that the horticulture sector has become desperate during the tenure of this Government? What urgent action will he take? Will

    527
    he allow the procrastination of the Common Market to continue until British horticulture has gone the way of the fishing industry and has disappeared? Will he act unilaterally to save the industry?
    Mr. Walker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman became so excited. I welcome his confession of the failure of the Labour Government. I am fairly optimistic that proposals will be submitted on 15 February. If they are, and if they are satisfactory, I shall warmly welcome them. I have taken full action in providing national aids to the industry to support it in the meantime and I shall continue to make those aids available.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Sir Walter Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage has been now reached in the negotiations for a common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the negotiations with the European Economic Community on the establishment of a common fisheries policy.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Progress has been made on marketing, on conservation and on the Community's reciprocal fishing arrangements with certain third countries, including Norway. The next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers is expected to take place in March.
    Sir Walter Clegg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take representatives of the industry with him and will consult them during the negotiations? Does he accept that, if possible, he should reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to them? What effect will the common fisheries policy negotiations have on the structure of the deep sea fleet?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, it is commonly realized—although not in certain quarters—that the main problem faced by the deep sea fleet has been the extension of limits to 200 miles around countries such as Iceland, which has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy. As to the first part of his question, on all occasions we have taken representatives of the fishermen to the Council of Ministers. We shall continue to do so, and we believe that the only settlement that we can make is one that is acceptable to the British fishing industry.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that under no circumstances will he concede the principle of the exclusive 12-mile limit around the United Kingdom? If no common fisheries policy is arranged by the end of the year, what legal authority do we have to stop vessels from the Common Market from fishing right up to our beaches and wiping out our fish stocks?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have made clear on many occasions, all hon. Members have a shared objective of a 12-mile exclusive zone. We must also consider the position of those countries with historic rights within the six to l2-mile zone, which is a factor in the negotiations. I emphasise that we continue to consult the fishing industry, to which a final settlement must be satisfactory.
    Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind how bitterly, and, in my view, unfairly, Conservatives attacked the last Labour Minister for not having obtained a settlement on the common fisheries policy, does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get things moving within the next six months? Beyond that, it will be a question of sauve qui peut. What does he intend to do about the Danes in the North Sea, for example?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in the fishing industry. He is wrong to say that the previous Minister who spoke for the fishing industry did not have the full support of the House, which I hope the present Government do. As to progress on the common fisheries policy, the two crucial issues of quotas and access remain. I am under no illusion that they will not be difficult to settle. Equally, in the interim, we stand by our record. During the past two years, when there has been uncertainty because of the time taken, we have stood by the fishing industry in many ways, not least with financial support.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose, exceptionally, to call two further hon. Members from either side on this question.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that Denmark has over-fished in the southern North Sea by 10 times? It has taken 11,500 tonnes against a 1,000 tonnes proposed quota. What action will he take at the Council of Ministers meeting in March about that breach of the fishing regulations? Does he agree that it does not assist us towards the completion of a common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We regard the reports of over-fishing by the Danes as completely unsatisfactory. We are not waiting for the March meeting, but have already made our views plain to the Commission. The matter underlines the necessity of a common fisheries policy with proper policing and control so as to prevent such over-fishing.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister rebuke his hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for the use of sloppy language at Question Time? Is he aware that there is a common fisheries policy—that is the trouble—and that we are trying to negotiate a new one? Is he aware that every deadline so far set by the Government has passed with no success or finality and that, in the interim, the industry is sliding into chaos? Will he set a definite deadline of not later than June this year for the issue to be resolved or for firm action to be taken?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. We all know that we are trying to renegotiate the common fisheries policy. Criticisms come ill from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government who tried to renegotiate Britain's entry into the Common Market and who gave away so much in the Hague agreement of 1976. I need no lecturing from him about how the negotiations should be conducted in the interests of the British fishing industry.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sense of urgency that was lacking in the Labour Government is now apparent to all? Is he further aware that the fishing industry knows that, although an early

    529
    settlement is paramount, it would be of no help to fix a time limit that would hamper rather than help my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. We do not wish to have just any settlement, but a satisfactory settlement. We shall work for that. In the progress that we have made in matters such as conservation and marketing, we have managed to deal with many issues to the benefit of the British fishing industry. Let us hope the we can get down to dealing constructively and satisfactorily with the remaining issues.
    Mr. McNamara: What hope and help does the Minister hold out for the 1,000 unemployed fishermen in Hull? Is there a deadline for negotiations at the end of the year? If he has effectively written off the deep water fleet, what help will he give to regions such as Hull and Fleetwood to reconstruct the industry and to give hope and jobs to the people who live there, or is he happy to cast them aside?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wholly refute the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Government not standing up for the interests of our deep sea fleet. The hon. Gentleman should consider three matters, the first of which is the opportunities that we have negotiated, although not as many as we would wish, in certain distant waters. The second is the aid that we have given the industry in the past two years, £7.6 million of which has gone to the deep sea section. Thirdly, in our fishing management schemes—such as the mackerel scheme—special conditions have been laid down that have been available only to the deep sea fleet. That does not show a lack of concern for the deep sea fishermen.

    Animal Compound and Processed Feeding Stuffs
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of total United Kingdom animal compound and processed feeding stuffs is supplied by home production.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In 1980 it is estimated that 70 per cent. by weight of the raw material content of total deliveries of concentrated feeding stuffs was home-produced.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging answer, but will he see my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him that this is a most important area for future job creation? Is he aware that it is more attractive than the cosmetic schemes put forward by the Opposition and the somewhat futile protests of the Social Democratic Party? Does he agree that public expenditure on huge schemes might be better put into encouragement of home-grown feeding stuffs?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The benefit of using homegrown feeding stuffs and food that is genuinely produced from domestic resources is evident to the agriculture industry. I wish to pay tribute to our compounding and milling industry for the use that it makes of home-grown raw materials.
    Mr. Body: How many of the 60,000 farmers who have gone out of business since we went over to import levies were livestock farmers who could not compete with the artificially increased prices of compounds of the sort that
    530
    we have just heard recommended? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we could buy the feeding stuffs much more cheaply if we were allowed to buy maize and feed wheat elsewhere?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend only to the extent that it is important within the Community to have a better balance between cereal and livestock prices. I am glad that we have got that message over to the Community and that it is part of the proposals before us in this round of price-fixing.
    I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about the numbers of livestock producers who have gone out of business because of our entry into the Common Market. I hope that he will talk to some livestock producers, who show extreme reluctance towards the overtures of some of those who believe that we should take Britain out of the European Community.

    Stansted Airport Inquiry
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has been asked to submit to the Stansted airport public inquiry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: As is normal at such public inquiries, my Department has already submitted an appraisal of the agricultural implications of the planning application before the inspector. At his request, my Department is now preparing further material on the agricultural implications of certain suggestions before the inquiry for associated urbanisation.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will be well received by my constituents, because from their first appearance at the inquiry his officials gave the impression that objectivity was being sacrificed to collective responsibility?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. My Department is anxious, with regard to any public inquiry or planning application, to see that those making the decisions recognise the agricultural implications of such decisions. The desk work for the work on associated urbanisation had been done for many months and has been made available to the inquiry.
    Mr. Jessel: As the total of agricultural land in the United Kingdom is about 73,000 square miles and as, even if only 7 square miles were taken up by expansion of Stansted, that would be only one part in 10,000 of our agricultural land, how can anyone suggest that that should be treated by the Government as a major factor in airport planning policy when set against the congestion and noise that would be felt by millions of people elsewhere if the project did not proceed?
    Mr. Walker: If one used that argument on every inquiry, all agricultural land would steadily disappear. It is correct that at every inquiry those making the decision should consider the impact on agricultural land. There are other considerations to take into account, but the duty of my Department is to see that it always understands the implications for agricultural land.

    Sheep Scab
    Mr. John MacKayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take more effective steps to ensure the eradication of sheep scab.
    Mrs. Fenner: The disease continues to manifest itself despite the stringent control measures adopted by the Government with the co-operation of sheep owners. We shall continue to take all practicable steps to eradicate the disease through movement controls and appropriate dipping requirements.
    Mr. MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am pleased to hear that the Department might accept that that disease is more widespread than was thought? Will she accept that the only way to eradicate it is to have compulsory dipping?
    Mrs. Fenner: No national dipping was undertaken in Scotland last year. That was a matter of decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That conclusion was based on the fact that there had been an absence of sheep scab since 1978 in Scotland. However, there have been 12 outbreaks there in recent months.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the hon. Lady aware that I welcome her statement on the restriction of movement of stock? Is she aware that her noble Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, recently drew attention to the vast sums of money made by smuggling on the Northern Ireland-Republic border? Is she further aware that any effort by the Government to impose an all-Ireland sheepmeat support regime will be resisted in Northern Ireland?
    Mrs. Fenner: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Sugar
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he can estimate the quantity of sugar that will be exported by the European Economic Community in respect of the crop harvested in 1981.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The current forecast is for total exports of about 4.7 million tonnes.
    Mr. Body: Does my right hon. Friend believe that in those circumstances the Community can join the International Sugar Agreement?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We can join the International Sugar Agreement. It is interesting that other countries that are already members would welcome the Community doing so. A significant thing that we can do, and are already doing, is to make sure that our marketing of surplus sugar is done in an orderly way on the world market.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister of State accept that about the most morally offensive part of the common agricultural policy is the selling of sugar with massive taxpayer support on refunds against the incomes of some of the poorest countries in the world and that the quantities involved and the level of export restitutions are wholly distasteful and unacceptable to the House and the country?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree that it is important to reduce the surplus of sugar in the Community. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such exaggerated statements, he should get his facts straight. Of those 4.7 million tonnes, only 2.5 million tonnes qualify for export refunds. The Community is committed to help the export of those an equivalent amount to the 1.3 million tonnes that we take
    532
    from ACP countries. There is direct help arising from what we import from other countries. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that most of that money is funded out of levies on producers.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the CAP price of sugar compares with the world market price and say, if it were available at the world market price, what the effect would be on the price of packet sugar in the shops?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, the world price goes up and down. For a time last year levies were paid on exports. I regret that my hon. Friend's question shows his total failure to realise what the real world food situation is.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss agricultural tenancies.
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received from farming and land owning organisations in connection with the current arrangements for the fixing of farm rents.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The continuing decline of the tenanted sector is a matter of concern. I have received representations from a number of individuals arid organisations, including the National Farmers Union and Country Landowners Association. My colleagues and are considering what action should be taken in the future.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to my right lion Friend for that reply, which acknowledges the decline of the tenanted sector. Does he agree that that decline is potentially dangerous? Will he therefore make it clear to the president that he will press for legislation on the matter in the next Session of Parliament? Will he use his considerable talents to press vigorously in that direction?
    Mr. Walker: I shall consider the proposals that are made and have discussions with all concerned. It is important to ensure that there is permanency in landlord/tenant arrangements, which gives opportunities for young farmers in the future.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister accept that, although the Opposition cannot support proposals that would weaken the security of the families of future tenant farmers. we are concerned about escalating farm rents? Will he consider introducing early legislation to limit the increases in farm rents, which are doing so much harm to agriculture?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that, when putting forward that view, the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the immense frustration of young potential farmers throughout the country about the lack of rented farms. The policy that says that people want lower rents and that they do not want any incentive to bring forward tenanted farms in the future is against the interests of young farmers.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while that is an important subject, it is not at the top of the list of agricultural priorities for discussion with the President? The other subjects that he should bear

    533
    in mind are the co-responsibility levy and the threat from the Community of a devaluation of the green pound. Those things would hurt British agriculture.
    Mr. Walker: I am aware that a diversity of problems and anxieties affect British agriculture at any one time. I agree with my hon. Friend that the demands of the Commission concerning the green pound and the co-responsibility levy are important. However, as the Minister who tried to make the NFU and CLA come together to find a rational and sensible solution in the interests of tenants and landlords—which is important to the interests of the industry—I hope that we shall make progress in the coming year.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister accept that while it might be desirable for the CLA and NFU to talk about tenancy, it would be useful if they and the Minister talked seriously about the increasing and continuing scale of farm amalgamations? If he wishes to see more opportunities for young people to farm, there should be no further decline in the number of farm holdings.
    Mr. Walker: That is a valid point. The two subjects are closely connected. As the hon. Gentleman knows, from his interest in the subject, when a farm becomes available to let it creates the situation that he has mentioned. I am trying to find a fair and sensible system that is good for young farmers.
    Mr. Bulmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that farmland will not be available to let in any quantity so long as whatever the Government introduce is under threat of being repealed by the Opposition if they come into Government? Is it his understanding that they wish farmland to let to go the same way as private housing to let?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that all hon. Members will take into consideration the genuine aspirations of many young and able people who would like to enter farming. I hope that in doing so they will come to objective conclusions. Therefore, I welcome the leaders and spokesmen of any of the political parties talking to the young farmers and getting their views.

    Sheep Worrying
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about sheep worrying, particularly in view of the number of pregnant ewes at this time of the year.
    Mrs. Fenner: My Department will continue to give publicity to this serious problem and to the commonsense preventive measures that can be taken by dog owners, particularly during the critical period before lambing. Existing legislation has recently been strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which imposes a specific responsibility upon owners to control their dogs when in the vicinity of sheep.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the Department has now stopped collecting statistics on sheep worrying and that this is unfortunate? Will she also remind dog owners what may seem an attractive little pet in the owner's home may become a savage wolf causing great damage to sheep in all sorts of ways when it strays?
    Mrs. Fenner: The last figures that I have were that in 1978 nearly 4,000 sheep were killed and about 3,000 were
    534
    injured by dogs. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that when the new provision comes into effect on 16 February we shall do all that we can to draw the attention of dog owners to it. Many of them behave in an extremely responsible way with their dogs, but we wish to ensure that people understand the dangers of carelessness and irresponsibility when in the vicinity of sheep.

    Beef
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom beef now comes from the dairy herd.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: About two-thirds.
    Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows the dependence of one sector on the other? Will he therefore accept that it is necessary to keep a profitable dairy industry in this country?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am moderately encouraged that the last census returns showed signs of a halt in the decline of the dairy herd. That is in the interests both of beef production and of the consumer.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the effect of the use of Holstein bulls on the production of beef from the dairy herd?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This matter arises particularly in relation to grading. Farmers must be free to choose the breed that they believe is appropriate to their circumstances.

    Pelagic Fish Stocks
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take further steps to ensure the conservation of pelagic fish stocks pending an agreement on a common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government are ready to consider any additional conservation measures that the scientific evidence indicates are necessary.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend consider, first, that licensing and quotas should be extended from mackerel to all pelagic fish, and secondly, that the quota should be on a weekly basis? Does he agree that this would lead to more orderly marketing and that when there is bad weather the fish stock would have a natural opportunity to recover?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we are always looking at ways to improve our fishery management. I shall certainly consider what he has said. On the question of the control of other pelagic stocks, such as sprats and pilchards, there is at present no scientific evidence to support my hon. Friend's view, but I will keep an eye on the situation as I know that there is concern about it, particularly in the South-West.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister confirm that he was correctly reported as stating that in the absence of agreement on a common fisheries policy by the end of 1982 there would be no question of vessels from other Common Market countries being able to fish in the same waters as our own fishermen?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have made it plain on several occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that I do not think that any British Government would be prepared to agree to terms that were not satisfactory to our fisherman. I have said that before, and I make it absolutely clear again today.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister agree that the Government's decision to license klondiking should be a real advance in relation to conservation generally? Is not this a good example of a case in which Parliament was right and the Government were wrong?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: During the passage of the Bill there was agreement on both sides of the House that powers should be taken to license klondiking. The only disagreement related to when the powers should be taken. As I made plain then, we took additional powers to police the landing of fish. Experience in the South-West and in the West of Scotland showed that additional powers were necessary. For that reason, as from Monday, powers have been introduced to control klondiking. I am glad to have the general support of the House for that measure, as it will increase control and improve conservation.

    Severe Weather Conditions
    Mr. loan Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of the recent severe weather conditions on the agriculture and horticulture industries.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is still too early to assess fully the effects of the blizzards, flooding and frost that occurred in December and January. In the worst affected areas farmers were cut off and milk could not be collected; ewes were trapped in snow drifts and some other animals were drowned; and buildings and crops were damaged. The efforts of farmers and horticulturists, and the sensible precautions they took, helped to keep down losses. But some suffered badly, and the House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for them. Throughout the country the staff of my Ministry provided help and advice wherever possible.
    Mr. Evans: In addition to expressing his sympathy, will the Minister tell us what action will be taken to help farmers who received assistance from Royal Air Force helicopters but who have now apparently received bills for that assistance?
    Mr. Walker: With regard to the use of helicopters, we are following fully the precedents of previous Governments. If help is obtained for the transportation of food supplies, costs are incurred and bills are issued. With the exception of two farmers, the majority managed with food supplies brought overland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    British Leyland, Bathgate
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the circumstances of the proposed disposal of the Bathgate factory tractor assembly line by British Leyland, she will review the regional policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are Harold Macmillan and his Cabinet, who intervened to steer the motor industry to Bathgate, now to be disowned?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman means, but I think he may be implying that the Government are not helping industry so much as he believes that Harold Macmillan did. In relation to BL, since 1975 help from the British taxpayer has amounted to £2.3 billion, of which the Government have supplied or committed £1.4 billion.
    Mr. Stokes: In any review of regional policy, and in spite of the vast sums given to BL, will my right hon. Friend remember that, on the whole, regional policies have done nothing but immense damage to the whole of the West Midlands?
    The Prime Minister: The Government still continue a vigorous regional policy, hoping to tempt firms to go to the areas in which jobs are needed. Once firms go to those areas, it is up to the firms to produce goods that are saleable both at home and abroad.

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will
    state her official engagements for 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister agree that the
    Manpower Services Commission report that unemployment is now nearly 4 million and is unlikely to be reduced on the basis of present policies for at least four years shows that the pessimistic speeches by most of her leading ministerial colleagues are probably justified? What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean in his interview on television tonight by his reference to his anxiety about losing the next election and by his comment that his Conservative critics should be selling the Government message?
    The Prime Minister: I shall try to answer the hon.
    Gentleman's little clutch of questions. First, the level of unemployment is best expressed in the way in which it has always been expressed by successive Governments, in terms of the number of registered unemployed, because that is an actual count. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those figures are produced once a month.
    On forecasts of unemployment, we take precisely the view that the Labour Government took. We do not produce forecasts for unemployment. As to whether it has reached a peak, if the hon. Gentleman looks back over the record for many years, particularly the record of the Labour Government, he will know that the figure tends to peak when the largest number of school leavers come out in August and September. At a time when many people are reaching school leaving age, it is likely that there would be more unemployed.
    On the hon. Gentleman's last question, 1 think that this is the first time that I have been asked in the House about an interview that has not yet been transmitted.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Prime Minister seen the wide

    537
    coverage given in this morning's press to the subject of index-linked pensions for the public service? I appreciate that the Cabinet may still be considering the Scott report, but can the Prime Minister say at this stage whether the Government are prepared to accept the principal recommendation of that report, that, notwithstanding the possibility of increased contributions, index-linked pensions in the public service should remain?
    The Prime Minister: I have no announcement to make on this subject, and I should be very surprised if an announcement were made tomorrow. Our aim is to ensure that pensions for public servants are fair to taxpayers in general, as well as to employees, pensioners and their dependants. The conditions and contributions that obtain in relation to the many different groups in the public service—civil servants, police, nurses teachers—are very different, and we are trying to sort out the whole matter.
    Mr. Foot: May I revert to the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the Prime Minister's complaint that she had never previously been asked to disown one of her ministerial colleagues' speeches in advance. Might it not be easier to disown them in advance than to have to defend them afterwards? Will the right hon. Lady look afresh at the report of the Manpower Services Commission? While it is perfectly true that there are different ways of making the estimate, does not the Prime Minister attach great importance to a report from a body of this character that shows, as the TUC has so long claimed, that the real unemployment figure is nearer 4 million than 3 million, and that the long-term unemployment will rise rapidly over the next few years from three-quarters of a million now to 1 million during the course of this year and 1¼million by 1986? Does she not regard those figures as very serious?
    The Prime Minister: The interview with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to go out tonight, and I am delighted that it has received so much advance publicity. I hope, therefore, that everyone will watch it. We must arrange for all future interviews to be recorded, so as to get this amount of advance publicity.
    We regard the present number of unemployed very seriously. When it comes to the numbers, we follow the practice—as distinct from the propaganda—of the right hon. Gentleman and stick to the numbers that are actually registered.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate that the figures are those put out by the Manpower Services Commission. Were those figures included in those that the Cabinet and the Government had before them when her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made his gloomy prophecies—apparently to be repeated by the Chancellor tonight—with which she is now firmly associated, because she has backed to the hilt the speech that was made by the Leader of the House?
    The Prime Minister: We could hardly take into account figures that we received only late yesterday. In any event, I follow the practice of the right hon. Gentleman. When he was Secretary of State for Employment he specifically said from the Dispatch Box that he did not get involved in forecasts. I do not get involved in forecasts. We stick to the actual number each month, which is an actual count.
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support in the country among trade unionists and on the Government Benches for the Employment Bill, which is to be read a Second time on Monday? In the course of her very busy day will she ascertain from the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties whether they intend to support the Bill or whether, as usual, they will give their wholehearted support to the Socialists?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is indeed widespread support among trade unionists and non-trade unionists alike for my right hon. Friend's Employment Bill—I repeat, widespread support. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, it is very rare for the SDP or the Liberals to support the Government; they usually support the Socialists.
    Mr. David Steel: On a different topic, will the Prime Minister be meeting today any of her Foreign Ministers, and if so will she review British Government policy towards the situation in El Salvador? Is she aware that, since Tuesday, when she was extolling the virtues of the elections there, the Canadian Foreign Minister, among others, has cast doubt on their validity? Will she make it clear on behalf of her Government that it is our view in this country that the maintenance of Western civilisation is not best upheld by military and political support for authoritarian regimes?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we always condemn and view with concern continuing violence, from whatever quarter it comes, and we shall continue to do so. Nevertheless, elections have been arranged in El Salvador, and we hope that they will be successful and carried out in a way that means that they are fair.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 18 February there will be a lobby of pensioners of Parliament to protest against the dire consequences of Government policy on their living standards? As, in the past, she has refused to see a deputation from such a lobby, will she assure us today, bearing in mind that she should be concerned about our senior citizens, that she will see that deputation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people find it confusing and unjust that, while monopolies in the private sector are made illegal, they are legally protected in the State-owned sector at vast financial cost to the nation? Obviously privatisation takes a lot of time, but does she accept that the legal protection given to the State-owned monopolies can and should be repealed as a matter of urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the view behind my hon. Friend's question that monopolies tend to be bad for the public. By definition, there is no competition, and therefore they lack the spur to efficiency that is found in undertakings that are subject and open to competition. As my hon. Friend knows, we have gone some way towardsgetting rid of monopolies. Legislation exists—but has not yet been implemented—for British

    539
    Telecommunications, and plans exist, once the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill reaches the statute book, for the abolition of the British Gas Corporation monopoly. After that, we hope to go further.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Will the Prime Minister revise the answer that she gave this afternoon about the register of unemployed bearing in mind that in October of this year the register will be compiled in a quite different way—that is, on the basis of those claiming benefit, and not on the basis of those who are eligible for work—and that, in one instance alone, this will disqualify many married women from being included in the unemployment figures?
    The Prime Minister: It seems to me to be better to
    base the register on those who are claiming benefit and social security benefit than to follow the present system whereby people have to register in more than one place. That is extremely wasteful in administrative costs.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list
    her official engagements for 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the
    reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Although more than 200,000 people have
    now been able to buy their council homes as a result of legislation that was promoted by the Government and passed by the House, is my right hon. Friend aware that almost 440,000 people are still waiting to complete the purchase of their homes, many of them in areas where the local authorities are doing everything that they can to prevent the transfer from taking place? What will she say to those people, who have a right to expect that laws passed by Parliament will be implemented by local authorities?
    Mr. Winnick: Private tenants?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking strenuous action to ensure that those
    540
    who have a right to purchase their council homes can exercise that right. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that about 200,000 people have taken advantage of the Act, but there are still about 200,000 applications that have been made but not processed. In my view, those applications should be processed with all possible speed so that ownership can be properly transferred to the present tenants.
    Mr. Mikardo: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to consider the evidence given to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade last Wednesday by Sir Michael Edwardes and his colleagues, in which he said that they would discuss the alternative plan put forward for preserving the truck division with shop stewards at Bathgate and Leyland? That statement has turned out to be untrue. Is the right hon. Lady aware that such occurrences damage confidence in the management of British Leyland? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to have a look at the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen any more than the evidence published in the press. Under the rules of the House, I do not think that I would be able to see any more— —
    Mr. Skinner: How long has the right hon. Lady been a Member of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: When a Select Committee is involved, I see only what is published in the press— [Interruption] —until the report has been published and laid before the House. [Interruption.] I have seen the evidence that the press has produced and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He rightly takes the view that such matters are for the commercial judgment of the board.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 8 February—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
Tuesday 9 February—Second Reading of the Transport Bill.
Wednesday 10 February—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Orders. Second Reading of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 11 February—Supply (12th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on overseas development.
Friday 12 February—Private Members' Bills.
Monday 15 February—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Hops Marketing Bill [Lords]. A debate on the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), Session 1980–81, House of Commons Paper No. 118.
Mr. Foot: We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is partly employed on co-ordinating ministerial speeches, and we do not wish to call upon him all the time, but may I put two matters to him? Is he yet in a position to say when the Government will introduce the GLC legislation that they have promised and that is necessary as a result of the House of Lords decision? We wish to ensure that provision is made for elderly people who wish to travel. We hope that that legislation will be introduced very soon.
On Monday the Employment Bill will receive its Second Reading. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Committee stage is debated on the Floor of the House? He will be well aware that the Labour Party regards the Bill as a vicious attack on the rights of trade unionists and trade unions, and that we intend to do everything in our power to resist it in the House and to fight it generally. We make it clear that we shall repeal the legislation, just as we repealed the Industrial Relations Act 1971. When that was introduced, we said that we would repeal it, and we shall also repeal this legislation. It would be very much better if the Government withdrew the Bill right now.
Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government repealed the Industrial Relations Act 1971 with disastrous results. I have heard his representations, but the Government intend that the Bill should be dealt with in Committee in the normal way and in exactly the same way as the Labour Government dealt with similar Bills. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman about that.
I agree that the right hon. Gentleman's first point is important. I cannot give him a date for the introduction of the Bill, but we have regard for the elderly in London who wish to travel and that is why we have committed ourselves to legislating. We shall introduce the Bill as soon as it is ready.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to
hon. Members to remember that this is a Supply day. I hope that questions on the business of the House will be as brief as possible.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Given the vital importance of events in Poland, the decisions of NATO, and the differences between the United States of America and Europe on this matter, will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to debate the issue? If he cannot give a commitment about having a full debate in the near future, will he at least give an assurance that the House will be kept fully informed, through ministerial statements, about NATO decisions and related matters of disarmament?
Mr. Pym: I certainly intend to keep the House fully informed on such matters, and so far the Government have done that. I should like to see such a debate in due course. However, an early date is unlikely. I agree about the importance of the matter, and I look forward to such a debate when the opportunity arises.
Mr. David Steel: In order to assist the House in advance of the debate on the Employment Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library an analysis of those items in the previous Bill that were debated in the House last Session, and that Conservative Members voted against when they were proposed by this Bench?
Mr.Pym: The right hon. Gentleman could acquire that information by some other means.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and will have noticed her failure to answer the courteous question of which I gave her notice. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some statement should be made about the desperate situation of Leyland Vehicles in Lancashire and Bathgate? At present many of my elderly constituents face the prospect of being carried out of their factory because the court order has gone against them. That has happened in an area with an unemployment rate of 29 per cent.
Mr. Pym: I note those representations. Sir Michael Edwardes met the unions yesterday. Obviously the situation at Leyland Vehicles is a matter of concern. I cannot provide parliamentary time for a debate, but I shall certainly convey those representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: When will my right hon. Friend bring the Canada Bill before the House?
Mr. Pym: I hope to be able to make an announcement about that in the near future, in a business statement.
Mr. William Hamilton: As the Government have in their possession the working party report on alternative means of financing the National Health Service, and as a report appeared in The Times on 28 January which specifically stated that the Government had abandoned all hope of financing it through compulsory insurance, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made at the earliest opportunity on this important matter?
Mr. Pym: The Government are considering that important subject. In due course, by one means or another, the House will be made aware of our conclusions.
Sir William Clark: As my right hon. Friend said last week that we should not have an opportunity to debate the Scott report before the Budget, and as there are widespread reports in the press today that the Government have reached a decision on the report, will my right hon. Friend give the House a categoric assurance that those reports are unfounded, that the Government have not yet made a decision and that the House will debate the Scott report before a decision is taken about it and index-linked pensions, which give preferential treatment to only one section of the community?
Mr. Pym: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. No conclusions have yet been reached. My hon. Friend and the House know what an extremely difficult area this is. The possibility of making a change raises far-reaching issues and implications.
The House must have the opportunity to debate this matter. In the meantime, I can assure the House that no decision has been made.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rail dispute will shortly be entering its fifth week? Is it not almost without precedent that so far we have not had a statement, a private notice question, or a debate on the matter? Since the only misguided interventions that the Secretary of State for Transport sees fit to make are made outside the House, is it not about time that we had at least one of those options?
Mr. Pym: The only thing that would be helpful is for the dispute to end. In the meantime, I do not consider that a debate would help.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, despite the change in ministerial responsibilities at the Ministry of Defence, the practice of having three separate Supply days to debate each of the three Services will be continued, as I am sure that a large number of Members on both sides of the House would wish to express their concern on all aspects of defence?
Mr. Pym: There is no proposal before the House to alter that practice, but the subject is relevant to the debate on procedure that we are to have on Monday. This subject is included in the report of the Select Committee and various suggestions have been made. No doubt other suggestions will be made during the debate. In the meantime, there is no intention of altering what has been a long-established practice of the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that on 22 December the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security said that a statement about an increase in the death grant would be made shortly after the Christmas Recess? Can the Leader of the House tell us why there has been no statement? Will such a statement be made, either this afternoon in the debate on the elderly, or tomorrow morning, when the House debates the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)?
Mr. Pym: Although I appreciate that point, I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There will not be a statement this afternoon as the matter is still under consideration. However disappointing that may be, the Government are not yet in a position to announce their conclusions. In due course, they most certainly will.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The Scottish Grand Committee is shortly to meet in Edinburgh. Can arrangements now be made for the Northern Ireland Committee to meet in Belfast?
Mr. Pym: I think not. The Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh is an experiment which, after experience, the House may or may not decide to continue. That is as far as it should go for the moment. I do not think that the House would wish it to go further yet.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services on the letter sent to thousands of people in various regions from the local Department of Health and Social Security offices requesting them to attend a local office for an interview about their difficulties in finding jobs? Since there are 4,000 people chasing 80 jobs in Keighley, those long-term unemployed who are receiving supplementary benefit regard that letter as a continuing and outrageous insult. May we have a statement to the effect that the letter will be withdrawn immediately?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not make a prima facie case for a statement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has no doubt heard the hon. Gentleman and I shall consult him.
Mr. John G. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is six years since the House debated the arts? Bearing in mind their value to the public and tourism, will he give serious consideration to finding time for a major debate on the arts?
Mr. Pym: I am surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says, because I should have thought that my predecessor would have had reason to arrange such a debate. Although I do not have the interest in the arts that my predecessor has, I should like the House to debate the subject. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time at present. Perhaps my hon. Friend can find another way to raise the subject.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Can the Leader of the House find a couple of minutes next week to explain to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the proceedings of a public sitting of a Select Committee with the room half filled with journalists and with the BBC recording the proceedings are not precisely confidential?
Mr. Pym: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As there is great interest in the arts, will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic further consideration to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn)? Is he aware that more people visit the theatre each year than watch football matches? The Conservative Government have a good record in the arts.
Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend. The arts are enjoyed more and more without a debate in the House. Obviously it would be useful to find time for a debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful in a ballot or that he finds some other means to stage such a debate.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House had time to study early-day motion 204, which seeks to give justice to people disabled by blindness?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce a blindness allowance at least equal to the

545
mobility allowance; notes that financial hardship of blind persons is intensified as, unlike other sections of the disabled, they do not qualify for invalidity allowances, non-contributory invalidity pension or an attendance allowance unless suffering from a second disability; and notes the success of a recent petition on these matters which attracted half a million signatures]
As the blind suffer more disadvantage than other disabled groups, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement in the House to get rid of the anomaly?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have been as helpful as possible to the blind and have increased some of the facilities and resources available to them. I cannot find time for a special debate, but there are other ways to discuss the subject—for example, when discussing other Bills, including the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman must use one of those opportunities.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on education? Is he aware that the National Union of Students has called for a week of disruption in universities, polytechnics and schools? Should not those people, supported by the taxpayer, be working rather than rioting?
Mr. Pym: I am against all disruption, but I do not think that I can find time for such a debate in the near future.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now Labour Party policy that there should be ultimate unification of Ireland by consent? Can he find time for a general debate on the Irish question, preferably not tied to any resolution?
Mr. Pym: I am in favour of debates on Northern Ireland from time to time; I am sure that they help the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Labour policy on Northern Ireland, which, as in so many other cases, is a contradiction in terms.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Prime Minister's answer to question Q5 last Tuesday about the balance between future increases in the married man's tax allowance and increases in child benefit over and above the increase in inflation. She said
"The Government will take account of all publicly expressed views."—[Official Report, 2 February 1982; Vol. 48, c. 74.]
546
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate, either before or preferably during the Budget, so that the House can decide how additional help to families should be given—whether it be to all married people, with or without children and whether or not the spouses are working, or to all families with children?
Mr. Pym: I think not. There are many other ways in which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can make their representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before 9 March.
Mr. David Winnick: I do not wish to come between the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, but would it not be appropriate to have a debate in the near future on Government publicity co-ordination so that we may discover why a number of Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, are making pessimistic noises about the future of the economy, while the Prime Minister appears to believe that recovery is very much on the way?
Mr. Pym: By all means. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is lucky in the ballot.
Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) asked a question about the Employment Bill. Does the Leader of the House recall that when he was Patronage Secretary he fully supported dealing with the Industrial Relations Bill of 1971 on the Floor of the House? Indeed, I remember him celebrating the Royal Assent with a glass or two of champagne. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman show the same courtesy to the House and country and have the Employment Bill debated on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Pym: I remember the way that that Bill was handled. I note that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government did not follow that practice. The background and circumstances of the Bill to be debated on Monday are not the same, either in character or scope, as the Industrial Relations Bill. We believe that it would be appropriate and right for the House to use its normal procedures for the legislative processes in this case.

Unparliamentary Expressions
Mr. Speaker: Considerable publicity has been given today to a word that was used in the House last night. So far as I am concerned, and as long as I am Speaker, I shall consider it to be an unparliamentary expression. None of us would use it in our own homes, and I hope that the House will continue to be a good example to the country.
supply
[IITH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

pensions
3.53 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move,
That this House, recalling the major progress made by the Labour Government 1974 to 1979 both in increasing the real value of the state pension and in legislating for a substantial improvement in the provision for future pensioners, notes with mounting dismay that Her Majesty's Government's policies have lowered already and threaten to lower still further the standard of living and quality of life of the elderly; and believes that urgent measures are needed to remedy this situation and, in particular, an early report to the House and the country on how a constructive response may be made to the Declaration of Intent of the National Pensioners' Convention.
This is a Supply Day debate in which the Opposition have chosen to highlight the current plight of the elderly. On 18 February, the National Pensioners' Convention, a federation of all the major organisations active on pensions, will lobby the House of Commons. We ought to consider today our likely reaction to that. Many sincere people will be there, united in their anger at how their standard of living has dropped in the past three years. They will present their ideas on how to prevent that from happening in the future.
There are two stages in our response. The first is how we should receive them on that day. They will clearly want to meet the leaders of the parties, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has already undertaken to do that. This debate's first value is that it has enabled the Prime Minister to agree, for the first time, to meet leaders of the convention at the 18 February lobby.
So that it is clear beyond peradventure, I should like the Secretary of State, when he responds, to confirm unequivocally that the convention's leaders will have an opportunity to put their points to the Prime Minister. She is the architect of the Government's economic policies and, therefore, she must hear from them at first-hand the effect that her disastrous policies have had on their standard of living. After all, it is not enough to express moving words about pensioners as a generalised category when one is unable to meet them in person. I therefore look forward to the Secretary of State confirming what we heard in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) today.
Secondly, there is the form of response that the House prepares for the convention. Conservative Members should note that at the end of the motion we ask that the Government publish a study of the convention's proposals so that the House is made aware of their views and, more importantly, that the country and pensioners lobby should have that estimation of the Government's views.
The lobby should be an exercise in which hon. Members try to get through it not with the minimum friction with those lobbying them, but with a maximum exchange of freely available information. Until the Government tabled their amendment, I believed that the
548
Secretary of State would welcome this part of the motion and be eager to accept it, despite the reluctance of some of his Back Benchers to do the same.
My authority for making that statement is a report in the Sutton Coldfield News of 25 December 1981. One can imagine, with such an attraction, how many pensioners in the Secretary of State's constituency turned away front watching the Bertram Mills circus to read that newspaper. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will testify to the excellence of that newspaper. He ought to, because irreverent people in the Midlands call it the "Norman Fowler House Magazine". In that edition, there was a report of a meeting that he had with the West Midlands branch of the convention. He said:
"You have put up a very strong case with dignity and moderation."
He promised to consider the case and respond to it. Our motion asks that the information he promised to give the West Midlands delegation should be made available to the House of Commons and the rest of the country.
In the 1974–79 period, despite many economic difficulties, the Labour Government were responsible for many improvements in pensions, at least two of which were of a major nature. The first linked the pensions of existing pensioners to whichever was the higher, earnings or prices, so that in addition to protecting them against inflation it gave them status by ensuring that they shared in the rise of general standards. I emphasise that when we left office pensions were worth, in real terms, 20 per cent. more than in 1974.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in 1976, a year after his Government passed the 1975 Act, the pension was increased not in line with prices or earnings but at a level below both of those?
Mr. John: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's point was about the change in the method of forecasting—a change which has been adopted by the Government. My point was that the net effect over five years of the Labour Government's pension arrangements made for an increase of 20 per cent. in real terms in the pensioners' standard of living. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and agree that it was a significant advance for them.
However, that was not the only advance made on that occasion. For the future, we passed pensions legislation which, after a funding period of 20 years, will provide, for a person who retires, a pension linked to earnings and an old age free from penury. That is a great and lasting monument to our late colleague Brian O'Malley. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] I hope that the Secretary of State will give a pledge this afternoon on behalf of the Government that they will not interfere with the scheme or do anything to jeopardise it.
I say that not to cast aspersions on the Secretary of State's attitude, but because powerful voices front the pension industry are now beginning to be heard, seeming to suggest that the State pension scheme ought to he scrapped. As witness to that, I quote from yesterday's Financial Times and its report of the pensions conference. Lord Harris, the Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, waxed lyrical during that conference. He called
"for the euthanasia of State pensions, which he attributed as one of the major causes of the current economic ills."

549
I hope that the Secretary of State does two things: first, say that State pensions will not be killed off and, secondly, that they are not responsible for the country's economic ills. Of course, the force of Lord Harris's argument was slightly under-valued because at the end of his speech he referred to
"the pension reforms of the Chilean generals, who had returned to a system of 'individual capitalism.'"
The only adequate comment on that is that I bet they have.
Before the scheme comes fully on stream it will be necessary for all Governments to continue carefully to look after the intermediate generations of pensioners. Despite all the vehemence that Conservative Back Benchers dredge up from their Central Office briefs, no one can deny that the Labour Government did a great deal for the pensioners. The story of the past three years is equally undeniably a stark contrast.
The key to the real advance in pensioners' incomes was the option of linking the pension to increased earnings or prices, whichever was the bigger. As early as the first Social Security Act of 1980 the Government cut the link with earnings. It was one of their early actions after coming to power.
When one scratches a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security—I am sure that it is a matter of taste as to whether one ever wants to—he is sure to wax lyrical about the way in which the Government have protected the pensioner against inflation. But the truth is that, as the Secretary of State made clear in a recent answer, in 1982–83 the Government are to save £500 million as a result of cutting the link between pensions and earnings and a high proportion of the money will be lost by retirement pensioners. The cumulative effect of the Government's actions on pensions is that a married couple are £2.90 a week worse off and a single person is £1.80 a week worse off than if the link had not been cut.
As a result of that loss of relativity, even if inflation is compensated for, the failure to relate pensions to what is being earned in the rest of society means that the pensioner cannot automatically look forward to a real increase in his pension. He will continue to feel a sense of grievance at the failure to allocate him an appropriate status in society.
Our party bitterly opposed the breaking of the earnings link. My predecessors pledged themselves to restore a link with earnings, and I am glad to repeat that pledge.
Other ways in which the pensioners have had the moneys to which they were entitled reduced include the deferral of the uprating for two weeks, which will next year save the Government £100 million; freezing the pensioners' earnings rule; and abating the unemployment benefit of occupational pensioners. Those are one or two major cuts, but the pensioners' standard of living is suffering the death of a thousand cuts under the present Government.
Nowhere is the pensioners' sense of grievance more keenly felt than over the uprating techniques. Inflation to November 1981 was 12 per cent. The Government's forecast was 10 per cent. There was a further 1 per cent. clawback of an overestimate for inflation in the year before. That all sounds very reasonable, but it is not. The 1 per cent. overpayment was itself only a partial compensation for a previous pensions shortfall, when in November 1979 the Government failed to make the pension up to the value of earnings by no less than 1.7 percent.
550
That shortfall has never been made good. The other 2 per cent. will be restored—but in November this year, a whole year having elapsed and the equivalent of one week's pension having been forfeited by the retirement pensioner.
This is a time of hardship. We do not need the competition in gloom between the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their public pronouncements this week to convince everyone that it is a time of hardship unparalleled in peacetime, certainly in the post-war era. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to make good the 3 per cent. shortfall as quickly as possible. The cost of living is high and pensioners suffer the hardship of meeting high prices every week. Why should not the Government, as a mark of their sincerity, make good the shortfall as quickly as possible, without making the pensioners wait another nine months?
Saying that brings into focus the whole question of the frequency of uprating, which is a long-standing subject of debate. The Minister of State, who in our debate on child benefit boasted of the practice of our European neighbours on child benefit, should have followed up the logic of his argument. If he looked carefully at their practice, he would find that most of our European neighbours have more frequent upratings of pension than annually. Some of them have very frequent upratings.
According to an answer by the Minister of State, a 10 per cent. rate of inflation erodes the value of the pension in six months by a total of £250 million. We see that the position is even worse when we remember that inflation does not rise on annual anniversaries, but creeps up on the population week in, week out, forcing the elderly to cope with increased costs of food, energy and fuel.
We all appreciate the reasons advanced for the difficulty in uprating the pension more frequently than annually. However, we need to re-examine ways in which that can be done instead of looking for reasons why it is not possible.
I should like to make some suggestions. First, six-monthly upratings should initially be confined to periods in which inflation is high—that is, when it is in double figures. As the Minister of State has also said in parliamentary answers, the obstacle to uprating is supposed to be the difficulty of uprating supplementary benefits. Therefore, let us confine upratings to the standard pensions, uprating them by, say, 5 per cent. after six months when inflation is running at 10 per cent. If we then disregard that increase for supplementary benefit purposes the supplementary benefit can still be adjusted annually.
If that scheme is too complicated, let us instead add to the flat-rate pension a fixed sum of, say, £2.25 for a married couple and £1.50 for a single person. That is a rough approximation to 5 per cent. inflation over six months.
I concede that those are not perfect schemes. They would not bring about perfect justice, even if they were feasible. But at least they would make some attempt to protect the pensioner during the year against high rates of inflation. Despite the Government's boasts, 12 per cent. inflation seems to be with us to stay, even on their own reckoning. Therefore, I ask the Government to shake the Department out of its present negative attitude into trying again to find ways in which the uprating can be done at six-monthly intervals rather than annually.
Mr. John Major: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine attempt to cope with a problem that we all acknowledge. Can he go a little further and suggest by what mechanism the occasional upratings might be funded in the middle of a financial year?
Mr. John: As upratings are carried out annually anyway, the amount of money held back for annual uprating could be accelerated in order to fund the amount involved.
I return the hon. Gentleman's question in the following form. Is it not right that we should preserve the real value of pensions if it is technically feasible to do so? That is what the Government intend when they carry out the annual uprating. It is only because the present Government have miserably failed to control inflation that pensioners feel so bitterly the erosion of their real pensions during the year.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place in making his suggestion, but can he turn his attention to the fact that at this moment, on an annual uprating, there are constant complaints that the announcement is made in March and April and the payment is not made until November? If we had an uprating twice a year, does he think that there would be the slightest chance of people in the Department of Health and Social Security being able to catch up, because at the moment they have great difficulty with only one uprating? His heart is in the right place, but has he given thought to it with his head?
Mr. John: I have not looked in the mirror for some hours but I think my head, like my heart, is still in the right place. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has advanced the classic technical and technocratic argument why uprating cannot take place. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. The reason given by the Minister of State in a recent parliamentary answer why uprating cannot take place is that the chief obstacle is that the uprating of supplementary benefits applies to innumerable individual cases, and this covers a very long period. I had hoped I had covered that by saying that I would still favour supplementary benefit being dealt with on an annual basis, but that it was perfectly possible for the basic pensions to be increased on a six-monthly basis.
Mr.McCrindle rose—
Mr. John: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have been generous with my time in giving way, but I will give way to my hon. Friend, so I am discriminating in that sense.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend accept that uprating has taken place on a six-monthly basis on a previous occasion, so the exercise has been done? Does he also accept that people who are engaged in drawing up pensions readily acknowledge that the job can be done in less than two months? Is it not obvious that if it is possible to stop the amount of money from people's pay packets in a relatively short time, and if it is possible to find an up-to-date computer to pay out Members of Parliament's salaries within a month of an increase having been declared in the House, it should be right for the pensioners to have their declarations made on that same up-to-date computer instead of being on the rickety one that takes about nine months to work out pensions.
Mr. John: Without following my hon. Friend's argument all the way, I agree that it certainly has been done on a previous occasion, and I believe that it is still perfectly possible. It is even more possible if one excludes the highly individualised supplementary benefit and goes for an uprating of the basic pension at six-monthly intervals. I have put forward a suggestion—
Mr.McCrindle rose—
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his case when he makes a speech. If he believes that the technocratic reasons are so overwhelming that we cannot possibly do what I have proposed, he must tell that to the pensioners and the country.
Mr.McCrindle rose—
Mr. John: I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. I am now passing to another point.
Mr. George Cunningham: I realise that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) is trying to face up to the great difficulties that we all have in this sphere, but does not the plan that he is putting forward have this enormous and insuperable difficulty? If the increase were made for pensioners who were not on supplementary benefit rather than for those who were, one would be using the money for those relatively less in need of it than those on supplementary benefit who need it more.
Mr. John: I would say to my hon. Friend—for I still regard him as my hon. Friend—that he did not follow my argument fully. What I said was that all State benefits would be increased whether people received supplementary benefits or not. But the supplementary benefit recipients could have that part of their income uprated only annually because of the difficulties in those cases. That would clearly take care of my hon. Friend's point.
I want now to turn to the question of fixed-sum grants and their true value today. Two of these grants spring to my mind. The Christmas bonus is very popular, is beneficial, and is boasted about in the Government's otherwise totally anodyne amendment. It may be on the statute book, but the factor that occurs to most people is its current value. The £10 Christmas bonus is now worth, in real terms, less than £3 compared with when it was first introduced. I believe that it should at least be doubled; if inflation is to be fully met it will have to be raised to al least £35. I would be extremely interested to know whether the Secretary of State feels that putting the bonus on the statute book is the last word he has to say on that matter.
I have also to mention the death grant, without, I hope, pre-empting the debate on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Evidence is overwhelming that the present death grant is pitifully inadequate and that its inadequacy is the cause of great anxiety as surviving relatives struggle to pay very large funeral bills. The sum of &£30 fixed in 1968 is nonsense in 1982. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have been in a position today to say so, and to announce its uprating. Apparently Cabinet in-fighting has not yet resulted in a deciding throw to the winner of whichever faction comes out on top.
But I hope that that decision will be announced without delay. Even the Government cannot indefinitely postpone an announcement which was promised before Christmas.

553
Let me counsel him against ideas about which we read in some newspapers about means testing. Whichever way that is sought to be done, its intrusion into grief would be an unacceptable invasion at a very private time. I hope that that is a non-starter.
We live in a society in which many more people are living to much greater ages. To retain their dignity and their independence is vital to them. That can be achieved only by greater support from society. It is at that very juncture that the demon king of the Tory Government, namely the Secretary of State for the Environment, has so hobbled local authorities that they are less able to provide the sort of support that is needed to enable elderly people to live with dignity and independence within the community. They need, for example, more home helps; yet the number of hours provided has fallen by 4½ per cent. in three years and less than one in 10 authorities fulfils the DHSS guidelines on numbers. They need meals on wheels, but only one in six local authorities fulfils those guidelines. They need specially constructed or adapted buildings, but under this Tory Government such new buildings have been reduced by over half and adaptations have been reduced by one-fifth. Telephones are vital to them to keep in contact with relatives, with friends, with shops and with their medical advisers. In the last two years, however, installations of telephones for the elderly and the disabled have fallen by a half. Televisions provide them with their window on the world, but provision of sets to them has dropped by 40 per cent., and households with pensioners receiving help with television licences have dropped by 50 per cent. Our recent pledge on TV licences has been made to the House, and I repeat it today.
We have also recently pressed for a fuel allowance which the Government, quite wrongly in my view, rejected. I ask the Government to re-examine the proposition, bearing in mind that they are in some way profiting by a week's payment from every pensioner through their delay of one year in the 2 per cent. uprating.
But I also hope that they will look at that other bane of pensioners' lives, the standing charge. We all know of cases where the charge is overwhelmingly the largest part of an energy bill, for some of the pensioners are of necessity frugal with the amount of energy that they consume. Yet we see them coming in and saying "How does it make sense that my bill is a small amount and yet this standing charge is hanging like the old man of the sea around my shoulders?" The need for standing charges is being questioned even by the chairmen of energy industries consumer councils, and I believe that the Government ought urgently to re-examine the situation.
We should also reconsider the patchwork quilt of concessionary fares schemes so as to construct a coherent national scheme from which every pensioner can benefit, and not just the lucky ones who happen to be in a particular geographical area. The scheme should be in line with the best and in line with what the Labour Government put out for discussion in 1979, and which was generally welcomed, I believe, by those organisations that had been consulted about the particular project.
I am conscious that a lot of people want to speak in the debate. The pensioners' convention will inevitably raise the points that I have raised. Most of them are of urgent and short-term necessity. That means they have to be met by the Government. Some of them are longer term, as
554
pensioners seek a status and a dignity in society that shows that they are valued by society, not merely tolerated by it. We have asked the Government in our motion to examine their demands constructively. If the Government do so, the debate on the subject can continue on an informed basis and at an informed level. The lobby on 18 February will be extremely valuable, because people possessing the basic raw material of the argument can exchange their ideas. But if the Government reject this motion and do nothing in the debate except wring their hands rhetorically they will be demeaning the House and insulting the intelligence and sincerity of people whose anxiety about their lives is both real and growing.
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House welcomes the action the Government is taking at a time of severe economic difficulty fully to protect retirement pensions against inflation, to provide for the statutory payment of an annual Christmas bonus, to protect the most vulnerable elderly people against rising fuel prices, and to continue the development of services for elderly people; and expresses its appreciation of the dedicated efforts of professional staff and volunteers who provide support and care for elderly people and their families."
We welcome the opportunity of this debate. I respond directly to what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House this afternoon concerning the leaders of the pensioners' convention. I will let him see the response that I have sent to the West Midlands pensioners' convention.
The Opposition are right to raise this as an issue which the House should discuss, but it is one not just of generalisations but of policy, and what the elderly want to know is just how the parties propose to give effect to their aspirations.
Let me try to set out both the aim and the achievements of the Government's policy. What we have done is to protect the elderly during the worst recession that the world has experienced since the end of the Second World War. The fact is that the level of the pension has increased by 52 per cent. over the past three years. The fact is that spending on retirement pensions and other benefits for the elderly now totals £13.5 billion a year, which is about half the total social security budget. And the fact is that this has been achieved in spite of all the economic problems which this country, like all other countries, has been experiencing. So what we have done is what we promised to do.
Mr. George Foulkes: Not true.
Mr. Fowler: We promised to maintain pensions in line with inflation and we have kept that promise. We promised to continue the Christmas bonus and we have kept that promise. We promised to maintain and develop services like the National Health Service which are of such vital importance for the elderly and we have kept that promise also.
But more than that I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition that old people perhaps in particular have long memories. So when the Opposition talk about putting up the value of the Christmas bonus they remember that in 1975 and in 1976 the last Labour Government abolished that bonus altogether. It was not then a question of what

555
level the Christmas bonus would be. There was no Christmas bonus at all in those two years. That was the policy of Barbara Castle and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). When they hear the Opposition talk and press on questions of the death grant the elderly also remember that over the six years of Labour rule absolutely nothing took place on that front at all. They will measure the promises made today against the record of the Labour Government. When they hear the Opposition talk about shortfall, they should remember what happened under the Labour Government in 1976. They should remember that £500 million was then saved at the expense of the pensioners by switching the method of uprating from the historical method used on the two previous occasions to the forecasting method. That shortfall in today's prices would be of the order of £925 million in social security spending.
Mr. John: The Minister talks about shortfalls. Is he denying that the inflation level when the pensioners received their increase was more than 12 per cent., that the increase that they received was only 9 per cent., that therefore they are not getting the full increase to which they were entitled, and will not get it until next November, and that therefore each month of this year, as inflation increases, they will be getting less and less in real terms?
Mr. Fowler: As the Government have already made absolutely clear, as far as pensioners are concerned that shortfall will be made good. In March 1979, just before the Labour Party left office—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) knows this well enough—the Minister for Social Security was challenged on precisely that point, and his reply was that they had now moved to a November uprating. He rejected the kind of pleas that are now coming from the Opposition Front Bench. Again, I think this is something that elderly people in this country will remember.
Mr. Mike Thomas rose—
Mr. Fowler: I should like to go on for a moment. We certainly do not accept lectures from the hon. Gentleman or from his party.
But what disturbs me most about the Opposition's statements, and what should disturb the public most, is that there seems to be no relationship between the different policies in different areas that they are putting forward. The elderly are not a ring-fenced group. They, like the rest of us, are affected by general economic policies. We do not serve the interests of the elderly by turning our back on inflation. And surely the fact is that it is inflation—which was scarcely mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in his speech—which particularly affects the elderly, because it destroys hard-earned savings and it strikes hardest at those on fixed incomes.
Mr. John: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to me with his usual care, or even his usual lack of care. I certainly mentioned the rate of inflation, because I said that inflation is now in double figures under this Government, who have given it the highest priority, and is likely to remain there indefinitely. It should have been down to single figures, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last December. When may we expect his mismanagement to come right, by some miracle?
Mr. Fowler: What the hon. Gentleman did, in setting out the policies and taking those policies with the policies that were previously set out by the Shadow Chancellor, was to set up a package which must lead to massive inflation under any Government presided over by the Labour Party. Last Thursday the Shadow Chancellor was advocating new capital expenditure of £6 billion.
Mr. Foulkes: Quite right.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman says "Quite right". Now the hon. Member for Pontypridd advocates policies that will certainly add further hundreds of millions and possibly more—we shall endeavour to have the pledges made by the hon. Gentleman properly costed—to public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman knows, like everyone else, that in no way can the nation afford this kind of additional expenditure without the most catastrophic effect on the economy. Those who would suffer most from such policies are, of course, the weakest members of oar society, including the elderly.
Mr. Skinner: What kind of a society is the Minister defending when pensioners were able to read only a few weeks ago that one man, Jack Gill, as a pensioner, could pick up £750,000? There is argument now over whether the sum should come down to £500,000. At the same time, I am told, many pensioner widows of miners in my constituency receive £29.60 in widow's pension, together with £6 and a few coppers from the National Coal Board from their late husbands' pensions, amounting, roughly, to £36. As a result of the Government's failure to raise personal allowances in line with inflation, they have now been sent income tax forms relating to this miserly allowance. That is what the Tory Government are defending. That is why the Opposition have put down the motion. That is why our Front Bench will do something about it when we get back into power.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman accepts, by his last statement, that there are many things that the previous Labour Government failed to do. He has changed his view from those days. I cannot comment on the one case—
Mr. Skinner: Not one—plenty.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must not become so excited. He should calm down.
Mr. Skinner: This is the last issue about which the right hon. Gentleman will get excited.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order.
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman will calm down a moment, I was about to say that I understand that the specific case that he has raised is now the subject of legal action. On the generality of the situation, I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman as sincerely as I can that he serves no one's interests, and certainly not the interests of the elderly and the pensioners he represents, if he turns his back on inflation and policies aimed at controlling inflation. The expenditure plans of the Opposition can be financed only by higher taxes, increased borrowing or printing more money.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I have given way several times, and I do not intend to give way again for a while. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

557
What the Opposition promise the elderly are, in my view, fake solutions. They raise hopes, but their policies do not measure up to the seriousness of the challenge. That is the tragedy. One thing upon which the House should be clear is that the problems faced and posed by the elderly are problems which present this nation with a fundamental challenge over the next 20 years. Whatever the House may disagree upon, we should be under no illusion about that point. The numbers of people of retirement age, that is, men over 65 and women over 60, has grown steeply over the last decade. The high birth rates before the 1914–18 war and increased life expectation have produced a position in England and Wales where there are now almost 9 million people of retirement age—almost one-fifth of the population. By the end of the century, the number of people aged 75 and over is expected to have increased to 3¼ million, and the number aged 85 and over by almost a half to 700,000.
It would be wrong to generalise about the elderly. Many of those of retirement age live happy, active and successful lives. Many elderly people have a great deal to offer. Their potential strength and contribution should never be overlooked, as many voluntary organisations know and appreciate. The elderly are not an indivisible group, a problem simply to be resolved by Government action. But just as certainly there are many elderly people who do need help and where there is an obligation upon us to help.
The vast majority of elderly people live in the community. It is an essential aim of policy that all elderly people should be enabled to go on living in the community in familiar surroundings wherever possible and for as long as possible. This is much easier for those with family support. But circumstances have changed. There is now a very considerable and growing number of elderly people living alone or without immediate family help. Most women over 75 are widows. About a third of all elderly people have no surviving children, and in many cases the children of the very elderly are themselves of pensionable age.
Over the last 10 years, the number of elderly people living in their children's homes has dropped by half. Many, particularly the very old, who find themselves in these circumstances are likely to rely more heavily on support from general practitioners, district nurses, health visitors and the personal social services, as well as from the magnificent range of voluntary organisations in this country.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about home helps?
Mr. Fowler: I am coming to that point.
Perhaps, above all, they need help from the community itself, from friends and neighbours among whom they live.
Elderly patients occupy nearly half of all National Health Service hospital beds. They are admitted to hospital more often than younger patients, and they stay in longer. One of the central features of the Government's strategy for hospital services for elderly people is the provision of acute services in departments of geriatric medicine. Here, the aim is to provide the right kind of service to prevent long-term disability and long-term dependence. The aim is to help elderly people return home as soon as possible, and the growth of departments of geriatric medicine in recent years has made a major contribution to improving
558
the range and quality of services available to elderly hospital patients. The continued development of these facilities remains a major policy objective.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones rose—
Mr. Fowler: I should like to continue for a moment.
A great deal is already being done and I pay tribute to the efforts being made inside the Health Service by local authorities and by the voluntary organisations. But there are now a number of further initiatives that the Government want to take.
The first concerns elderly patients who need continuous nursing care. At present many of these patients are housed in long-stay geriatric wards. Often the standard of care which they receive is superb, but many things work against providing a home-like environment in these wards in spite of all the excellent activity aimed at achieving that goal. Our aim is to provide for as many of these elderly patients as possible in small local units close to families and friends.
As a contribution, the Government now intend to set up three experimental nursing homes, the first ever established, within the National Health Service. The three nursing homes will be at Fleetwood, Portsmouth and Sheffield. It is hoped that two of the homes will become operational within the next 18 months and the third shortly after that. The nursing homes will be intended for those elderly patients who do not need to be in hospital. The homes will be in the charge of a nurse, and medical care will be provided by general practitioners. Remedial and community support services will be available. The nursing homes will be financed jointly by the health authorities and the Department of Health. I shall also be funding an independent evaluation of the scheme from my Department's research funds. I will have this checked for the wind up, but I believe that the nursing homes will have a capacity of between 30 and 50.
The House would also want to know that we are examining the possibility of setting up a second set of experimental schemes for care outside hospitals—this time for elderly patients who may need care because of psychiatric disorders.
Mr. Carter-Jones: May I refer to some information that the right hon. Gentleman gave me recently? He said that the cost of geriatric patients in acute nursing hospitals amounts to £308 million per annum. Geriatric patients alone cost £165 million. People could have been kept out of hospitals if there had not been cuts in local government expenditure to allow warden control. This is the key to the issue. The few places that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about are just a sop.
We must resolve a clearly identifiable problem about which the DHSS knows.
Mr. Fowler: Not only the DHSS but the Government know about the problem. There are obviously issues upon which we have party divisions. When the Government are responding to the concern—I know the hon. Gentleman's concern—by doing something which has not been done previously, the hon. Gentleman should at least give us credit for putting forward proposals which aim at finding new ways round the problem that we both recognise.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is making a number of policy statements on health and social services. Could he tell us whether the policy is only for England and Wales?

559
Will the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health and social services clarify the policy for Scotland?
Mr. Fowler: I believe that the hon. Gentleman recognises that Fleetwood, Portsmouth and Sheffield are not in Scotland.
The second initiative concerns the long-term care which private and voluntary residential homes provide for old people. These homes are a valuable resource for the nation. Many of them have a long tradition of devoted and highly skilled care. At present we estimate that there are about 26,000 elderly people living in voluntary residential homes and another 30,000 in private homes. These homes now face a difficult and changed position. Residents tend to be more infirm, both because of their greater age and because there has been the concentration over the last few years upon provision for as long as possible inside the community. We need to be sure that the care provided in these homes has kept pace with the needs of the residents and the overall pattern of services for old people. There has clearly been concern about this.
These changes have led to increasing interest among local authorities and other organisations concerned with old people in arrangements for ensuring the best possible standards in these homes. The Government are therefore shortly to issue a consultative document on the subject to help us decide what improvements are needed in the registration system in England and Wales. The document will also propose a code of practice which local authorities might apply flexibly to encourage improvement in conditions. In other words, what we shall seek to do is to rely on advice as a means of improving standards rather than on the rigid application of new statutory requirements.
The third action that the Government will be taking concerns voluntary organisations. No one can doubt the enormous contribution that they make in care for the elderly. At present my Department is giving grants to many national organisations. In the current year we have so far allocated over £300,000 for grants to organisations concerned with the elderly. I shall be shortly announcing the details of further grants totalling about £100,000 to some of these organisations. These will include a major grant to Age Concern to help it establish a national training centre where it will be running courses for both its professional staff and for volunteers. We shall also be giving help to the Centre for Policy on Ageing, to Contact and to the Employment Fellowship.
The fourth initiative is that the Government are setting up new arrangements to improve financial and policy accountability in the National Health Service. Basically what this will involve will be that each year Ministers will lead a departmental review with the chairman and chief officers of each regional health authority of the region's long-term plans and objectives and of the efficiency with which it provides services. One of the aims of the new system will be better financial accountability, but the review will go much further. It will mean that for the first time since 1948 the Government can carry out a systematic and rigorous corporate review of policy. In other words, we shall be able to check and discuss the priorities of the regions, including their plans for the development of services for the elderly, which remains a priority of this Government.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister saying that the Department is now prepared to indulge in positive discrimination in favour of the weak? If he is, he will have my support.
Mr. Fowler: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the allocation for the regions and the difference between the weak and the strong regions in the RAWP allocation which we announced. The elderly are one of our priorities. One of the aims of the new system that I am announcing is to ensure that the Government's priority goes to the regions and districts. That is a sensible development of the National Health Service.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Minister telling us that within the regional structure and the new districts he will implement the proposals of the Black report?
Mr. Fowler: The factors in the Black report have been taken into account in the RAWP allocation.
Identifying weaknesses in the services enables us for the first time to have the structure whereby Government policy is taken down to the region and the district.
Mr. Spearing: The Government become a national health authority.
Mr. Fowler: We do not become the national health authority in the sense of direction. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should understand what we seek to do. II is a new concept. We seek to have both devolution and accountability. I believe that that is a sensible way forward in the National Health Service.
The fifth initiative that the Government are taking concerns joint financing. Joint financing has made a big contribution to promoting community care. Through this scheme National Health Service cash is used to support and enhance the community care provided by social services authorities and voluntary organisations. The Government have been able to increase the resources made available in this way from just over £8 million in 1976 –77. Joint finance has now risen to over £75 million in this financial year. A further increase is planned next year., bringing the total to almost £85 million.
Elderly people are the major beneficiaries of joint finance. About 40 per cent. of the money is spent directly or indirectly on services for them—for local authority homes, for voluntary homes and for services like home helps or meals on wheels. However, it has become clear that the joint finance scheme, although valuable, does not go far enough. There are still many people in hospital who need not be there, including elderly people.
Last July we published a consultation document, "Care in the Community", seeking the views of a wide range of interested bodies on further ways of moving resources from health to personal social services. The document suggested seven different ways of overcoming obstacles to the movement of resources and patients in the community care, and it attracted a great deal of comment. Basically, a clear preference has emerged for two proposals.
The first involves making the joint finance arrangements more flexible. At present all the revenue cost of a joint scheme can be funded for three years, and then the joint finance contribution tapers off over a period of up to four years more. Some local authorities are finding it difficult to commit themselves to taking over responsibility for jointly financed schemes as the Health Service

561
contribution tapers off, so the proposal in the document was to extend the maximum period of full revenue funding up to 10 years, with tapering over a further five. The other suggestion widely favoured is for district health authorities to sponsor patients moving into community care by making payments to the local authorities for individual patients or for places without limiting the period over which payments can be made. This gain would provide a flexible means of moving people more quickly out of hospital and into community care.
There has been a general welcome given to the broad aims of the initiative and to these two suggestions in particular. We shall also want to consider which of the other suggestions may be worth pursuing. I hope to be able shortly to announce our conclusions. But what we are trying to do is to give people the service that they need and want by removing obstacles wherever possible. We are not in the business of imposing bureaucratic solutions. Local management should have maximum freedom to decide how best to use its resources and local opportunities.
The initiatives are aimed particularly to improve services for those who need hospital, nursing home or residential care or support in the community. They are aimed at helping those old people whose needs are the greatest. I make no apology for concentrating upon their position. But the majority of old people live in the community and do not need that kind of help or support. For them the most important questions are, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the maintenance of income and the quality of the life that they can enjoy.
I turn to the question of income. We stand by our promise to protect the purchasing power of pensions and other linked long-term benefits over the lifetime of this Parliament. For pensioners that means that even in these difficult times the purchasing power of their retirement pensions would be maintained. They also know that we have promised that, as the economy of the nation improves, we shall seek to ensure that pensioners share in the increased prosperity.
When we came to office the basic rate of pensions was £19.50 for a single pensioner and £31.20 for a married couple. Now, three years later, they stand at £29.60 for a single pensioner and £47.35 for a married couple. At the same time as protecting the pension from the effects of inflation, we have also ensured that pensioners can look forward to the Christmas bonus every Christmas. No longer is it a grace-and-favour payment made by the Government of the day, which enabled it to be withdrawn by the previous Government. It is now established in legislation as a regular feature.
We have also made real improvements in the help available to pensioners receiving supplementary benefit. All pensioners over the age of 70 receiving supplementary benefit or with a dependant over 70 now automatically get an extra heating addition of £1.65 a week. Both this standard rate and the higher rate of £4.5 a week were increased in real terms in 1980. The increase last November more than maintained their value against the forecast rise in fuel prices to that date.
Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister is aware that last November he raised the supplementary benefit personal scale rates by 9 per cent., but at the same time he raised by about 18 per cent. the figure if one pays in
562
excess of which on a heating charge which is part of a rent one gets the excess paid in addition to the normal supplementary benefit. Does he accept that by giving, say, £2.50 for some supplementary benefit recipients, on the one hand, he has taken away up to 85p, on the other? Can he justify raising the normal rate by 9 per cent. and raising this particular threshold by 18 per cent., which has had the harmful effect that I state?
Mr. Fowler: In real terms, the value of the heating support that we have been able to give has increased over that period. But even before we announced the special measures last month to help supplementary pensioners meet the fuel costs arising from the severe weather, the cost of this extra heating assistance was running at about £250 million a year and about 2¼ million people were benefiting.
We are talking not just about the past in terms of pensions but also about future policy. Those people who will be retiring this year can expect not just the price-protected basic retirement pension but also the price-protected and earnings-related additional component pensions. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which commanded all-party support, has been benefiting many of those who have retired in the past years. I join the hon. Member for Pontypridd in paying tribute to the late Brian O'Malley, as the major author of the Act. I take the opportunity to restate our commitment to it.
Already it is possible for someone to have £5.86 a week on top of his basic pension. By the end of the decade, and with the scheme just halfway to maturity, this additional pension could amount to four times that figure—about £23.44 in current values. We shall over the coming years be taking substantial steps to ensure that the income of pensioners increases.
There are many other issues concerning the pension and the age of retirement. Age of retirement is currently being considered by the Social Services Select Committee. I hope that its studies will help to establish a consensus on the best ways forward. I believe that most people would like to see a measure of flexibility brought into the age of retirement—that the individual should be given a proper choice in deciding at what age he or she can retire. That is a proper goal of policy. But we also know that a simple reduction of pension age for a man to 60 is ruled out on grounds of cost, estimated at present to be about £2½ billion a year. It is a point which brings the debate full circle.
Ultimately, what more can be done is conditioned by resources. The cost of paying retirement pensions already accounts for about one-eighth of all public expenditure. If one adds to that the cost of the personal social services, the National Health Service and the other support that is going to the elderly, it is a very substantial figure indeed. Let me emphasise that it is a cost which is borne predominantly by the working population.
The Government most certainly recognise their obligations and duty to the elderly. But I am not prepared to make promises that we cannot carry out. In the last analysis, the prosperity of pensioners will depend upon the prosperity of the nation and upon economic and industrial recovery.
The Opposition's motion refers to the quality of life. Income is clearly crucial to that, but other important policies are also connected with it. The decline of public transport services in country areas, for example, as the

563
hon. Gentleman said, has had a disproportionate effect on elderly people. The need for revenue support has been reflected in transport supplementary grant allocations. Local authorities must ensure that the subsidies are directed where they will prove most effective. At the same time the Transport Act 1980 swept away many barriers which stood in the way of new services developing. If the Opposition advocate a national concessionary scheme they are again taking and promising—deliberately promising—extra spending of around £100 million a year in current prices.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why not?
Mr. Fowler: That may be the hon. Member's response, but I do not think that that is a proper response for running the economy of the country.
There is another fundamental aspect, on which I will make my last point.
Mr. John: Can I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the lobby of the National Pensioners' Convention? It has carefully separated the declaration of intent, which is of long-term aims, from its immediate demands. Is the hon. Gentleman's answer to each of those demands, which he has seen, "No", as we suppose it to be? He has not agreed to look at any of them.
Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Member mentioned in his speech, I have seen the convention. I will mention later one or two of my responses to it.
There is one fundamental aspect of the quality of life for elderly people. Attention was drawn to this by The Daily Telegraph earlier this week on the problem of crimes against old people. The report spelt out the excellent work of Age Concern and its security campaign. It also graphically illustrated the suffering of old people, who are victims of crime, especially with violence. I think that the whole House will agree with me that violence against the elderly is a particularly repugnant form of crime.
The Government have made it clear that priority will continue to be given to the fight against crime. The strength of the police has increased by 7,500, from about 112,000 to 119,500, in England and Wales since the Government came to office. That is a very marked improvement and we will continue to give the fullest support to the police in their very difficult task.
I understand the concern of organisations such as the National Pensioners' Convention. However, I am not prepared to make promises which cannot be implemented. It would cost £l1½ billion to raise pension levels and other long-term benefits to the amount sought in the declaration. In the longer term the new pensions scheme, to which both major parties are committed, will take pensions towards the level of one half or one third average earnings. But in the much shorter-term it is a fraud to talk of raising basic pensions to such levels, because there is no way that the working population could bear that cost on top of the cost of the new scheme as it develops.
We shall get no credit from the public for disguising the problems or raising expectations which will not be realised. My criticism of the Opposition is that it is just that that they are doing. A Chief Secretary in the previous Labour Government said that the laws of arithmetic do not change when a party leaves Government. The Opposition's proposals, when both the social and economic proposals are taken together, do not add up.
564
What the vast majority of old people in this county want is the income to support a decent quality of life, and the mobility and personal security to enjoy that life to the full, and to contribute to the society in which they live. These we have ensured and we will, as the economy improves, ensure that the elderly share in that improvement. For those elderly people who need more support and care, additional initiatives are needed, and the five I have outlined today represent a significant package of measures. It will be our intention to look for all opportunities to take positive practical steps to assist elderly people.
The Government will continue to give priority to the elderly. I ask the house to support the Government amendment.
5.4 pm
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I have heard many speeches delivered by Secretaries of State for Social Services, but today I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech particularly difficult to listen to because it offered little comfort, either to me or to the pensioners. In his last two or three sentences he said that it was difficult to implement some of the legitimate aspirations of old-age pensioners. However, if there is the will, we can do these things. If the Government have a genuine will to give these people what they want something can be done immediately. The whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman struck me as being in marked contradiction to the excellent pamphlet published by the DHSS and the Scottish Office last year. It was called "Growing Older" and I read in that pamphlet this statement:
"The aim of the Government's policies is to enable elderly people to live independent lives in their own homes wherever possible—which reflects what the majority themselves want. If this is to be achieved, people will need an income sufficient to provide them with a reasonable standard of living and enable them to take part in the life of the community".
I thought that that was an excellent statement and declaration and all of us should derive great encouragement from it. We all know from meeting people in our constituencies that it is true. We all know what they want. In common with many other hon. Members I have elderly relatives and I know that is what they want to do.
However, when I look at the second part of the statement, which talks about money, I become troubled. Society, and this Government in particular, does not seem to be giving our old people the means to live comfortably, in dignity and without financial worry, which is their right when they become older.
Sir Julian Ridsdale: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the ways to help the elderly to live in their own homes would be to reduce the rate burden, and particularly take some of the burden which they have to pay for education off the rates?
Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps we can come to these points a little later in our deliberations. That is certainly something of which I am conscious. It may occur to the hon. Gentleman that old people in this country pay rates and taxes just as other people do and not many of them get much out of it.
It is sometimes forgotten by people such as the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be more concerned about rates and taxes than about elderly people, that many of our elderly do not have the wherewithal to live very

565
comfortably. They do not have company or works pensions and their whole income derives from the old-age pension and supplementary benefit.
The older people who live in my area, many of whom are miners and steel workers, lived, and when they could, worked, throughout the depression, so have never been able to save any money to have a better life when they grew older. We are also talking, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and the Secretary of State pointed out, about people who are unmarried and without children and who therefore do not have young people on whom they can depend for help and who can assist them financially, or with goods and services, or with the care that they need.
Even when the elderly do have children who would like to help their parents, with unemployment at its present level of three million, most of the unemployed have enough difficulty looking after themselves and their children without having to help the older people. I do not want to read any more surveys or hear any more speeches about the problems of the pensioners when we know that it all boils down to the fact that they do not have a proper income on which to live.
There is nothing more soul destroying to me when I accompany my wife to the shops than to see old-age pensioners pick up a piece of butcher's meat, look at the price tag and have to put it back, or to pick up something at a grocers, look at the price tag and put it back because they have not the money to buy it. That makes me sad. The main answer to the problem is money, and that point was made effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd when he opened the debate.
The Secretary of State said that as we improved life in the country and as we had growth pensioners would share in that new-found prosperity. That is something that we would all like to see, but it is not happening. How are we to cater for the growing number of people of pensionable age if the wealth earners are daily, by hundreds and thousands, thrown on to the industrial scrap heap? The old-age pensioners are not daft. They see that the wealth creators, the working men and women, are themselves having a difficult time. The pensioners know that they, too, will have a difficult time for as long as the policies of the Government are more concerned with trying ineffectively to cure inflation than with providing jobs and creating wealth.
I turn to the problem of housing. The pamphlet "Growing Older" takes the view that older people should be allowed to remain in their own homes. That is, of course, desirable. Older people want to live in their own homes, among their own possessions, among their own friends and people, and in circumstances that they thoroughly understand.
From time to time I am told that the Government tell local authorities that they ought to build many more houses for our old-age pensioners. However, having told them to build more houses, the Government fail to provide the local authorities with the resources to do that. Some of the houses that are being erected are shocking. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), who is present, will look at some of the pensioners' flats. It seems that some pensioners are expected to live in one room. In that room, with a small kitchen and bathroom, they must eat, sleep
566
and exist. The Under-Secretary of State knows the old expression that we use in the West of Scotland to describe such places. We call them "single ends". Most of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in Scotland were born and brought up in single ends. They went on to raise their families in single ends. If such people had one ambition in life, it was to get out of them and get a decent house. The minimum requirement imposed on such local authorities by the Scottish Office should be to ensure that pensioners have a bedroom, a sitting room, a small kitchen and a bathroom.
If people are allowed to live in their own homes, they must have a proper home-help service. In many families, daughters and sons can assist. However, we must recognise that there are many pensioners who do not have relatives who are able to provide such assistance. In my part of the world the home-help service is excellent. It is pathetic that the Government have made cuts in the finances of local authorities that have led to a reduction in the home-help service. That is a dreadful condemnation of the good work carried out by the home-help services.
My father has a home-help. She comes in for a couple of hours a week. She helps, with my wife and others, to look after my 84-year-old father. That service has been cut.
Home-helps are good, honest working women who provide meals, services and, above all, a wee bit of company. Such company, at the end of the day, is essential to these pensioners. It is sad that these services and the number of hours being worked in Scotland by home helps are being cut. That deserves the condemnation of each and every one of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd talked about providing television licences and transport services for pensioners. I firmly believed once that the answer to the problem was to provide a good basic pension and no more and to allow pensioners to make choices for themselves—for example, whether to have a television and to buy a television licence and whether to travel and pay transportation costs. Over the years I have changed my position considerably. I feel that we should provide pensioners with a free television licence and with free public transport. It is argued that if such a scheme were implemented many who are fairly well-to-do would benefit. Would that matter? For every one well-to-do person who might benefit there would be thousands who would need the provision of such services and who would obtain them. I hope that the Government will give these matters their consideration.
I have talked in the main about the elderly who live in their own homes. Unfortunately, there are many who cannot do so. I refer to the sick, the frail and the mentally ill. I know of scores of examples where the families are willing and anxious to help but do not have the medical or nursing skills to enable them to look after their frail or mentally confused parents. It is scandalous that we have not come to grips with the problem of providing sufficient beds for old people who are confused and mentally sick.
Doctors are becoming terribly depressed about the shortage of beds for the mentally confused and the mentally sick. They have to assess illness on the basis of the number of beds that are available and not on the nature and seriousness of the illness itself. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to take up the issue of providing more beds in Scotland. If he does, he will earn the gratitude of each and every one of us.
Mr. James Hamilton: One of my constituents is an old lady of 92 years of age. Her doctor has recommended that she be hospitalised. Her daughter is 66 years of age. I have been unsuccessful so far in getting the old lady into a particular hospital. If I remain unsuccessful, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give me his full support in acknowledging the plea that is being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen ( Mr. MacKenzie).
Mr. MacKenzie: I hope that my hon. Friend is successful.
On 8 June 1981 the Secretary of State's predecessor said that he would be making a statement on the death grant. Fortunately I am possessed of considerable patience. I waited until 10 November, when I asked the Minister for Social Security, whom I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench, when his right hon. Friend would make a statement. The Minister told me that the statement would be made before the end of the year, and left me with the impression that we would get something out of it. When I hear that we are still to have the present miserable low level of death grant, it makes me pretty sad.
About a year ago I buried an elderly relative. The National Health Service certificate for a cremation cost £27.50 and an extract for a death certificate cost £3. In all, I paid £30.50 for certification, which meant that I was 50p out of pocket before we started to make any arrangements. The relative who died was a simple man with simple wishes who did not want to have an elaborate funeral. In deference to his wishes and his memory we had the simplest possible funeral—one hearse, a small chapel, one car and no elaborate meal after it was over. That cost £361.33. That was not a crisis for me or for my family, but it would have been a major financial crisis in many other families. I am disappointed again to hear the Secretary of State say that he cannot yet do anything about the death grant. The matter worries old people very much and the sooner that a statement is made and the grant is improved the better it will be for all of us.
I concede that many individuals and groups are concerned about the problems of the elderly and do much good work to help them. I refer to churches, voluntary organisations, social work departments and many others. However, al the end of the day, society looks to the Government for action and resources. This Government are not carrying out their clear and obvious duty to the old people of Britain.
5.22 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: When I studied the terms of the motion on the Order Paper and the Government amendment, I found myself unable to support either the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition or the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friends. Despite the Secretary of State's speech, I cannot go into the Government Lobby tonight. At the same time, under no circumstances, especially because of the Opposition amendment, am I prepared to go into the Opposition Lobby. The House will know that there were occasions in the previous parliamentary Session when I was fully prepared to go into the Opposition Lobby.
I am glad to see in his place the secretary-treasurer of the all-party parliamentary group for pensioners, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I am one of the
568
co-chairmen of that group. When he studies the terms of the motion and the amendment, he might find himself in the same position as me.
Let us first examine the record of the Labour Government. When the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was passed, there was a tremendous fanfare of trumpets and we were told that it was a massive step forward for retired people. We were told that in future every increase in the pension would be related either to prices or to wages, whichever was of the greatest advantage to pensioners. But what happened? First, the Government were careful in the wording of the Act to ensure that the proposal was in no way legally enforceable. That was the first fraud. We know that year after year there was no question of increasing the pension at the rate that was to the greatest advantage of pensioners, considering both earnings and the cost of living. When the Opposition tried to pretend that they had fulfilled that requirement, they knew that it was not true.
Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the most recent evidence of comparable periods—the final period of the Labour Government and the current Conservative Government—shows that the pension went up in real terms during the final period of the Labour Government and is now falling behind in real terms month by month?
Mr. Bowden: I am dealing with the record of the Labour Government. I shall deal with the record of the Conservative Government in a moment.
Both in 1976 and in 1978. the Labour Government did not increase pensions in line with the terms laid down in the 1975 Act. In 1976, they did not increase it in line either with inflation or with wages. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—that in the overall life of that Parliament pensioners moved forward by 20 per cent. in relation to prices. That figure does not apply when one considers the terms of the 1975 Act, which stated that they should have the best advantage in relation to wages. As my right hon. Friend said, on two occasions the Christmas bonus was not paid. In one of the years about which we are talking—the period of which Opposition Members seem to be so proud when they talk about uprating now—inflation was approaching 30 per cent. a year. Did they make two increases in that year? Opposition Members know very well that they did not. I cannot support the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
At the end of last year I put a motion on the Order Paper which stated:
"That this House believes that every pensioner has the right to choice, dignity and independence in retirement … urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to support pensioners in achieving this right by increasing the existing State retirement pension."
Whichever way it is argued, the fact remains that the pension has not kept pace with inflation. I know that the Government will argue that it will do so in the life of this Parliament, but that is not good enough. In November, the pension was increased by 9 per cent. We know that inflation between November 1980 and October 1981 was 12 per cent. If we allow for a clawback of 1 per cent., there is still a 2 per cent. deficit. If we allow for the two-week delay in paying the pension in an earlier year, that is the equivalent of about 1 or 1½ per cent. If we add those matters together, I suggest to my right hon. Friends that

569
the next pension increase must be about 16 to 17 per cent., if we allow for an inflation rate of 12 per cent. between November 1981 and November 1982. The Government should be thinking about increasing the single pension by £5 and the married couple's pension by £8. That would honour the pledge that must be fulfilled. For that reason, I deeply regret that it is not possible for me to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
However, other groups of pensioners, who have not been mentioned in the debate, are having a hard time. What about the pensioners who worked all their lives, saved for retirement and put sufficient money away to enjoy a reasonable standard of living for their expected term? Their savings have been destroyed by inflation. Although they worked to be independent of the State and of their families, many of them now find that they are only marginally above the basic State pension and that of those on supplementary benefit. Because in so many cases they are not entitled to receive supplementary benefit, they are worse off than those who are in receipt of the State pension and supplementary benefit.
There is no doubt that economic policies, particularly those followed by the Labour Government, led to massive inflation that destroyed the value of those people's savings. At the same time, I must say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that it was outrageous that the age allowances were not increased last year because nothing hurts pensioners more than not increasing those age allowances in line with inflation.
Mr. Allen McKay: I know of one old lady on a retirement pension from her ex-employer who is in receipt of mobility allowance and who is now having to sell her silver to keep her home going. Yet the Government have the audacity to tax that allowance. Her pension is now taxed to such an extent that she has to pay her annual tax in four instalments. That is because the personal allowances were not raised.
Mr. Bowden: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an elderly lady who, when she retired, had money in the bank, and that that was about five or 10 years ago. If that is so, the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported were largely responsible for destroying the value of the lady's savings. He should feel guilty about that Government's economic policies. That case is tragic.
In the Budget, the Government must substantially increase the age allowances at least in line with inflation, preferably over and above it to make up for some of the loss of last year.
A full review is needed in a range of areas for providing help for the elderly. I shall take one or two examples. Many pensioners are paying up to £3 a week out of their incomes to meet standing charges. That could approach 10 per cent. of their total income. When they are invariably among the smallest users of the services provided upon which they have to pay standing charges—be it electricity, gas, water or telephone—is not that fundamentally unfair and does it not cause unreasonable hardship to the retired section of our nation? That must be looked at carefully.
Hon. Members have already referred to concessionary fares. There is great bitterness among many retired people who see people on one side of the road getting advantages in concessionary fares that are not available to those living
570
on the other side of the road. The Government should be looking ahead—not necessarily immediately—and preparing a fully workable national concessionary fares scheme.
There is also the cost of fuel and heating. The Government have made progress in that area. The heating allowance schemes are infinitely better than those produced by the Labour Government.
Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
Mr. Bowden: Our schemes are infinitely better, and that is unarguably and firmly so.
However, there are still groups that are not being fairly treated, particularly those on rent and rate rebates. Pensioners have been to see me at my advice service. Invariably I must tell them that they must balance carefully the advantages and disadvantages between rent and rate rebates and supplementary benefit. Therefore, much more is still to be done in producing an effective, national comprehensive fuel and heating scheme.
The rating system has been touched on by hon. Members. The domestic rating system operates in a diabolical way, to the detriment of the retired. The sooner the pledge to abolish domestic rates is carried out the better it will be for the retired of our nation.
I should like to make a brief point about the protection of the elderly, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All of us are utterly sick almost every day when we open our newspapers and read of vicious attacks on elderly people who are kicked, battered and assaulted in their homes when they are completely defenceless. I am sure that the House will support the widespread re-emergence of more policemen on the beat. In the long run that is the only way in which such attacks can be checked. I am sure that the House will support that policy with all its strength. Crimes of violence against the elderly must be severely punished.
I must say honestly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am disappointed with the Government's performance and the way in which they have approached pensioner problems in the past two years. I have absolutely no confidence in the Opposition, whose record stands completely condemned. However, it is not too late for the Government to demonstrate positively their concern for the retired. The nation is in debt to the retired. I ask the Government to honour that debt.
5.37 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: When I used to go to chapel, the preacher would regularly say "By their deeds ye shall know them".
If the Government want voluntary organisations to assist the elderly and disabled in our society, why on earth do they impose a tax on them? Why do they make them pay 15 per cent. tax on voluntary contributions made to sustain the elderly? The House must face that challenge in the near future.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has tabled an all-party motion that I have amended slightly, and that has my full support. The Treasury must face up to the fact that if society wants voluntary organisations to sustain the weak and the elderly they should not be taxed on the contributions that they are given from the British public for that purpose.
It is argued that we need to keep people within the community, that the elderly should not be put away too

571
quickly, that they should be sustained in our society and protected, and should remain with their families. What do we have? We have a Department that gives me parliamentary replies clearly stating that it knows the problem. That is intriguing. We ask for information, the information is given and on the basis of that information certain items are predictable.
It is predictable that the frail elderly will increase in number and that the severity of the problem will increase. I refer not to my figures, but the Department's figures. We know that every year there will be a 2 per cent. increase in people who require special care and attention in our community. The Government say that they will keep those people in the community. Knowing that the number of those people is increasing, how can the Government cut support by l0 per cent? Where is the logic in that? How can it work Out?
I give an example from Salford. The council there is most anxious to assist. It is aware of the importance of home helps and meals on wheels, but those services are being savagely cut. Knowing the predicted increase in the number of old people and the strains and stresses involved, the council is trying to cater for the increase and to keep its services in step. The number of home helps has been maintained, but the time that they can give to each elderly person has been cut from four hours to 2.2 hours per week. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) said, home helps do more than just provide a service. A home help is a companion for a short while and a lifeline. That is an important element.
The statistics provided by the Department show that that is exactly the kind of action that local authorities have to take. A strain is then imposed, either upon a frail person who is trying to live alone, or upon one elderly person trying to look after a frail partner. The strain then intensifies and where previously there was one frail elderly person the lack of services soon results in there being two frail elderly persons.
That is a classic example of a totally false economy. However, I do not like arguing about the economics of the problem. We are told that the problem today is to tackle inflation and bring it down, and that the elderly understand that. But the Minister should understand that by the time inflation has been brought down those people will be dead, and it is no comfort to them to have some form of posthumous blessing from the Government.
My second point, within the sphere of social services, is this. If we intend to keep elderly people in the community, the next stage down is either warden-controlled accommodation provided by the local authority or old people's homes run by local authorities. Government statistics show that in order to continue to provide home helps and meals on wheels local authorities have been forced to cut development of warden-controlled accommodation and homes for the elderly and disabled. I hope that I am not being too unkind, but when a problem is known I believe that there is a moral duty to tackle it. It is pure hypocrisy to say that the weak in our society must pay to help us out of our problems.
Mr. David Ennals: Does my hon. Friend agree—I imagine that this is as true in his area as it is in Norfolk—that the result of making charges, which are due to increase again, for home helps, and the result
572
of the increase in the cost of the meals-on-wheels service, has been a dramatic fall in the demand for those services because people can no longer afford them?
Mr. Carter-Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That is true for his constituency, for my constituency and, indeed, for every hon. Member's constituency.
I wish to refer briefly to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowde n Standing charges for the weak in our community are a superb example of an utterly regressive tax. Ministers should not hide from that fact. Inevitably, the burden upon such people is great. Indeed, in Salford the social services department is worried stiff about elderly people, brought up in the tradition of paying their debts and knowing that they must settle their accounts, who turn off the heating in their flats when they ought not to do so. The Government may believe that they are bringing down the inflation rate, but those people will be dead be lore it happens.
I have dealt with two factors. I have explained why I am unhappy at the way in which the Government are treating the voluntary organisations, and I have tried to illustrate from Government statistics that the Government do not stand well in the judgment of society when one sees the way in which social services have been cut back due to lack of support.
The third factor is even worse. The Government have exacerbated the problem. There is a domino effect. Because the frail elderly cannot remain in their own homes; because the burden is great and the numbers have increased but provision by social services departments has declined due to Government cuts, the burden upon the National Health Service has increased and intensified and there is absolutely no more room. I have tried to explain this to the Minister. Of course, a fair number of the frail elderly will from time to time require acute nursing care, but it is a dreadful situation when more money is spent on the care of geriatric patients in acute nursing wards than on our geriatric wards. That is the economics of madness, for two reasons.
I am utterly dedicated to the concept of rehabilitation. People tend to think that rehabilitaiton is for the young and the middle-aged, but in many parts of the country great progress has been made in rehabilitation of the elderly. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government were going for positive discrimination. It is about time that the less glamorous parts of medicine had a fair crack of the whip.
If my next comment upsets anyone, I shall not worry. I hope that the National Health Service will spend more time on bowel and bladder problems, because those are the indignities faced by the elderly. I have been gathering information and I heard recently that in order to save money certain hospitals provide babies' disposable nappies for incontinent patients in geriatric wards when perfectly good incontinence pads are available. How low are these people in our priorities? I wish to deal not with esoteric matters, but with the bread-and-butter problems that face the frail elderly every day of their lives.
This is not a minority problem. I was delighted at the Secretary of State's response. If he is prepared to accept positive discrimination for the weak in our society and in the National Health Service, one thing is certain. He will have to tell certain regional officers and area health

573
authorities to spend a little more time and effort looking after those people who cannot look after themselves, many of whom are effectively discharged from society because there is inadequate provision in their own community and their own homes.
I am not noted for having supported the Labour Government at all times. I have been known to revolt at times. I must tell the Government that in the sphere of services for the frail elderly there has been a record of misuse of money. False economies are being made by area health authorities. In studying the needs of the coming year, I hope that the Government will ensure that resources are restored to local authorities and hospitals so that the weak in our society may stay in their homes and within the community.
5.50 pm
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I welcome this debate on the elderly, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for having instigated it. It is a pity that he disappeared just as I mentioned his name, because, although I welcome the opportunity of a debate on this subject, I am a little disappointed by what has been said so far by the right hon. and hon. Members in whose name the motion stands. They seem to be strong on rhetoric and surprisingly thin on detail.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for Pontypridd raised only one new concept—even that lacked originality—and that was a possibility of the pensions uprating taking place twice a year instead of once a year. I shall return to that matter later in my speech, but I hope that he will understand my disappointment that we have not heard in more detail how Labour Members intend to carry out the many promises they are now making—with most of which, of course, it would be extremely difficult to disagree, provided that we lived in an ideal world.
Before I come to particular matters, I want to mention a few general points. Labour Members tend to dismiss the fact that we can best serve pensioners by trying to keep down inflation. It is surprising that that fact is dismissed so easily, because I am in no doubt that inflation is the greatest enemy of the retired and bids fair to destroy the value of their savings and incomes. I therefore hope that all hon, Members will welcome and endorse the Government's determination to reduce inflation, and accept that, although criticism can be made on many areas, there can surely be none of the Government's attempt to maintain the value of the savings and incomes of retired people.
I suspect that Conservative Members will be a little disappointed not to have found more endorsement by Labour Members of the fact that, at a time when arguably we have been passing through the worst recession this century, we have managed fully to price-protect retirement pensions. I shall prove what I say later in my speech.
First, however, I wish to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones)., I found it impossible to disagree with its fervour or with much of its content. Nevertheless, he seemed to play down the importance of inflation when he said that it was not of major importance because, unless we succeeded the day after tomorrow, most of the pensioners would be dead before they got the benefits. I have great respect for the
574
hon. Member, but in saying that he brushed aside far too readily the fact that inflation is, and will remain, a crucial factor in the fixed incomes and savings of retired people.
Mr. Carter-Jones: On reflection, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I was talking about the frail elderly. It is difficult to be too dogmatic, but they are people who have a low expectation of life. In denying them nursing rights, I suggested, in the kindest possible way, that they would be dead before inflation was tackled.
Mr. McCrindle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it enables me to say that he and I are closer together than I realised. He does not challenge what I say about the desirability of beating back inflation in the interests of the generality of pensioners. He is saying something that I have often said in the House, that at a time of limited resources—I challenge any hon. Member to remember a time when resources were not limited—such assistance as is available has to be directed to groups of people such as the frail elderly.
Elderly people have another difficulty, and it relates to heating costs. I do not pretend that this Government have got it absolutely right, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) was perhaps a little less generous than we know him to be in the compliment that he was prepared to pay the Government in this regard, There are, of course, many areas where we need to do more, but heating cost aid under this Government is higher in real terms than it was in the comparable scheme under the Labour Government. This is also true even in the National Health Service or—dare I say it?—personal social services, by which I mean home helps and meals on wheels. I do not contend that the situation is a happy one.
However, although these services have been cut back by many county councils—a fact that I deplore, as do most hon. Members—the totality of central Government allocation in this sphere appears to be up compared with the figure that was expended when the Labour Government left office. I hope that I am not being complacent. I am realistic and realise that even at this difficult time the Government have something to be proud of, even in this most exposed area.
I come back unashamedly to inflation. It destroys the value of pensioners' incomes and savings. I have no doubt that the Government are right to make it a major priority. In that way, inflation will be conquered. That will be a powerful gain for the elderly—arguably more for the elderly than for any other section of the community.
I come now to the vexed question whether we have been successful in inflation-proofing the retirement pension. The retirement pension has increased between 1979 and 1981 by 52 per cent. During the same period prices also increased by 52 per cent. One does not have to be a mathematician to recognise that that represents full protection. However, that does not satisfy me. I should like the standard of living of pensioners to rise progressively, but I remind the House that in a period during which we have had such difficulties it is not bad to be able to claim that we have increased pensions by 52 per cent. at the same time as prices have risen by 52 per cent. By November 1982, pensions will be increased in line with prices, and a further 2 per cent. will be paid because of the shortfall last year.
Much has been said in another context about the shortfall last year. I am one of those who feel that the

575
proposal to continue to derate other benefits by 2 per cent. should be reversed. However, at a time when it could have been argued that there should have been some derating in pensions as well, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the fact that the increase in the pension over the four-year period will precisely match the increase in prices during the same period—and this at a time when the gross national product has been falling and the living standards of many other sections of the community falling simultaneously. I repeat that this is an achievement of which the Government can be proud.
I come now to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd about the uprating of benefits twice a year I should like to link that with a matter that I have raised in the House many times in the past 12 years. I refer to the time lag between the announcement of an increase and the payment of it. Nowadays Budgets are frequently introduced in March rather than in April, and the payment does not take effect until November. There is, therefore, a period of eight months when a great deal can happen to the inflation rate. It can increase, as it did in 1980, or fall, as it will in 1982, we hope.
The difficulty is that because the changes in the benefit books have to be made manually, it is impossible to shrink the time scale between the announcement and the payment. That could be achieved—and is achieved in other EEC countries—by computerising the whole exercise. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Pontypridd should have raised this matter. There is only one thing that stops us moving over to the computerisation of benefit changes, and that is that the trade unions that are involved in the negotiations will not accept the situation.
If the hon. Member for Pontypridd wants to be of assistance to pensioners perhaps he could use his influence with the trade unions so that although we continue to uprate only once a year the announcement can be made in July and the payment made in October. If he genuinely wishes to make a concrete contribution to the benefit of old-age pensioners, I would respectfully suggest that it lies within his own hands and that he has no need to press the Government to take action.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie). He said that he used to be of the opinion that one should pay as high a pension as possible and then leave people to spend their money on buses, television licences or whatever. I still take that view. I see many problems, particularly as I represent a constituency just over the border from greater London, where the concessionary fares scheme is much less generous than that of the GLC. I know the difficulties that can arise when one local authority offers a very good concessionary scheme and another does not. I have frequently said how much easier it would be if we could have a national scheme.
However, given that funds will always be limited to some degree, what sort of national scheme would be acceptable? Would it be the scheme that is presently run in London, with virtually free fares? That would cost an enormous amount of money if it were spread throughout the United Kingdom. Or would it be an infinitely less generous scheme, such as the one in my area? If the latter, how would the millions of people in the capital take that?
It is the easiest thing in the world to talk about the desirability of a national scheme for concessionary bus fares, but it is infinitely more difficult to implement it.
576
Unless the Opposition can tell us what sort of money they foresee being involved, what sort of area they would take that money from, and what sort of scheme it would be—the best in the country or the worst—I shall consider their representations to be more than a little bogus.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman talks about bogus representations. However, he asked the Transport Department on 28 January for just such a national scheme, without specifying what standard it should be. He asked the Secretary of State for Transport if
"he will reconsider the introduction of a national scheme."—[Official Report, 28 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 441.]
Will the real Robert McCrindle please stand up?
Mr. McCrindle: If the hon. Gentleman is such an inexperienced Member of Parliament that he does not recognise that hon. Members may table parliamentary questions to elicit information without necessarily including their opinion in those questions, he is hardly fit to lead for the Opposition on such important matters. The attraction of such a national scheme is constantly being considered, but I have reached the conclusion that it would be expensive and would create as many problems as it solved.
Mr. Major: Some rural areas, such as mine, have very few buses, yet they would have to contribute to the cost of a national scheme.
Mr. McCrindle: That is a good point. What about those who are housebound? How can a national scheme be introduced that takes account of the many pensioners who could not conceivably take advantage of it? Am I not correct in suggesting that it would be far better to move towards increasing pensions by the maximum possible, while leaving the individual to do as he wishes with his money?
The same applies to concessionary television licences. Not every old person wants a television set. Where would the concession stop? Are not the disabled just as entitled as the elderly? [Interruption.] I am trying to tell hon. Members where I stand. Opposition Members clearly have not thought the matter through. If hon. Members think the subject through, they will reach the same conclusion as me. The elderly would get very little benefit. Before Opposition Members put such attractive propositions into the shop window so that elderly people who have riot, perhaps, thought the matter through are attracted by them, they have a duty to the House and to the country to cost the proposition and to tell us whether it would solve all the problems in the way that they suggest.
Before being mildly diverted, I had intended to say more. However, as other hon. Members wish to speak I shall say only that, although we have much more to do, the Government have managed to protect pensions against the ravages of inflation when hardly any other incomes have been protected in that way. That is quite something. It is a sham and a disgrace that we should be pilloried by the Opposition for not doing better. However, the elderly will know who are on their side and who, in the long run, will serve their interests best. They will conclude that the Conservative Party—as always—is well on the way to protecting the standard of living for the elderly in Britain.
6.7 pm
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: As far as it went, I was interested in the

577
speech made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), but he was bowled, middle stump, by the Ian Botham on the Opposition Front Bench.
When the hon. Gentleman's local press publishes the fact that he tabled a question about reconsidering a national concessionary scheme and that he meant not that, but that he wanted the Government to ensure that there was no such scheme, pensioners in his constituency will have to consider the matter carefully. The hon. Gentleman seems to have arrived at 1984 before the rest of us. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks but what he admitted to was a bit of a fraud. He argued that the Government had kept pensions in line with inflation. Why does not the hon. Gentleman ask pensioners in his constituency about that? If he asked my constituents they would say that there was no parity.
I am concerned about the Secretary of State's statements. He suggested that five items were new issues. It would be churlish not to say that I am pleased that such steps are being taken. However, they are faltering steps. The first proposal is for three experimental nursing homes. Many of us have long argued for that. I am pleased that the Minister has suggested that. However, three is somewhat limited—the Minister could have made it five and included Scotland. We should not only consider England and Wales. Surely it is possible to establish an experimental home for the elderly in Scotland. The proposal is interesting, and I shall follow its progress with interest. We shall want to know more about it—for example, its cost and other factors. The Minister gave only a skeleton outline. I understand that there will be 150 beds.
I am pleased that the Minister intends to increase the grants to Age Concern for training. It is an important problem with which local government has been trying to deal—but without real success. Perhaps Age Concern can do better on a voluntary basis. I note that, for the first time, the Minister will meet the chairman and officers of the regional health authorities to discuss a corporate plan. Although Ministers have never done that, the Department has always held what have been called "forward looks". When I chaired committees at St. Bartholomew's hospital the Minister sent some of his senior officials to our meetings. We all received a subpoena to attend, and there was a corporate review on the "forward look". We discussed the previous year's work, the plan for the future and how we were allocating our resources, including those for the aged. Therefore, I do not understand the argument that it is the first time ever in the field of human conflict that such meetings are to be held, because that is exactly what we have been doing. I suggest that the Minister consults not only the chairmen but all the RHA members, so that we can tell him about the problems. I could write the scenario of the corporate review for the North-West Thames regional health authority and tell the Minister exactly what the problems are. Do I understand that the Minister intends to do something about the problems? Will he provide more money? That is the basic issue we are debating. If he does not provide more money his statement on the corporate review is simply a cosmetic exercise.
The House has always discussed these matters in great detail because we all have an interest, either now or in the future—and if not concerning ourselves, then our families. All of us feel obliged, therefore, to take this subject seriously.
578
The Minister said that the House had to face a fundamental challenge during the next 20 years. I have news for him. The challenge has been facing us for the past 20 years. The real problem is that society has never been geared to the problems of old age. Society has always walked the other way. It is inevitable that we must now face the problem, either individually, as a country, or as Government.
We knew in 1948 that better medication was on the way, which would create a longer lifespan for people. We knew that a longer lifespan would encourage independence, and that that, in turn, would bring a more active life. We knew that a more active life would bring higher aspirations because all things become possible. We have concessionary fares because pensioners want to travel around. They do not want to stay at home, as they once had to do. It was clear to everyone that that would be the state of play, but we refused to examine the issue.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments and go into the banter about who provided what, and whether or not pensions are worth more now than previously. My pensioners tell me that they are not, and I am satisfied to believe them because they are the people who receive them.
I turn now to the other items in the convention. I am sad that the Government have responded with their amendment. I shall be inviting my hon. Friends in the SDP and the Liberal Party to support the Opposition motion. I cannot understand why anyone would turn down a request for
"an early report to the House and the country on how a constructive response may be made to the Declaration of Intent of the National Pensioners' Convention."
It would be an important and fundamental report, which would answer a number of questions, one way or the other. If the House does not have the report, we cannot discuss the issue. The pensioners will not thank us for that. There is nothing clever in sweeping the issue under the carpet. The pensioners may not like the decision that we reach, but they want to know that we are discussing the issue.
Mr. Bowden rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he made a courageous speech.
Mr. Bowden: I tried to explain to the House why I cannot support either the Opposition motion or the Government amendment. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for not wishing to support the Government amendment, I am amazed that he intends to support the Opposition motion.
Mr. Brown: We can eliminate the political propaganda in the first part of the motion—although I do not disagree with all of it. However, we need a report about all the elements in the declaration of intent, which covers a wide range of matters. If we do not have a report on the declaration, we shall never have a report on all the elements. It is in the interests both of the pensioners and ourselves to know the facts. The Government should have responded to the declaration, especially as they today announced five activities that are incorporated in the broad list in the declaration of intent.
I wish to address myself to three of the issues. Local authorities failed to grasp the problems in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. As I served in local government during that time, I blame myself as much as anyone else. I should

579
have recognised the position and done something about it. I am proud of the building programme undertaken by local authorities at that time. However, it is clear that the relationship of bedroom needs was wrong. We are now in the desperate position of needing more one-bedroom properties than ever before. It is even more difficult because in the main they cannot be above ground floor level, they must be near certain facilities, they cannot be in hilly areas, and they must have ramps and other facilities.
Having carried out the vast building programmes, we now find ourselves locked in to them. As a result, a large number of the elderly—many of whom I see weekly at my advice centre—desperately wish to leave their two or three-bedroom flats or maisonettes and move into a one-bedroom unit. Their homes are too large and they cannot afford to heat them. They may be infirm, and so cannot fully use their homes. They cannot escape from those conditions because local authorities cannot provide them with an alternative. Certainly, private housing does not provide an alternative. We are left with not only the uneconomic use of the houses, but with the unhappy position of locking in the elderly to unsuitable homes. That causes them stress and they have to visit their doctors more frequently, which causes all the other problems that everyone knows so well.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies(Thanet, West): Has the hon. Gentleman asked any of his elderly constituents to read a pamphlet called "Growing Older", pages 30 to 34? That sets out seven or eight schemes that are available, largely through private efforts, to enable the elderly to change their houses for the sort of accommodation that the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests should be available to them.
Mr. Brown: I seek to read as much as I can about these matters but I am talking not about houses but about the top of a fifteen storey block of flats. It is all very well if everything is as stated. It is not. I cannot get people out; the local authority will not move people—there is nobody offering them anywhere to go. I have had discussions with Ministers until I was exhausted and frustrated and have got nowhere. Even if one solves that part of the problem, one is still locked into a problem that one cannot resolve because of the way we built properties in the past. The declaration of intent says that pensioners have a right to
"live in accommodation which is appropriate to personal need and circumstance with a reasonable degree of choice."
In my constituency there is no choice, certainly no consideration of appropriate personal need. People's circumstances are ignored. I invite the Secretary of State to visit my area and talk to the local authority so that it can explain. I send letter after letter to the Department of the Environment setting out those absurdities.
My second point on that aspect concerns the less fit, who need sheltered accommodation. Again, that aspect is equally hopeless in my area. The argument is that we have not matched the supply to the demand and that time certainly is not on the side of the elderly. However, when the Secretary of State came to office in 1979, the first thing he did was to overrule his inspector's report on Hackney, and said that it could not build sheltered housing on a site being compulsorily purchased because he would prefer it to be given to a speculator called Fairview to build speculative properties. They are now being built and cost between £43,000 to £45,000 a time. The desperately needed sheltered housing could have been built two years
580
ago. Therefore, when I hear the Secretary of State's concern, how he will guide local authorities and that there will be joint funding, I say that is marvellous, but I also ask where he has been for the past three years, because his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment did the opposite.
The Secretary of State must give some explanations. In addition, he also changed the cost yardstick to what he calls the indicative cost and he has changed the whole pattern by which a local authority endeavours to use the only means it has of providing specialised housing for the elderly—knocking down two old houses and building eight units of a sheltered housing area. One cannot do that because the indicative cost is too expensive and the Secretary of State turns it down. One Secretary of State claims that we want small units all over the place that keep people in the community and take them out of hospitals—that is marvellous. However, when local government tries to do that, the other Secretary of State makes sure it cannot.
The new cost system should be considered in the light of today's debate to see whether the Government are satisfied that there is comparability between the objectives of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment. Otherwise, joint financial schemes and funding schemes are, again, purely cosmetic and will mean little.
The declaration of intent says that pensioners should
"be able to call on the full range of community and personal social services to give full support as need arises."
Hon. Members who have been involved with the National Health Service and local government tried desperately to achieve that. However, all Governments, over a time, tried to cut costs in the NHS by offloading many of the financial problems to local government. That would not be so bad and it could be argued that it would get them into the community and make sure that it was a community response; getting local people to help as well as local government. That would be fine and I should not entirely dissent from it.
However, what has been so wrong is that all Governments have transferred the financial responsibility and burden for providing the service to local government and then introduced cuts and moratoriums and said that local government cannot do this, that or the other. The result in my area—I frequently argue with the area health authority (teaching) and the local authority—is that the AHA (teaching) produces strategic and operational plans every year, all of which are based on the argument that there is an outside community and personal social service run by the local authority. The local authority will confirm that that is not there.
Protecting itself, the local authority keeps saying that it is trying but when pressed on why it is failing it says that it is because of Government policy and that it has no money. Hackney had £14 million taken away from it last year. Consequently, I say to the area health authority (teaching) that it is unfair and misleading of it to keep producing strategic plans, time and again over the past six years, for closing hospitals. I have talked to right hon. Gentleman after right hon. Gentleman about that and, when I hear the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), arguing that Westminster hospital and the Medical College Union

581
should be kept open, and remember what he did to my constituency, my God, I no longer know what "fraud" means. It is outrageous—
Mr. Ennals: In terms of the argument that the hon. Gentleman is using—putting National Health Service responsibilities on to local authorities—would he not say that one of the most useful initiatives taken by the Labour Government was joint financing which enabled local authorities throughout the country to develop community care projects that they would not have been able to do otherwise from their own funds?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that as Secretary of State he was invited to visit my constituency on many occasions. He was courteous and friendly—he is a personal friend—and I showed him why it was not working or happening. He thought it was working in Alexander Fleming House but in the green fields of Hackney it was not and we were unable to get him to understand that there was a great gap between what was said and what was actually happening. That is the position today. There are little or no community or personal services because local authorities just do not have the money for them. I do not want to make a great issue of this, but do not let us believe that if we keep arguing about pensions the elderly are not concerned with these matters on which we, as politicians, seem to feel we are succeeding.
My third point from the declaration of intent is that pensioners should
"be able to maintain a warm and well lit home with adequate heating allowances covering all fuels."
Time and again I referred the Department to the problems in Hackney—they must be the same elsewhere. My constituency is about 90 per cent. municipalised and, because of that, the local authority runs the heating system. Due to the high cost of fuel and pressure from the Department of the Environment, it cuts back on heating, puts it on late, cuts it off early and does not have it too high. Consequently, the tenants feel cold. If people are in work they are all right because they can plug another electric fire in and increase the heat. However, it does not discriminate with a pensioner with the same heating system. He or she has to decide whether they can afford a fire and the social services say that they cannot help with that. I talked to the Department's officials who say that the pensioners get their heating paid within their pensions and, therefore, that they cannot pay any extra. Therefore, a pensioner has to decide whether to have the extra heating or food. He will try to have both and will end up in debt. That brings us back to the fuel debt problem and the matters that I am already discussing.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is hardly the most courteous hon. Member, but I shall give way to him, as I always do.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that old people find life very difficult, especially this winter, with the number of deaths from hypothermia rising astronomically. He is very concerned, but I recall what happened last week, when we had an important debate about electricity and other fuel rebates, a month's free
582
supply of electricity and so on, when all these matters were raised. Various points were advanced. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) took part in the debate, but said very little. When it came to the Division at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) was missing. And the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was missing as well.
Mr. Mike Thomas(Newcastle upon Tyne, East): I spoke.
Mr. Skinner: I know, but the hon. Gentleman refused to vote. The hon. Member and his hon. Friend are concerned about the pensioners in Hackney and Newcastle, and the SDP is not too bad at talking, but when it comes to delivering votes it is no good at all.
Mr. Brown: I always try to be helpful and courteous to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but this will be the last time that I give way to him. I do not object to his intervening and trying to make his party points, but we are talking about pensioners. The hon. Gentleman has done nothing today but walk in and out of the Chamber. He has never listened to any hon. Member and has been rude and offensive, walking from Bench to Bench. Let the pensioners of Bolsover understand that it might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber doing his work.
Mr. Thomas: I spoke in the debate on this matter a week ago. On that occasion the Labour Party put forward a cynical and opportunist motion advocating a course of action which it did not pursue in office and which it would not pursue if it were elected tomorrow. That kind of cynical misuse of the facilities of the House does not deserve the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse(Pontefract and Castleford): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper and in accordance with the rules of the House that hon. Members with something to say can be prevented from speaking by having to listen to hon. Members with nothing to say?
Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Bolsover does that sort of thing; he comes in and has nothing to say. We were proceeding happily with the debate. It was interesting, and we were trying to understand it. I regret that I happened to be nobbled by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
I must now conclude quickly. I was trying to establish that because of the heating problems, resulting from local government's having to cut back, the pensioner is in a Catch-22 situation. I am asking the Minister to examine the problem in Hackney to see whether there is any way in which his Department can co-operate with the London borough of Hackney to resolve the difficulty on behalf of the tenants.
I come to the subject of telephones, which is the other item on the declaration of intent and is a very important matter. The Greater London Council has just completed an excellent block of flats in my constituency and has arranged for the old people to have lights and alarms on the outside of their flat, so that if they get into difficulties they can pull a cord to bring help. It could have been done before, but it was not.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Over recent months many of us have given up much of our Back-Bench time to hear Members belonging to minority parties—
Mr. Mike Thomas: This is not a point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours—making their case. We have sat back and have been willing to accept that, in accordance with the principles and good spirit of the House. Today a Back-Bench Member has spoken for half an hour, taking away time from other Members who regard the time available in this debate as crucial. He has taken away from other Back Benchers their right to speak. Will you intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect the rights of all Back Benchers as against the rights of those belonging to minority parties who are abusing the procedures of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): As the hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear the answer, perhaps he will pay attention. The Chair has no control over the length of any Member's speech. The principle of what the hon. Gentleman says could be applied to the whole House and not only to the hon. Member to whom it was directed.
Mr. Brown: I have been interrupted, and I have tried to be courteous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman's point of order may show that one should not be so courteous in future. The pensioners in my constituency are interested in the matter, even if those elsewhere are not. They want me to state the case.
One pensioner fell ill in one of the flats that I have just described. He used the device provided, and when he called for help at 3 o'clock in the morning it was a 75-yearold lady who came to help him. It was necessary to summon an ambulance, but, because of the way in which things are done, there was no telephone in the area. The old lady had to run all the way up the road to find a telephone box. It had been vandalised, so she then had to run to the other end of the road to another telephone.
The moral of the story for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that if he lived in an inner city area like mine he would understand the difficulties that we face. On behalf of my constituents, I was asking the Minister to direct his attention to the problem, which is that although we have the aids that we want for the elderly the original purpose has been frustrated because that has not been married with the provision of telephones. The pensioner in question died. I hope that the Minister can help prevent similar tragedies.
I should like to end on a note of friendship and courtesy to my former hon. Friends, but their standard of behaviour is so appalling that if ever I think again about what I had to do last December the hon. Member for Workington will have told me how right I was.
6.37 pm
Mrs. Sheila Faith: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who is closely related to my distinguished predecessor at Belper. Today, as always, the Government are being blamed not only for the world recession and the shortcomings of all previous Governments, but for every day in which we have experienced blizzards, flooding, fog and other inclement weather. However, the pensioners have the right to choose and to decide for themselves.
584
Before the 1979 general election there had been 13 years of Labour Government and 13 years of Conservative Government. The elderly people knew when they were well off. Over 50 per cent. of those over 65 voted Conservative, and I know that at the next general election they will vote Conservative again, because they know that pensions will be protected.
The Government's long-term objective is a system that could stop pensioners having to pay taxes. I have never heard of any practical proposals on the Labour Party's agenda. It simply has pie-in-the-sky promises or, as some of my hon. Friends have said, rhetoric, and nothing else to offer.
Mr. James Hamilton: We promised in our manifesto that if we were elected we would give free television licences to the old people in the lifetime of a Parliament. Can the hon. Lady match that?
Mrs. Faith: That suggestion was also made before the 1974 general election. The Labour candidate in my constituency promised it, but it did not happen. The present Government have been more generous in their fuel allowances than previous Governments were. It should be noted that in 1975–76 disconnections were higher both for gas and electricity than in any year during the present Government's term of office.
We should all make it known to our elderly constituents that the Government give a 90 per cent. grant to pensioners to cover home insulation costs.
I agree that today's debate is very important because, as other hon. Members have already said, there will be a rapid increase in the number of elderly people by the end of the century. In fact, hon. Members have already said that there will be a 20 per cent. increase in the 75 to 80 age group over the next 10 years, that improvements in medical knowledge and the resulting increased longevity will mean that the over-85 age group will increase by 30 per cent. and that by 1990 there will be half a million more people over 75. Therefore, it is very important that we look today at ways of improving the lot of the elderly arid of maintaining the largest possible number of fit, happy and active members of the community.
I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am privileged to be a member—and I see that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), the Chairman of the Committee, and the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), a fellow member, are hoping to speak later—is looking into the age of retirement, and I hope that we shall recommend a more flexible retirement age. Account must be taken of the fact that some people wear better than others; some people would like to keep on working arid keep their jobs until they are over 65, whilst others cannot wait to retire and want to give more time to their hobbies and other interests at an earlier age. Many elderly people, when they retire, still like to work part-time. I am delighted that the Government have enabled pensioners to earn £52 per week without having their pensions reduced. I welcome the fact that the eventual abolition of the earnings rule is one of the most important commitments of our party.
Mr.Foulkes rose—
Mrs. Faith: I am sorry but I cannot give way since other hon. Members want to speak.

585
This commitment was reaffirmed in the White Paper "Growing Older" which was published last year.
The Seebohm report, published in the late 1960s, showed that an overwhelming majority of elderly people are happily living in the community, and when they are sick they are looked after by relatives and friends. Long may that continue However, there are those who have no families or who may be living away from them, and many rely on the local authority's social services for home helps and other assistance. The previous Secretary of State for Social Services advised local authorities to protect these services for the old and frail, and they have done so. There has been a 4 per cent. increase in spending on the personal social services in real terms during the past two and a half years. I have tremendous admiration and respect for the people in my constituency who do so much for the elderly on a voluntary basis. Rural areas have a high proportion of elderly people and more and more villages have no chemist's shop and no doctor. I particularly welcome those who organise for elderly people transport to shops and hospitals. It is also pleasing that many housing estates with a large number of elderly residents operate voluntary warden schemes.
The Opposition are only now beginning to realise the excellent work being carried out by the voluntary sector, for it should be remembered that 3 million people work in voluntary associations; that 60 per cent. of meals on wheels are delivered by voluntary organisations; and that many volunteers organise luncheon and tea clubs. In my experience, many of the volunteers themselves are long past retirement age, still have tremendous energy and vitality and enjoy using their organisational skills. I welcome, therefore, the extra money being given to Age Concern and other organisations to train volunteers and professionals.
It is the wish of most people to stay in their homes for as long as possible. I am glad that housing schemes for the elderly now show great imagination, for it costs £20,000 in capital costs to provide a home for an old person in residential care, not accounting for staff and other costs. So it make sense to try to help as many people as possible to retain their independence and, most importantly, that is what the elderly prefer.
An article published recently in The Daily Telegraph by Dr. Vernon Coleman pointed out that elderly people in homes quickly become institutionalised and sit all day staring into space. We have all seen it when visiting homes in our constituencies. Residents should be encouraged to share in the chores, to go out freely in the community. That does happen in the more enlightened homes, but too often the residents are over-protected. I hope that these matters will be considered and will be mentioned in the new consultative document that I look forward to reading.
The members of the National Federation of Housing Associations have produced 47,000 specially-designed units for the elderly. The associations provide a high proportion of all sheltered housing. That allows for diversification and new initiatives. We should also remember that there is a growing number of private retirement housing schemes, and, just as in private health and private education, these schemes can set the standard for the public and the voluntary sectors. Private builders will, I am sure, respond to the increased demand.
586
The elderly person feels most vulnerable when he or she returns from a stay in hospital. Here again, I know that volunteers are supporting many elderly people during their days of convalescence. It is very important that there should be communication between voluntary organisations, hospitals and health authorities so that meals on wheels and home helps can be organised to commence helping an elderly person immediately after his or her stay in hospital. General practitioners should also be alerted so that they can make an early visit to give the old people reassurance. I believe that the new initiative will mean that more people will be able to leave hospital earlier, which is very important.
While in hospital, elderly people should be given the best possible care. I am sure that many become permanently hospitalised because of poor assessment. It is very worrying to many of our elderly people that they are treated in hospital by doctors from another culture and background. That may be of no consequence to a younger, more adaptable person, but to the frailer members of the community an unfamiliar accent may add to their confusion and bewilderment. I welcome, therefore, the Government's response to the Select Committee's fourth report on post-graduate medical education. I particularly welcome the Government's view that the United Kingdom should be self-reliant in terms of medical manpower, although still allowing here post-graduate training of doctors from abroad. Our young students should be given better careers guidance so that they know of the opportunities open to them in geriatrics and psychiatry—specialties where vacancies exist which are often taken up by overseas doctors.
I am pleased that the Government endorse the promotion of better careers guidance. When we took evidence we noted that where undergraduates studied geriatrics in an academic environment many more of them were attracted to this specialty. We also saw that private industry could be prevailed upon to fund a chair in a university if that was necessary.
When our Committee visited Sweden last year, we found that there were similar problems. One doctor thought it would be necessary to have longer undergraduate training so that all students could spend six months studying the diseases of the elderly. This should be considered here. All general practitioners and hospital doctors should have a better insight into the problems of old age. A large amount of the general practitioner's time must be taken up with the problems of the elderly, and, as well as those in long-stay hospitals, 40 per cent. of acute beds are occupied by elderly patients.
I welcome the fact that the Government are setting up experimentally three National Health Service nursing homes where nurses will have full care of the elderly and will bring in doctors from the community only when they are needed. Scarce medical manpower may not be permanently necessary to look after elderly patients. I think that this would be a very important experiment and should be watched with great interest. The Government have indeed shown great concern and imagination and are determined to improve the lot of the elderly.
Every day we read in the paper of brutal attacks on the elderly. Only today a headline in the Daily Mail read
"Thug beats up a widow of 93".
It stated:

587
"A hooded robber sexually assaulted an 86-year-old widow at an old people's home—and then stole her handbag containing £50."
It is shocking that elderly people are particularly susceptible to brutal muggings, and many are afraid to venture out at night. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). Heavy penalties should be meted out to people who commit such crimes. But it must be greatly to the advantage of pensioners that since the Government took office the number of police officers has been increased by 7,000, more forces are up to strength, and there is now a return of the bobby on the beat, so reassuring a sight for elderly people—and this at a time when the Government are spending taxpayers' money very cautiously in other ways.
Over the last few years pensioners have seen their savings eroded. The provision they made for their old age by making economies when they were young has become inadequate. The Government are determined to conquer inflation and they are likely to be the first Government for many years to reduce inflation during their term of office. This economic stability is of vital importance to the whole community, but particularly to the elderly. If the plight of the elderly deteriorates, it will not be the fault of this Government. I shall certainly support the amendment tonight.
6.52 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in the debate this evening. I speak as a former director of Age Concern, Scotland, and as the present secretary of the all-party pensioners group in the House. I can assure the co-chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), that I have no qualms whatever about supporting the Opposition motion, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), the other co-chairman of the all-party group, equally will have no qualms, because whatever twisting the Government do, or the Conservative Central Office does, to the statistics, they show quite clearly that during the term of office of the Labour Government pensions went up 20 per cent. in real terms, and during the term of office of the present Government they have not kept pace with inflation.
I am sorry that so far no Scottish Conservative Member has spoken. It is unfortunate that a Scottish Office Minister is not to reply to the debate and to the many Scottish contributions that I hope will be made. I am sorry that all the Minister's comments, not on social security but on health and social services, referred merely to England and Wales. That was very disappointing.
The Secretary of State described the measures that he announced today as a significant package of measures. It was an unbelievable description of a smokescreen of bits and pieces to cloud the issues that ought to be concerning us today. It is also very interesting that it took a motion put down by the official Opposition to smoke out the measures. I hope that they will have more success than the measures announced by the Prime Minister on 27 July. She announced an extra £4 million for the community enterprise programme for the current financial year. Nothing has happenend about that. I am told by the voluntary organisations concerned that the Prime Minister's officers consulted them only on that very day, 27 July.
588
I hope that the measures will do better than the £4 million announced on 27 July for projects for community support for the handicapped and the elderly. Since that is a matter specifically for the Department of Health and Social Security, perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell us precisely what has happened to that £4 million for the next financial year. Have the voluntary organisations been consulted? What projects will come forward? My information is that little or nothing has been done
It has often been said, indeed it is repeated again and again, that the measure of a civilised society is the way it treats its old people. That is a truism. The society for which the Government are responsible in Britain today can in no way be considered civilised by that standard.
I constantly get the impression when I come into this Chamber and hear the outpourings of Conservative Members that they are more concerned with and aware of the problems of the elderly champagne-sipping millionaires than of the real poverty that exists among the majority of our old people. They know more about the old Etonians of Doxford's who managed to run off with the investments of many of the elderly people who invested in commodities. They know more of the lives of the Jack Gills of this world, with their pensions of £78,000 from Associated Communications. They know more of the lives of ex-presidents of the European Commission who, even at a fairly advanced age, seem to want to get back into this place in spite of the very generous pension that they receive. They do not know the problems of more than half of the 9.5 million people who are living close to the poverty level. They will all be going out to their enjoyable dinners tonight or tomorrow, unaware of the problems of these elderly people.
I think that the titles of the papers on the elderly produced by the two Governments are indicative of their attitudes. Our discussion document was called "A Happier Old Age". The Government called their White Paper "Growing Older"—the dull expression of what the Government think about old age. They have spent nearly three years dismantling our Health Service and our social services.
Mr. Major: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how the National Health Service can have been dismantled when expenditure in real terms has increased, when there are an extra 21,000 nurses, 1,000 doctors, 1,000 dentists, and 2,000 occupational therapists? Does that not put the money where the patient will benefit from it? How is that destroying the National Health Service? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain why the number of people awaiting care practically doubled during the term of office of his party.
Mr. Foulkes: I ask the hon. Member to ask the nurses, who are getting paid less than they are asking for. I ask him to ask the people who are paying higher prescription charges, and those who are paying more for the dental services. I shall come to the question of the elderly in my own time. We have heard a number of Central Office briefs, and I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) will try to get in with another one about the pensions level.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shcreditch (Mr. Brown) talked about the pensions level. I agree with the Social Democrats about the pensions level. Do not twist the statistics. Ask the pensioners whether they feel

589
that they are better off now than they were under the Labour Government in 1979. They will say they are not. Ask the organisations that represent them. I will quote one—not a radical group like the British pensioners' trade union action group or even a relatively radical group like Age Concern, but a group of professional retired people, the British Association of Retired Persons, which is not a militant Marxist organisation by any standards. It said in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent on 20 January:
"As regards the national retirement pension, the Conservative Party chairman in his reply in 1979 to BARP … stated: 'We pledge to maintain the value of retirement pensions in terms of what they will but in the shops', yet the November 1981 increase failed to do so. Mrs. Thatcher admitted this when challenged, and said the shorfall would be made good, but not till November 1982. One promise having been broken, what hope have we that the next one will be kept and, even if it is, how are the retired to meet ever-rising costs of living until next November? What is to prevent the due increase in the national retirement pension being given now?"
That is what we are saying. What is to prevent it? Why cannot an interim increase be given? I know many of these people. The person who signed this letter, Ian Mackenzie, the chairman, is well known to me. He is a former lord dean of guild of the city of Edinburgh. He is not a revolutionary. He adds:
"The number of letters which we receive on these and like matters from disgruntled and angry former Conservative supporters among our members has greatly increased in recent months, and there is little doubt that the popularity of your party has seriously, if not fatally, declined among the near 10 million retired persons on the UK electoral role".
That is true not only of retired people but of many others.
More examples are available from pensioners' organisations and individual pensioners that give the lie to the claim that the Government have kept the pension in line with the cost of living. Even supposing that the Government had been successful, which they have not, many hon. Members—I see the hon. Member for Kemptown in his place—argue that the retail price index is not enough. The Labour Government agreed to keep pensions in line with prices or earnings, whichever were the higher, a significant improvement on the present situation. Many hon. Members would say that a TPI might be appropriate or that a separate pensioners index should be established. Pensioners spend a higher percentage of the money that they receive on food, fuel and housing. The cost of these necessities of life has gone up to a greater extent than the retail price index as a whole.
I wish to refer to the uprating. It is outrageous that hon. Members should repeatedly hear that there is no possibility of uprating pensions more than once a year. I am sorry to say that the same message was heard from the Labour Government. They must have been advised by the same civil servants who are advising the present Government. I am sure that the next Labour Government will tackle the problem. How can Denmark, France and the Netherlands carry out an uprating twice a year? How can Italy, a relatively poor country with about the same population as Britain, agree to an uprating three times a year? How are some countries able to operate pension increases on a trip mechanism as soon as inflation increases by a further 3 per cent.? Why cannot the United Kingdom emulate those countries?
I had hoped to hear more than Central Office briefs about the level of heating assistance being allegedly higher
590
than previously. I had hoped to hear an explanation of heating assistance that must be given to elderly and disabled people to cope with costs arising from the recent cold weather. Instead, the elderly are told a series of confusing and bureaucratic tales. Age Concern has been scathing about the additional allowance, which it described as
"Nothing new for too few."
Age Concern maintains that all pensioners should receive allowances, including people who get rent and rate rebates who lose out in relation to the additional assistance. The organisation suggests that fuel boards should spread winter fuel bills over the summer months. Will the Government encourage fuel boards to pursue such a policy? I recall that the reaction of one Conservative Member, when referring to the cut-off of £2,000, was to ask "Since when has it been Conservative policy to tax thrift?"
Another example of taxing thrift now arises. No assistance will be given towards meeting extra heating bills if, after paying, an old-age pensioner has £300 left in savings that may be intended to pay for his or her funeral. Is it not ridiculous to say that help will not be given to someone who has been thrifty enough to pay for his or her funeral because the death grant is inadequate? It is appalling that there has been no reference to extra heating allowances.
There has been a deafening silence from the Government over the death grant. This follows repeated promises. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) reminded the Government on 10 November that they had stated on 8 June that there would be an announcement. When he asked what had happened to the announcement, he was promised that it would be made before the end of the year. I was promised, as was the all-party group, that a statement would be made before the end of the year. On 22 December the Government had to admit that no announcement could be made in spite of pressure and a petition signed by 1 million people.
Mr. James Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of our colleagues will put forward tomorrow a Private Member's Bill, and we have heard—the information seems to be correct—that the Government will do everything humanly possible to block it and to make sure that it does not make progress? Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking that action? Will he say when hon. Members can expect an announcement?
Mr. Foulkes: I am glad to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton), who is a senior Labour Whip and knows about these things.
The Minister for Social Security, although unable to meet his promise to reach a decision before the end of the year, said on 22 December:
"I now expect to be able to make the promised announcement"—
he admitted that it had been promised—
"shortly after the Christmas adjournment"
— [Official Report, 22 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 373.]
Today is 4 February. There has still been no announcement about an increase in the death grant. Two perfect opportunities are available. An announcement could have been made today or tomorrow during the debate on the Private Members' Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I have heard not only from my

591
hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell, but from other hon. Members that there is a deliberate plan by the Government to "talk out' the Bill on the death grant proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. That is disgraceful. It shows the Government's utter contempt for the 1 million people who took the trouble to sign the petition. It shows an utter contempt for the 40 or more voluntary organisations whom the Government purport to support who are part of the Dignity in Death Alliance.
The Government repeatedly point to an alleged increase in spending in real terms in the Health Service. I have yet to hear evidence of it from my talks with representatives of health boards. I invite the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene. I have yet to find, in any part of Scotland, evidence of an increase in real terms. Even in the area of the Ayrshire and Arran health board, which has seen a relatively greater increase than other health board areas, I have been in touch with the consultant geriatrician at the Ayrshire Central hospital, Irvine, Dr. Grant, about a 79-year-old man living alone whose nearest relatives live at Berwick. He fractured his left arm and is in a confused state. His doctor recognised that he should be put into care as quickly as possible. The consultant geriatrician agrees that the man desperately needs some kind of residential care. He is not, however, the only case. The consultant geriatrician reminded me that I had referred to him two or three more cases. He told me "There are many dozens more and the list grows week by week". This greater need will not be satisfied by the Government's paltry increases.
I should like to have covered a number of other topics. I recognise, however, that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I have drawn up what I would describe as a charge sheet condemning the Government. They should be brought into the dock and charged with various offences. Those offences are failure to uprate pensions in line with earnings or even with prices, abandonment of the electricity discount scheme and the proposals for a comprehensive heating allowance, scrapping of proposals for a national concessionary fares scheme, failure to increase the death grant, breaking of the election promise to scrap the earnings rule in spite of what Ministers have stated, cutting of public expenditure in health and social services when the number of old people is increasing, reducing expenditure on special housing for old people, taking no action to help with telephone and television installations and rents, reducing the real value of invalidity benefits for the elderly disabled and undermining voluntary organisations that the Conservatives profess to support.
With that list of crimes and many more, there is only one suitable punishment for the Government—defeat at the next election, which will come shortly.
7.9 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). It seems only yesterday that we were both councilors on the Edinburgh district council. I do not believe that he has a monopoly of concern in these matters. We are deeply concerned on both sides of the House. The reason that a large majority of pensioners voted for the Government in the last election was that they realised that inflation was the greatest enemy to their savings and that if hyper-inflation took place their savings would evaporate.
592
In November 1976 the Labour Government increased pensions by 15 per cent., which was less than the increase in earnings, which was 19.4 per cent. In November 1978 they increased pensions by 11.4 per cent., although earnings rose by 12.8 per cent. I welcome the Government's commitment to make good last year's shortfall and to increase pensions in line with prices.
Mr. Ennals: How can the hon. Gentleman say that when he knows that the Government decided that they would have a 9 per cent. increase in pensions for this year., starting last November, with a retail price index of 12 per cent and a tax and prices index of 14½ per cent.? How can he pretend that the Government are protecting the pensioner?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have made it clear that they will make good the shortfall. I welcome that fact.
Mr. Major: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State he increased the pensions in 1978 by less than the RPI?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome my hon. Friend's helpful comment.
I put three points before the Minister. The first is the invalid care allowance. If an invalid has to be looked after he or she receives an attendance allowance. The person looking after the invalid may be entitled to an invalid care allowance. Single men and women are entitled to claim an invalid care allowance for looking after an invalid. Likewise, a married man is entitled to claim that allowance. The injustice of the present situation is that a married woman looking after an invalid is not entitled to claim the allowance. In other words, an allowance that is available to married men is not available to married women. That anomaly should be changed. I understand that the cost of changing it would be about £100 million. That is the gross cost. The net cost to the taxpayer might be much lower, possibly about £40 million, as there would be substantial savings in respect of supplementary benefit.
Will the Minister comment on these figures? If such a reform is too expensive, a start should be made by phasing in a new system by age group. There has been a precedent for this in the case of the mobility allowance. Something should be done in this connection. It has a bearing on those elderly persons in less than good health.
Secondly, at present a single old-age pensioner aged 65 or over is taxed if his or her income is above £35. The tax threshold, too, seems low. Last year tax allowances were not increased, but surely this year they should be increased substantially. I appreciate that the Minister cannot reply tonight. I hope that he will pass on my concern to the Chancellor.
Thirdly, there is a matter that was brought home to me when I visited the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead last Saturday. It affects a number of elderly persons and a great many persons who may become elderly. The problem is that those who are about to become redundant may receive a considerable sum in redundancy pay, over the £2,000 limit. Thousands of people have become redundant in recent years and received substantial payments. For one year after being made redundant they receive unemployment benefit. After that, if they have more than £2,000 capital, they do not receive supplementary benefit. If somebody receives £3,000 a few years before retirement,

593
after one year that person would not be entitled to supplementary benefit if he had spent £1,000. What progress is being made by the Government in their review of the £2,000 limit? It was impressed upon me in Hillhead that the limit is too low and that it discourages elderly persons from saving. I hope that the Minister will pass on the message from a colleague fresh from Hillhead.
I support the amendment. It is indisputable that the Government's help for heating costs is higher in real terms than that of the last Labour Government. I hope that the three points I have mentioned will be carefully considered before the Budget.
7.15 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: When the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) referred to the work that the Select Committee is doing on the retirement age, there were five members of the Select Committee in the Chamber, which is very good. They are very conscientious.
It would be premature to say what line the Select Committee is pursuing. It would be difficult to do that at this stage of the inquiry. What is emerging is that the pensioners and pensioner organisations want flexibility in the retirement age. We should do away with the compulsory retirement age. People should carry on working as long as they can and wish to do so.
It is significant that nobody has referred to the retirement age for women or suggested that it should be increased to the present men's retirement age. If women want to continue working after the age of 60, they should be able to do so. Likewise, men should be able to work after 65. They should also be able to retire before 65.
A flexible retirement policy should be reflected in a flexible working policy. People should be able to do part-time work and at the same time claim part of their retirement pension. Why not should two people share posts, as is done with some medical consultants posts? Why should it not be done in industry? We had evidence from the CBI yesterday that this might create difficulties for employers. If we are talking about complete flexibility, employers should find some way of making it possible. In that way many people could be encouraged to be active, energetic and lively for far longer. When the cut-off comes at 65, although it may be expected, it is a traumatic experience for many men who do not want to retire. Men who live alone find it particularly difficult to be thrust upon their own resources for the whole of the day.
I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestion. I emphasise that it is not the Select Committee's suggestion. As the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) knows, we are not yet discussing our conclusions, but I am in favour of flexibility of retirement age and sharing jobs. I hope that the CBI and employers can find a way of making that possible.
The announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Services that he is providing three homes for elderly people in Portsmouth, Fleetwood and Sheffield is a drop in the ocean. Providing for 100 people will not affect the situation one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of the monitoring of what the regions are doing for the elderly. But, as many of my hon. Friends
594
have said, the main requirement of all local authorities is for more resources to provide the care that they know is needed.
The alternative is for the elderly to be put into large, dreary hospital wards. When we were considering medical education, the members of the Select Committee visited hospitals on Merseyside and elsewhere. We all know of such hospitals in our constituences. They are depressing. It is a medical fact that people deteriorate rapidly in such wards. They have nothing to occupy them physically or mentally. There is also a scarcity of creature comforts and a lack of privacy. Because of lack of staff, there are insufficient people to give them the time, care and attention that they need and to keep them occupied. They may not even have access to television. They do not read and they do nothing active. In that depressing state many die rapidly.
As the hon. Member for Belper said, the Committee was most concerned about the lack of medical care for those people. The Secretary of State did not mention the need for more doctors and nurses to specialise in geriatric care. To expand our care of the elderly it is essential for doctors and nurses to have better career guidance. We need the facilities and resources to finance the specialty to attract more students to geriatric care. The Secretary of State must consider how to attract more able medical students to the specialty. At present most elderly patients are cared for by junior doctors in training, who may know little about the background of their patients and may have difficulty in communicating with them. It is therefore not surprising that no progress is being made.
I want to see a flexible retiring age, but for elderly people who have ceased to work local authorities should be able to provide the facilities that people like to have—homes of their own or accommodation in small units. If accommodation for the elderly is too big, again people find little to occupy them. They sit around and deteriorate rapidly. The secret of a long and happy old age is to be mentally and physically active—which may be why hon. Members live a long time. They are kept busy inside and outside the House.
To keep the elderly active when they are at home again requires resources. In their heart of hearts they do not want to go into homes. The expenditure White Paper shows that, certainly over the past few years, when the personal social services are reduced the burden is merely transferred from the local to the hospital authorities, with all the attendant problems and the deterioration of the people involved.
Old people worry about poverty, even if they do not need to. They need the assurance that the pension will retain its value. The Government must maintain its purchasing power. It is essential to inflation-proof pensions if pensioners are to remain in their own homes, active and happy and living a long and productive life.
7.25 pm
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is a great pleasure to hear the two hon. Ladies—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who spoke from experience, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith), who also made a constructive speech.
It is rare for me violently to criticise another speech, but the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) was abusive arrogance. He treated hon. Members with utter contempt. It puts the hon. Gentleman in the class

595
of the beast of Bolsover, which is very extreme indeed. It was one of the most scandalous speeches that I have heard. If hon. Members read it tomorrow morning they will see the utter contempt that that arrogant and ignorant young man tried to thrust on the House.
Mr. David Stoddart(Swindon): Withdraw.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Certainly not. I do not make such comments without abundant proof. The experience of my hon. Friends is collectively and individually 10 times that of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, yet he made contemptible remarks about Central Office. I do not like saying such things about anyone. It is the first time that I have said such things about another hon. Member for a long time. I hope that I do not have to say them again.
We have had some good speeches and some very bad ones. The bad ones tried to make cheap party political points. We are debating the future of the elderly. The number of people over 65 has increased by 25 per cent. over the past 20 years. About 15 per cent. or one-sixth of the population is over 65. The situation is getting considerably more serious. In 17 years, by the year 2000, 20 per cent. more people will be over 75. The number of people over 85 will have increased by at least half.
The young people and the breadwinners will have to carry an even heavier burden for the elderly and others on pensions. It is therefore idle for the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. to suggest that we should spend another £5 billion or £6 billion on pensioners. We must be careful.
How can we get voluntary organisations, firms and so on to assist in helping the elderly? The Chancellor can give some help through taxes. I hope that he will bring the age allowance up to date. The Government have made it plain that they will abolish the earnings rule. The Select Committee is considering many matters about the age of retirement. It will probably recommend such a step, but it involves time and money. Therefore, the earnings rule ought to be revised and upgraded a little. These are probably the only two precise suggestions that I have to make that will cost the Government money.
The standing charges made by the electricity and gas boards have to be made to cover administrative costs but I should like the Government to look at whether that could be done on the bills rather than by standing charges. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and not for the Minister who is present today, but the Minister might like to have some consultations with the Secretary of State.
The question of transport and a national scheme is exceptionally difficult, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). I have always been in favour of a national scheme, and I say that as a Conservative who is against every other concessionary scheme. I have never favoured the tobacco concession, the television concession or any other such concessions. I therefore find it difficult sometimes. The trouble is that it is an intolerable situation if one resides in Thanet or one of the towns in that area to see people come from London and all get free fares.
Those outside London have the same problem. It is most unfair. I was instrumental in securing the introduction of a concessionary fares scheme for pensioners in Thanet which was done by virtually an all-Conservative council. We were unable to match or
596
compete with the great concessions that pensioners receive in London, or certain other parts of the country. My attitude has always been that if there are to be concessionary fares they should be national or nor at all. The difficulty about the matter is that whichever party voted to abolish free fares in London would not get a single London seat. Therefore, I can appreciate the difficulties in London. I would rather abolish the whole lot and give the money to the old-age pensioners to spend as they like. However, if that cannot be done, we have to consider, unsatisfactory as it is to the general Tory philosophy, that it is better to do that on a national basis, and presumably along the lines of the British Rail scheme.
British Rail runs a concessionary scheme on the basis of half fares and does so because it seeks commercial advantages. Local schemes of benefit on local transport could be run, and provided that it was done on the off-peak hours, charging half rates, one could make money. Many parts of the country could do that commercially.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will fight the battle for having the pension paid through the computer system as soon as possible. It will save a lot of money and time if that can be done. If he speaks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that there would be no strikes in certain sections of industry, particularly on the computer side, the changeover could be made. This should ensure that the difficulties of having to wait six or seven months for payment of pensions was overcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) was largely responsible, as Minister for Housing and Construction, for a very successful programme. Many old people, certainly in Thanet and, I know, throughout all the south coast towns, live in houses that are far too big for them. We must have a massive campaign to assist them to utilise the value of their houses by either selling the house and leasing it back or by one of the many other schemes that exist and are set out on pages 28 to 34 of the admirable pamphlet "Growing Older". It is a first-class pamphlet and the DHSS is much to be congratulated.
Housing associations are also doing magnificent work and should be properly funded. They are introducing the idea of two rooms for one person—not only the bedroom, but a small sitting room and a kitchen. Those units are ideal for the elderly and are funded by housing associations. There are the sheltered housing schemes as well.
It is along those lines that we can do so much to enable the elderly to get what they want. Many of them want to remain in their own homes but they need to be persuaded to go into somewhere a little smaller and more convenient. It can be done, provided that they do not move out of their area. In Thanet I am always trying to persuade old people to move out of the large bungalows and houses in which they live and to ask the bank manager which of the schemes is best for them.
The 1980 scheme, which started in January 1981, is the most forward-looking scheme that there has been for repairs in the rented sector. That sector is something that one cannot mention to the Labour Party, but nevertheless a large number of elderly people live in rented accommodation. Under the scheme, introduced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, old properties can be pulled back into first-class repair and it is happening. Also, landlords can do the same for whole estates. This is all integrated.

597
The Ministry, in dealng with these matters, faces a similar problem to the one that I face in my other work for the House in tourism, which covers so many Ministries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services must have knowledge not only of health and social services but of transport and housing, plus an appreciation of the environment. It is just as well that he came from one of those Ministries before going to the DHSS.
All in all, we want to look at the future. Let us not argue. We shall have plenty of time for that when the general election comes and we can indulge in badinage with each other on whether it is 3 per cent. more or less. It bores me and it bores the public, and I do not like boring the public on this sort of subject. I want to see that we have a policy in which we understand the problems of the aged, have a real, caring concern for them, and do our best to implement that policy for their benefit.
7.32 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) spoiled his speech by attacking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who made a forthright speech, which most pensioners will welcome. For most pensioners it will be disappointing that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West, who, for the most part made a thoughtful speech, started with that attack.
Most pensioners will also be very disappointed with the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for Social Services. He offered them little hope. He spoke of these difficult times. However, for most of today's pensioners times have been difficult for most of their lives. They were born before, during or, increasingly, after the First World War. Those were pretty difficult times. Some of them will remember the election just after the First World War when Lloyd George was happily saying that we would build a land fit for heroes. But most of those people lived through the 1920s and 1930s, and they were hard times. They lived through the Second World War and the recovery from it, which were again hard times. Times may have been a little less hard after that, but it is tough of the Government to say that times are hard again and there is nothing for the pensioners. There are not hard times for everyone. In the high streets in most towns we can see those who are having hard times, but there are many who can afford to buy video recorders and other consumer luxuries.
The message for the Government from pensioners is "Why should it be hard times again for pensioners when the Government, in their first Budget, could afford to give fairly big tax handouts to those on average and above average earnings?". Pensioners might just be able to accept hard times again if there were hard times for everyone, particularly for the affluent, but the Government are not asking that. They are asking those on pensions and low incomes to make sacrifices again, but they are not asking that of the well heeled and well off in our society.
Let us examine the way in which cuts have taken place under the Government. First, the pension link between prices and earnings has been destroyed. That means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) stressed, a loss of pension for a married couple of £2.90 and a loss of £1.80 for a single person each week.
598
There was also the failure to uprate by the correct amount last November. That amounted to a 2 per cent. shortfall, or a loss of one week's benefit during the year. The Government have said that they will make that good. That is a misleading statement. They have said that they will increase the amount for pensioners next November. Therefore, by next November the pension will be what it should have been, but no money will be paid for the 52 weeks between last November and next November during which pensioners will not be receiving the correct amount.
The Government are not making the shortfall good for those weeks and pensioners will remain short. They will be one week short because of that failure and they will be two weeks short because of the break in earnings. The Government have taken away from pensioners three weeks' benefit.
If the Government said "We are not paying anything out to pensioners for three weeks", there would be uproar. They believe that they are getting away with it as they shave off each week's benefit. Most pensioners in my constituency are disgusted with what is happening. They know that they do not have the money in their pockets that they need.
We should not be offering concessions to pensioners. We should be giving them a decent income and allowing them to have the dignity to choose. Pensioners want not concessions but money as of right. We are offering not concessions but commercially viable services. It is profitable for British Rail to offer a special arrangement to pensioners as it is for a hairdresser to offer half-price hairdressing on a Tuesday or a Monday to drum up trade for the shop. These are not concessions but commercial ways of attracting pensioners to use services. There should be concessions only when something will otherwise be unused when everyone, especially pensioners, should be encouraged to take it up. There are buses and trains travelling around the country with empty seats and it makes sense to attract pensioners on to them. We should be very careful about going down the concession road. Pensioners want a decent income and the same right as anyone else to choose how they spend it.
In making his statement the Secretary of State set out five points. The headlines will have been written already. I suggest that the Government should come clean and tell us how much the five points will cost. It took the Secretary of State a great deal of time this afternoon to present his five points. I doubt whether they will cost as much as £1 million. They must be compared with the manner in which the Government have been attacking personal social services. By their treatment of local authorities the Government will have taken far more than the Minister appeared to be giving in his package.
For the coming year, the Government have cut Stockport's rate support grant by £2 million. Stockport is experiencing great difficulty in trying to work out its budget. One of the options that it is examining is, yet again, to cut back on the provision of home helps. It is considering increasing the charges for them. These difficulties are being mirrored throughout the country. The rundown of the home-help service has done far more damage to the elderly, to their right to maintain dignity and their right to stay in their own homes than any of the palliatives the Government have offered.
The excuse has been trotted out that we cannot have a quick uprating of benefits as inflation makes them necessary as there is a great deal of administrative

599
difficulty. I do not welcome some of the changes the Government have made, but they have made two changes in the benefit system that should make uprating very easy.
First, the Government said that they would simplify the social security system. Cutting it has made it a great deal simpler. There is now far less discretion. Fewer individual rates are paid out and consequently more of the rates are uniform. In Committee, there is a Bill to change housing benefit so that it will be paid by the local authority and not by the Department of Health and Social Security. Again, the result wall be that the system is simplified.
It should be much easier now for the Government to carry out a quick uprating. They will not have all the complications of the old discretionary system and they will not have all the complications that came from a variety of rates that had to be paid out because of the rent element. With those two simplifications it should be a great deal easier administratively to increase the rates. However, there was always a simple solution. If individual rates for pensioners could not be worked out quickly, the Government could always pay bonuses. A Christmas bonus is possible and surely there is no reason why an Easter bonus or summer bonus cannot be paid out. Such bonuses would give pensioners the amount that they lost during the year due to inflation. These are simple administrative matters. If the will existed to keep pensioners in line with inflation, it could be done. On too many occasions there has not been the will. Administration has been used as the excuse for not giving pensioners a decent income.
Several of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members have referred to the Select Committee inquiry into retirement ages. It is an important inquiry and should be part of a major debate throughout the country. Many elderly people are being steam-rollered into early retirement because society seems to think it is better to have out of work someone who is aged 61 than someone who is aged 17 or 18. We should examine the implications carefully. We should make it quite clear that if we have early retirement it will be in the best interests of the person who is aged 61. It should be for him to have the opportunity for early retirement. It should not be afforded to him merely because we cannot find a decent job for younger people.
There are a great many problems with early retirement. Hon. Members will know that some occupations, especially in heavy manual work, kill many of those who continue at work between the age of 60 and 65 before they reach pension age. However, we also have evidence that some people who retire at 65 lose the attractions of the work environment and possibly some of the purpose in their lives. They also die quickly. Clearly for some people the option of early retirement would be important, but others may not wish it.
We must not force people to take early retirement. If we wish to give them the choice, we must be sure that we can give them a decent income when they retire. At the moment the basic pension is not sufficent for a pensioner to live on for very long. The position is better if a man retires at 65 and he has had five or six years in which to have repairs done to his house and to accumulate a series of consumer durables, such as a new cooker and a new fridge. Those items last and will take him through the first years of retirement without any large bills having to be met. However, once those pieces of equipment must be renewed, pensioners find life increasingly difficult.
600
If we say that all people must receive pensions at 60, we are telling them that they have an extra five years of getting by on the existing inadequate pension. We are also saying that they have five years in which they cannot accumulate either savings or consumer durables. We must be careful that we do not force people to retire at 60 and give them five extra years of poverty. We must also consider carefully the impact that it will have on the State pension scheme.
Some hon. Members have said that when the Brian O'Malley scheme has been phased in it will make a big difference. It will, but if we bring down the retirement age by five years we must supplement the scheme because it will be another five years before it has an impact. 11 welcome offering people a flexible retirement age, but we must not extend the period in which they live in poverty.
I am bitterly disappointed that the Government have said nothing 'today about the death grant and have suggested that they will say nothing about it tomorrow. It is appalling that they should continue to tell the House that they will make a statement and then bring nothing forward. It would be much more honest to say that they will do nothing than to continue to half-raise expectations. We cannot expect someone to put off dying until he is likely to qualify. It is a mean thing for the Government to do.
Several hon. Members have referred to standing charges. I raised that matter in the fuel prices debate last week, so I will not go into it again. In addition to standing charges for gas and electricity, there is much resentment about the fact that elderly people cannot get a rebate on water service charges. In the 1960s elderly people received a rebate on the sewerage part of their water rates, but as a result of the previous Conservative Government's measures water and sewerage charges were put together, which is not logical, and the rebate was taken away. The Government should bring it back.
The Opposition must spell out firmly that one cannot get anything for nothing. The Labour Party, when it comes to power, must be firmly committed to spending substantial sums of money on raising pensions to a decent level that will give people some dignity in old age. However, we must ask how it will be paid for. It will be paid for by redistributing income in Britain. There will be a cut in the amount of money that the well-off and those in work can enjoy, which will be given to the pensioners. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), when he replies, will make it clear that the programme to which we are committing ourselves can be paid for. He must also tell the House who must pay for it.
7.54 pm
Mr. John Major: The motion that we are debating today is very opportunistic. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may scoff at that, but if he listens I shall show him why that is so.
The substance of the motion and the position of pensioners and the elderly is a matter of great importance. It would have been greatly to the benefit of the House if a Supply day motion of such importance had been put down a little earlier than very late on Wednesday night. Many hon. Members, having studied the motion, would have welcomed the opportunity to research further into the comments that we might have made this afternoon. Had

601
the timing of the motion been less tardy, we might have had a higher quality of contributions to the debate than has been the case.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I know that the motion was down in the Table Office by four o'clock yesterday afternoon, because I added my name to it then.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman says that the motion was down at four o'clock. I assure him that I inquired much later than that and was told that the terms of the motion were not available. I see the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) nodding, so perhaps he suffered the same problem.
When the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) opened the debate, I thought in the first few moments that he would raise the tenor of the motion and would consider some of the realistic problems that pensioners face and some of the policy options that could assist them. However, the second half of his speech—I am sorry that he is not here now—fell well below the level of events.
It is a facet of Labour Party spokesmen that when dealing with social services they degenerate into a climate where they view people as groups rather than as individuals. Pensioners, trade unionists or council tenants are all viewed as groups. It would have been a more realistic assessment of the problems that we face—to help those who really need help—if there had been some recognition of the difference in income and need between different members of the elderly community and of their wide individuality. Yet there was no recognition that, although many elderly people in our society are poor, many are not, and others are exceedingly wealthy.
The hon. Member for Bolsover, whom I welcome back to the Chamber, exploded in some rage about Mr. Jack Gill. I understand his rage, but under the policies propounded by the Opposition Mr. Gill and others of similar wealth would be as entitled to free bus passes and other communal benefits as anyone in real need. Where there are superfluous resources, I have no objection to that. However, when there is a genuine need that has not been fully met in many parts of the elderly community, more selectivity would enable those genuine needs to be met.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should follow through the logic of what he has said in terms of means testing such benefits. Only the other day his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government would be allocating about £60 million, in view of the recent Law Lords decision on the GLC bus fares in order, to sustain free fares between certain hours. The hon. Gentleman should tell us whether he will support the payment of that £60 million, because there might be some Jack Gills among the recipients of the free fares during those hours. If matters go the way that he wishes, everything will be based on a means test, which will require more civil servants.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the substance of what I was saying, which was that the greater the selectivity, the greater the extent to which we can meet genuine needs. Given that we do not and will not have unlimited resources, that is a point that not even the hon. Gentleman can dispute.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd made a number of specific commitments on behalf of the Labour Party. He
602
said that it proposed to re-establish a link between pensions and earnings and prices, whichever turned out to be the greater. However, I fear that, as has been the custom in many of the pledges given by the Opposition during this Parliament, no costings were attached to that pledge, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) noticed. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech to see whether he would say whether the cost would be met by increased national insurance contributions or some other source of taxation. However, there was no indication either of the anticipated cost or of how that cost was likely to be met.
Mr. J. W. Rooker(Birmingham, Perry Barr): I apologise for intervening as I shall make a winding-up speech, but if the hon. Gentleman carries on in that manner, it is necessary to put the record straight. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) gave a pledge to restore a link between pensions and prices and earnings. He put a cost on it as he said that if the formula had not been changed, at present levels the cost would be about £600 million a year. That figure was given in an answer to a parliamentary question. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must be careful to listen to precisely what is said. My hon. Friend chose his words with care and put costings on the item mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Major: Had he let me conclude, the hon. Gentleman would have found that I was about to develop the point. If he says that the costing was given, I accept that. Perhaps he will explain how that costing is to be funded. That is the substantive point that I was going to mention.
There were other implied, if not implicit, remarks by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. He talked of the need for more home helps, for a six-monthly pension uprating, for a greater death grant, a greater Christmas bonus, for more social services expenditure, although he neglected to mention the increase in expenditure on the National Health Service, and for free television licences. He talked of the need for the abolition of the standing charge on energy bills and for concessionary fares.
In their own way those are desirable objectives, which I do not dispute. However, those who are in need who may hear those remarks are entitled to be informed what might be the cost of all those desirable schemes and how the cost of meeting them is to be funded. In the absence of that information, there will be considerable cynicism—we all know that there is deep cynicism about promises made by politicians of all parties—and people will suspect that the Opposition were engaged on little more than a cheap auction. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will disabuse me of that when he winds up, but I doubt that he will.
The needs of pensioners have been mentioned and are undoubted. Although it has been mentioned, there has been less talk of the growing difficulties in future in funding the standard of living that everyone without exception wishes retired people to enjoy.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for his parliamentary questions which elicited the following figures last year. In November 1980 there were 8.97 million pensioners. In 1986 there are expected to be 9.3 million pensioners. The more substantive point even than the crude increase in numbers is the percentage of the population who will be retired. That is a point of great importance.

603
Over the last 20 years there has been an increase of about one third in the percentage of people receiving retirement pensions. In 1960, 11.9 per cent, of the population received retirement pensions but by 1980 the percentage of the population receiving retirement pensions was 15.1 per cent., which is a substantial increase.
That increase is expected to remain stable for about the next decade, but within that stability at 15.1 per cent, there is a substantial difference. Between now and the year 2000, although the percentage of the population who are retired will remain at 15.1 per cent., their average age level will significantly increase. For example, the number of those between 75 and 84 will grow by 20 per cent. The number of those of 85 and over will increase by 50 per cent. There can and will be no dispute that the older our pensioners become, the greater their necessary demands and the greater the costs will be. Therefore, the funding problem that we shall soon face will grow substantially over the years to come.
There is a further point that the House should bear carefully in mind. Those figures were based on the premise that the retirement age will remain as it is. However, schemes are already in hand for flexible retirement. There is wide concern because of unemployment and for other social reasons. A considerable lobby believes that it is desirable to reduce the retirement age for men and expects that that may become fact in the 1980s. If it becomes fact, that will add materially to our funding problem when we want to ensure that our pensioners in the future have an adequate income.
I shall put those remarks in context. When the NHS was first contemplated by Beveridge, he estimated that the cost in 1944 terms would be £200 million a year and that in real terms the cost would not increase because the value of the NHS would prevent increasing demands for health care. Even when one updates £200 million in 1944 terms, one can see that it falls substantially short of the £11,000 million plus that is spent on the NHS each year. That mistake in forward planning was grotesque at the time. I fear that unless we genuinely and carefully look at the expectation of those who will be in receipt of retirement pension, we may find that our fundings are substantially wrong.
I fully agree with one point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. Whatever differences in emphasis we may have, the prime concern of us all is that the value of the pension in pensioners' hands should be as great as we can afford. That is clear to all of us. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that it is better for them to have the cash in their hands rather than an insufficient cash level funded by a variety of stratagems at national or local level, or through some other agent of government. That is another problem of considerable concern.
We recognise already that the growing costs of the social security budget, of which a substantial proportion is spent on the elderly, are becoming immensely difficult for all of us to fund. It is now 25 per cent. of total expenditure. There is always a possibility of its increasing. A variety of assistance is available to the elderly. None of us disputes that it is necessary. However, we need to bear most carefully in mind that it is not desirable for the House to hold out before people the prospect of an increase in provision for them which, in due course, we may not be able to fund. It would be better to pitch our promises and
604
hopes a little lower than reality than to hold out hopes that will be greeted with great cynicism when eventually they are not fulfilled.
I should like to mention one or two specific problems that relate to the elderly. The first has already been mentioned today and I have referred to it on a previous occasion. The existing level of disregard for supplementary benefit stands at £2,000 of capital. This problem affects elderly people as well as those on supplementary benefit. It is widely agreed in the House that that is one of the most disliked of the social security regulations. It has little in common with Conservative philosophy to tell people who have in past years put by some money and aggregated capital that, as a result of the thrift that we have traditionally sought to encourage, they will be debarred from help at a time when they feel that they need it. Two thousand pounds is an insuffiient amount for people who, perhaps being elderly, would like to have some money put aside to give them a feeling of security which they would not have were it to disappear.
Although I accept the principle of the disregard., a limit of £2,000 is absurdly inadequate, and I hope that before the end of this Parliament it will be substanially higher. I suggest that we should consider a threshold of £5,000 before disqualification for supplementary benefit takes place.
Secondly, and related to the 2,000 disregard level, it seems especially absurd that in calculating that sum the value of insurances within the person's period of life is included. The Government ought not to accept or continue the principle that someone in temporary need of supplementary benefit, before being entitled to receive it may be forced to cash, perhaps at a loss, an insurance policy that has been held for many years.
I draw attention to another factor which I suspect that most hon. Members will have come across. That is the syndrome illustrated by kin Macleod's phrase of many years ago—"Poverty behind lace curtains". I suspect that there are many people who do not fall into what the House would define as poverty but find themselves on the margin. I suspect that many of our constituents put a brave face on exceedingly difficult circumstances because they find themselves just marginally beyond the level at which it is freely admitted that they would be in difficulties. I have no easy solution to that problem, but I hope shat the Secretary of State will bear it consistently in mind. I also trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear it in mind when he examines personal tax allowances in framing his Budget for 9 March.
People who by virtue of saving are in private nursing homes in their old age also face difficulties. Many people who, having put money away for care in old age and taken up a place in a private nursing home, find that inflation has moved on. Even with attendance and other allowances which may supplement their income they now and themselves with insufficient funds to meet the nursing home fees. I have seen a number for examples of that problem.
It is absurd that people are forced to leave a private nursing home and find themselves in a home run by the social services department of a county authority, when the State then picks up the cost of caring for that elderly person because there seems to be no mechanism by which the balance between their income and the cost of the care on

605
the private nursing home can be met. That is an important technical matter, which I hope that the Secretary of State will consider.
As we peer ahead we can see immense problems in providing for our elderly citizens the level of care that we would all wish. There is no doubt that if we continue to fail to bring down inflation, and to sustain it at a low level, we shall not provide such care. Previous Governments have attempted to do so and failed, and so have the present Government. That is why I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Miniser is absolutely right, even in today's difficult circumstances, to retain as a prime objective the reduction of inflation and sustaining it at a tolerable level. That is critical.
Finally, the excellent document "Growing Older", which was published a year ago, sets out in detail and with great clarity, care and compassion the figures and the problems of growing older in our society. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to implement more and more of the splendid ideas contained in it. If he does so, he may be assured of my support.
8.16 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall not go over ground already adequately covered by my hon. Friends.
It was regrettable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has said, that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) spoiled his own speech by attacking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), although he seemed most disturbed that the integrity of Conservative Members should be called into question, something that he seemed to regard as highly discourteous. I make no apology for referring to the hon. and learned Gentleman in his absence because after attacking my hon. Friend he did not observe the normal courtesies of the House but left immediately after making his speech rather than remaining to hear the next contribution.
When all the various arguments have been made in this long debate, we must decide where the truth lies. If we are dealing with men of integrity—and the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West gave the impression that all Conservative Members adopt a "holier than thou" attitude in these matters—let us test that integrity. I shall seek to persuade Conservative Members that the truth lies in the Opposition motion and that there is no truth whatever in the Government amendment. I sometimes think that the main product of this factory in which we all work is the distortion of the truth and that its boilers are fueled by hypocrisy. Today's debate is a good example.
The Opposition motion begins by referring to
"the major progress made by the Labour Government 1974 to 1979 both in increasing the real value of the state pension and in legislating for a substantial improvement in the provision for future pensioners".
Let us see whether there is any truth in that. What did the Labour Government do when they returned to office in 1974? At that time, Britain was facing the most dangerous crisis since the war. I make that point so that it may be compared with the present crisis to which reference has already been made. The Tory programme of confrontation and social injustice had brought the country to its knees. We had unlit streets, unheated homes, closed factories,
606
and the Tory two-day or three-day week that we all remember. Our national balance of payments was £1,000 million in deficit, and that was before the rise in oil prices. Prices soared month by month, and industry was enfeebled by years of under-investment. To top it all, Britain then had to contend with the full rise in oil prices and a worldwide inflation.
What did the Labour Government do? On 13 November 1974, the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Barbara Castle, said—and what she said was a vast improvement on what the Government are offering pensioners today:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about increases in social security benefits. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday announced the main features. The increases in benefits will take effect in the week beginning 7 April 1975. Thus, in view of the recent rapid inflation, benefits are to be increased eight and a half months after the previous general uprating in July of this year. My right hon. Friend went further and made it clear that the Government are planning another increase to take effect in December 1975 but that it is our intention to return to an annual cycle of upratings as inflation is brought under control. We are committed to increasing the level of pensions and other long-term benefits in line with the movement in national average earnings, unless the movement in prices would be more advantageous for those concerned" —[Official Report, 13 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 416.]
What attitude did the Tories take? They were not satisfied. One right hon. and learned Member, who at that time was in Opposition, said:
"The right hon. Lady will not expect me to comment in detail on a very long statement. Will she accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome her conversion to the need for more frequent upratings of benefits while inflation persists at its present rate."—[Official Report, 13 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 421.]
That comment was not made by a Back Bencher who suddenly had a rush of blood to the head, and perhaps wanted to impress his electorate, but by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time, he thought that pensioners should have an uprating sooner than the eight months or so that the then Secretary of State suggested. It did not stop there. In the Committee proceedings of the Social Security Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who at that time was the Opposition spokesman, made it clear that if his party were in office it would be committed by its manifesto to uprate pensions every six months. He said:
"It is well known that it has been the Opposition's policy for a considerable time to go over to a system of six-monthly reviews of the level of pension and benefits, a policy that we clearly enuciated in the February election and that, had we been successful, we expected to introduce in the months that followed. It remains our belief"
—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 12 December 1974; c. 174.]
I shall not bore the House for much longer. Many speeches tonight have expressed concern and worry about the plight of pensioners, but words and platitudes are no good to pensioners, whose standards of living have undoubtedly dropped since this Government came to office. That cannot be refuted. If that is true, and if there is any integrity, right hon. and hon. Members will join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight.
I have said that I will not speak for too long. However, I make one further quotation, which I think is worthy of note. In reply to a statement by Mrs. Barbara Castle one right hon. Gentleman made another reference to the six-monthly uprating.
"May I ask the Secretary of State a number of short questions? First, why does the right hon. Lady still resist six-monthly

607
reviews of pensions, for which we have pressed? Is it really only because the proposal comes from the Opposition side? Will she give the assurance that if inflation continues at its present rate she will reconsider her policy for at least 1976?"—[Official Report, 22 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1626.]
That was a question not from a Back Bencher but from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the present Secretary of State who has presented the case today. What about integrity now? Do Conservative Members mean one thing when they are in Opposition and another when they are in power?
It is time for truth. Those hon. Members who go through the Government Lobby tonight are insulting the intelligence of the pensioners of this country. That is not integrity. It is the time for truth. There are times, as life goes on and the decades pass by—politics apart—when people want the truth. If they do not get the truth it is no wonder that British politics are in the mess that they are in today. As time goes by people have less and less trust in the people who represent them. That is no wonder, when there are such statements. In my view, people are purely and simply being deceived.
I hope that hon. Members will search their souls tonight on this serious and important issue. I hope that they will think about the pensioners outside the House. It is regrettable, and certainly noticeable, how few Conservative Members are in the House tonight debating the plight of the pensioners compared with the full Benches when we debated the Lloyd's Bill yesterday. I hope that the public will take notice. I hope that hon. Members will search their souls and vote for the motion tonight.
8.27 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will forgive me if I do not follow him too far down the road that he was signposting. He spoke with great sincerity.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr, Major) was thoughtful and constructive. It was possibly the best speech that we have heard in the debate.
My contribution will be short. It will relate to four basic topics and perhaps to two ancillary items. The four main topics are inflation, retirement pensions, heating costs and concessionary fares.
First, the point about inflation was well made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). They argued, with some effect, that inflation's greatest effect was on those who had fixed incomes. That accurately defines a pensioner. It is pensioners who see their savings being withered, who see their company pensions being increasingly exposed. It is they who must feel the chill wind of inflation.
When we compare them with those who enjoy index-linked pensions, the disparity is quite startling. Many pensioners feel concerned about the unfairness of index linkage. Perhaps the statement to be made in the near future will place a ceiling on index-linked pensions, and perhaps we shall also see a higher level of contributions. Certainly, to the average pensioner, inflation must be the greatest evil. It erodes accepted standards. It also exposes and reduces the need for thrift. It destroys incentive for saving. It destroys self-reliance. People try to make provision for retirement, only to find that that provision
608
has been reduced, not through any fault of theirs, but as a result of inflation. Therefore, control of inflation must surely be central to any drive to improve the lot of the elderly.
It is worth remembering that the two largest pension increases have been awarded in the lifetime of this Government. Despite what Opposition Members say., pensions have been fully protected against prices. In November 1978, the single pension was £19.50. By November 1981, the single pension had risen to £29.60. Over the same period, the pension for a married couple had risen from £31.20 to £47.35. That is a substantial increase amounting to about 52 per cent. In 1982, pensions will be raised in line with prices, plus a further 2 per cent. Therefore, over a four-year period, and under this Government, pensions will be well up on prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West made a good point about heating costs. The Government have done a great deal and will do more. In 1978–79, £125 million was allocated towards heating costs. By 1981–82, that sum had increased to £240 million. Those on supplementary benefit will automatically receive a basic heating addition if the householder is over 70. That is good and helpful and should not be discounted. However, I wonder whether it goes far enough. Surely the recent bad weather requires us to take an even more sympathetic view of old-age pensioners. They are genuinely worried about how they will meet their increased heating bills. The recent weather has been exceptional and perhaps—with deference to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn)—it could be described as SDP weather, standing for "snow, deep and prevailing." This SDP weather certainly calls for exceptional and temporary measures.
Mr. Alec Woodall: Is the hon. Gentleman and the Government Front Bench aware that in my area pensioners who have applied to the local DHSS office for assistance with their increased heating bills have been informed that they must produce their heating bills for the previous six months so that a comparison can be made? If they cannot produce those six-month-old bills they are told "We are sorry, we cannot make a comparison and we cannot help you." I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not find that that is true of his area. However, that is happening in my area and I hope that the Government take note of that.
Mr. Pawsey: I understand the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman has made that point. If a pensioner is unable to produce the bills for that period he can apply to the gas or electricity board for the appropriate figures, which the DHHS will then accept. That is a help, although it may not go as far as the hon. Gentleman and I should like. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that at the end of the debate.
I am anxious about the size of demands that pensioners are likely to receive. The winter was bad and we should not make it worse by withholding help from our elderly citizens. Not all of them are receiving supplementary benefit. For reasons of mistaken pride many of them do not apply for supplementary benefit even though they are eligible. I believe that about 500,000 pensioners qualify for supplementary benefit but do not receive it. I know that my right hon. Friends have done much to publicise the benefits that are available. I am grateful for what they have

609
done and hope that they will continue with their campaign. Pensioners should take up all the benefits that are available to them.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) referred to concessionary fares. This is an emotive and complex issue and it is with some trepidation that I refer to it. The present schemes have many anomalies, which are known to us all. They cause a great deal of anger and frustration and lead to a demand for a unified national scheme. But no one has yet stated the basis on which such a national scheme should be organised. Should it be set up to match the best free schemes that exist? If so, exactly how much will such a scheme cost? Should a national scheme be based on the worst scheme? If so, how do we answer those who find that something is being taken from them?
Whatever we do about concessionary fares, a Pandora's box will be opened. One could ask why all schemes should be equal. Surely the schemes should reflect local conditions, local geography and local requirements. Local councillors who are familiar with their area should know what is best for their own local people. If it is argued that all concessionary schemes should be equal, perhaps the same could be said about rates. The present schemes may not be perfect but, I suspect, whatever we do will make them worse.
I said that I intended to refer to two ancillary issues to this debate. The first is the National Health Service. The NHS is more important to the elderly than to the majority of people in our society. It is worth noting that spending on the NHS has substantially increased. In 1978–79 we spent £8,850 million. By 1981–82, that figure had risen to £9,156 million. That is a substantial improvement. We now have more doctors and nurses and the waiting lists are shorter. That is good news for pensioners. No doubt those improvements are continuing, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will refer to them when he replies to the debate.
My second ancillary point is law and order, and we should not minimise the importance that pensioners attach to it. Many of them are actively concerned about the increasing problems experienced in their localities when collecting pensions from the post office. It is a mistake to assume that pensioners are anxious only about the pound in their pockets. They are equally anxious about personal security. Who can blame them? We all read about the assaults and muggings that occur. Some of us may have personal experience of them. We must look to the Government—law and order was a key plank in our election manifesto—to seize the nettle of increased crime. More must be done to make our streets safe for our pensioners.
Finally I refer to voluntary organisations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that local authorities were there to plug the gaps in the voluntary organisations and not the other way about. The Prime Minister was right, as she so often is.
I wish to pay a specific tribute to the WRVS—and not simply because my wife is a local deputy organiser. Through her, I have become aware of the good work done by that organisation, which looks after pensioners and provide meals on wheels. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will find time to refer to the excellent service provided by the voluntary sector.
8.40 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I agree with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey). I shall not pursue his remarks further.
During the period that I have been in Parliament, sitting steadfastly on this Bench, I have faced two Labour and two Conservative Governments. It is normal to have debates of this nature, in which the Opposition criticise the Government and the Government justify their policies. We are speaking on behalf of pensioners. As about 20 per cent. of our constituents are pensioners it is right that the subject should be taken seriously.
I shall not speak for long because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has spoken about policy. I accept, as I am sure the House does, that when the Government examine pensions and decide to increase them by £1 per pensioner per week, that involves a sum of about £500 million. Therefore, it is right that we should suggest ways in which pensioners can be helped without wrecking the Government's budget by asking for per capita increases.
I am glad that not too many party political points have been made in the debate. I shall follow that line and raise a few issues which, for limited cost, could improve the lot of the pensioner. I begin with communications. The whole House must be concerned about the diminution in the number of telephone boxes in Britain. The Post Office considers the income per phone box and if it is insufficient the box goes; if the phone box has been vandalised, it is often decided not to replace it. The elderly need phone boxes desperately, not only for their own communication but so that they can send people to telephone for services and doctors.
There is no questioning the fact that the elderly use postal orders more than anyone else. Many elderly people have no bank accounts and believe that the Post Office and postal orders are the right way to conduct their business. For the Post Office to charge 60p for a £2.30 postal order is not only bad value but a great disservice.
Sub-post offices are being closed, yet the cost of keeping them open is minimal compared to the needs of the elderly. March, in my constituency, is waiting for a decision on whether the Norwood Road sub-post office will be closed. The sub-postmaster receives £3,200 a year. With the business transacted there, it is nearly a viable proposition. It would cost a minimal amount to keep open that sub-post office, and keeping it would prevent pensioners from having to take taxis, get lifts or walk to the nearest sub-post office a mile away.
I share the admiration of most hon. Members for the booklet "Growing Older". I wish that the Government would do more to inform the elderly of the benefits available to them, of the existence of granny bonds and the state of the economy in relation to granny bonds. It would be right for pensioners to have the same explanations as those that have been given to me, in which the value of the granny bond bought at different times was quantified.
Finally, on the communication point, I share the sympathies expressed by the hon. Member for Rugby in that security for the old is simply not good enough. Attacks on pensioners are becoming ever more frequent and the Government could do more to encourage neighbours to keep an eye on them or fund electronic devices that are linked to the homes of old people who are frightened of the violence that abounds.

611
Neither side of the House has much to be proud of when it comes to the retention of the £30 death grant, which has not changed. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, old people who look to the death grant value and who are frightened of the undertaker's bill are tired of hearing that Government after Government will "make a statement" on that. There is a duty on this Government, as there was on the last Government, which they did not carry out, to level with the pensioners. We had all hoped that a death grant statement would come in this debate. However, I hope that a statement of intent will very soon be made to put to rest the fears of old-age pensioners.
Invalid care allowance should be reconsidered. It will not cost a great deal of money. It seems that one cannot obtain invalid care allowance if one is over retirement age. It is difficult to get if one is a married woman looking after a family, lodgers or husband, whereas it is much easier to obtain if one is unmarried. Surely a change would be of minimal cost and give maximum benefit.
If one reaches 80 years of age there is a bonus of 25p per week. That humiliation ought to be reconsidered. It buys one postage stamp and gives one 9½p to buy half a Mars bar. To reward people who reach the age of 80 with that sort of inadequate amount is wrong and there must be a great argument for either making it realistic or abolishing it.
The Christmas bonus was introduced in 1972 and is £10. If it is to be a genuine bonus, that sum must be paid in addition to an adequate pension. To call £10—an expected, budgeted and immovable £10 —a bonus is a distortion of the English language. It is high time, if anything is to be index-linked, that this should be. It would not, as a one-off, once-a-year bonus, cost a great deal of money.
We shall support the Opposition in the Lobby because it is right that an early report should be made to the House on a constructive response to the declaration of intent and the National Pensioners' Convention. I shall listen with care to the wind-up on behalf of the Government to determine how my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote on the amendment.
8.48 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair and I share representation of a part of the country which probably has the largest proportion of retired people in the country. We are honoured to represent them. They are dear, sweet people. I am dismayed that we should debate their problems with acrimony and the need to divide.
The people of whom I am talking have fought in two world wars for us. They have worked hard in peace for us. They have given the best of their lives for us. It is sad that we should end up divided about the way in which any party will behave towards them.
We have debated many times whether retired people should have help with paying their television licences, reductions in what they pay for tobacco, and subsidised fares. The debate is all about growing old. We all grow old, yet we are talking about retired people in terms of division. I am sorry about that.
612
We impose earnings rules on retired people, when the country needs the gift of all their goods and services, their experience, their knowledge and learning. Despite that need, we impose on them conditions governing the way in which they should live.
We need to move fast on the question of taxes imposed upon those who have grown old in the service of this country. They have lived in the service of this country. They share all the problems of people who are working, but they have to bear the burden of rates solely on the basis of rateable value. My constituency is not unique, nor is that of your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are similar constituencies along the south coast, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). Pensioners in those constituences have to pay rates because they are living where they are, with no relation to their ability to pay. I have constituents who pay water rates, but have no water. No attention is given to how our constituents can pay the rates.
Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents who are asked to pay bus fares in no way related to their ability to pay, to their savings, their earnings or how they live. We need to think of those people much more, rather than be divided about how they are to cope with growing old. Those who live in nursing homes have no redress, other than having hon. Members to speak for them. We all have to anticipate the inevitable problem of being buried. The cost is far beyond the reach of our savings or the Government grant.
It is sad that we should have to divide on an issue such as that before the House. We must consider much more seriously what it means to be old in modern Western society. For example, I have here a newspaper headline that reads:
"Old must wait five years for surgery"
Nobody can feel happy about having to face that. We must acknowledge that getting older should be enjoyed and should not be a burden. I hope that we can look forward to the opportunity to encourage people in their retirement to have a better, happier and more pleasurable life.
Across the whole field of the rating organisation of this country, I would ask the Government to look at the situation whereby that which is required of older people is that which they can afford to pay for. 1n my constituency, people, encouraged to save energy, have decided that they should put in double glazing, that they should try to put in more insulation in their roof, and that they should try to make sure that they live more economically. What is the reward? They are told that they must pay more because the rateable value of their property has increased. That is surely nonsense. I should hope that people who make an effort to make their lives more reasonable and more pleasurable should not be required to pay a penalty for it by a court's evaluation any more than they would be expected to pay in the court if they had committed some offence.
I am sorry that the debate may end in division rather than in terms of understanding the people of this country. They require the understanding of the House. Of course, I shall vote with the Government, because I believe that they are right in their attitude. I am only sorry that there should be division over this subject.
8.57 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I suppose that a lot of people would like to fancy that we can take pensions and people, their problems and their insecurity, out of politics. The plain fact is that politics are all around us and not just here. The idea that this is the only place where politicians engage in any kind of activity is nonsense. In trade unions, the CBI, the Stock Exchange and in Darby and Joan clubs, politics are talked all the time. There is no escaping from it. So the wonderful, ideal Utopia to which reference has been made is not for sale. One cannot have eternal peace.
The 9 million old people, a figure which will probably rise to 10 million by the end of this Parliament, naturally have priorities. They want something not just from politicians but from those who are accountable and make pledges at election time. The Government were elected on market forces, but market forces do not provide pensions. Not one old-age pensioner who had worked 30, 40 or 50 years would get any security, however small, unless the Government intervened. One cannot have a market force pension—although there are a few, of course. Jack Gill has one. He has one of about £750,000, and they are haggling about whether it should be only £½ million. I understand that he has an extra pension built into that as well. There are plenty of people who would not want the kind of placebo eternity which has been mentioned. Jack Gill would not want the same pension as everybody else. He has got his pension out of big business politics.
Saatchi and Saatchi could not produce a poster during the last election that said that Labour was not working in relation to pensions because on that score the Labour Government happened to be right. They increased pensions in real terms by about 20 per cent. If they had not, Saatchi and Saatchi would have had a poster to that effect on all the hoardings in the marginal constituencies up and down the land. That is on the credit side for us. Saatchi and Saatchi could not attack us on pensions.
So market forces are now prevailing and the pensioners are suffering because the Government do not wish to intervene. Of course they do not wish to intervene to give free television licences to people who do not have them. If they decide to hand over a sum of money, however many million pounds it is, the Jack Gills of this world and all those in the CBI and the Stock Exchange will get less. Of course, they will not look after the pensioners, which is why they throw out the glib argument that they do not believe in concessions for pensioners.
Those who live on the green pastures on the other side of society have always had concessions. We talk about free travel. How do we manage to come from various parts of the United Kingdom to do our job here? We get free travel, and Ministers get additional free travel. They will get free travel after they have voted tonight to stop the pensioners from getting the increase. They will have someone to pick them up and take them home and pick them up in the morning again, and cart them all over the place. Then they say that they do not want concessions for pensioners. Of course, they do not. They do not want people to have concessions and free travel, but I do. I believe in equality, and that is why I have always argued that what is fit for Conservatives and the establishment is fit for those who have been working in the bowels of the earth for 40 or 50
614
years, widows of retired miners and all the other wealth-creators in the land, and people who will not have a massive pension on top of their old-age pension when they retire.
I have had representations made to me in the course of the last few weeks. The tax authorities have been handing out the usual slips. There is a lady in Bolsover, among many others, with a widow's pension of £29.60. Her husband worked down the pit for many years and then died, and she gets £29.60 and £6 from the National Coal Board. In a conversation, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) referred to some other cases. All these people will be subject to tax now, because the politics of market forces decided that personal allowances should not be increased in line with inflation. So they are all being brought into the massive tax net. So much for that wonderful slogan that the Conservatives had during the general election campaign. They promised pensioners and small business men that they would relieve them of taxation and all this worry. Now we have the appalling situation in which thousands, perhaps millions, of people have been dragged into the income tax net when they are getting only about £36.
That is the indictment of this Government. Never mind about the palliatives and cosmetics that have been mentioned today. We are concerned with helping all of those in our society who have never had a fair crack of the whip. I want concessions for the pensioners. Conservatives have always had them. So what is wrong with free travel? They have just announced that they will allow the free travel to continue in London, and I agree with that. If I am called upon to vote on it, I will support it. But I would like to see free travel in rural areas which do not have their own transport undertakings, and some of us on these Benches will be arguing for similar treatment for those that do not currently have such concessions.
Mr. Stoddart: My hon. Friend is talking about free travel for pensioners, and of course I agree with him that there should be free travel, but does he agree that the policies of this Tory Government on transport are taking away the buses and the trains on which people could travel?
Mr. Skinner: If it was left to them, they would stop everything that helps the working class. That is what they are in business for. Their whole strategy is to shift the balance of power away from people such as pensioners who have had to work hard for a living, those who are still in work and those who are out of work. That is their philosophy. They will dress it up in fancy language, but the basis of their philosophy is to take away from those at the bottom of the pile and give to those at the top. This was well demonstrated in the course of the first two Tory Budgets, when they said that they had a certain amount of money to spend and they gave it to the richest people in the land in tax concessions.
What is wrong with having telephones installed for old people? I have had figures from the Government showing that the number of telephone installations has fallen. Telephone installations are down by several thousand. It is the same story in the county of Derbyshire, which had a Tory-controlled county council until May 1981. Old people's holidays have also been affected. All the concessions for old people are being whittled away and undermined.

615
There is, however, a side of our economy that is doing very well. I recognise, in asking for half average earnings for married pensioners and one-third for single pensioners, that I have to be able to answer the question "Where will the money come from?" I have also called for early retirement similar to the scheme available for miners, which does not simply leave them to fall back on the old-age pension but gives them an incentive to finish work. The same question, "Where does the money come from?", has to be answered. According to Sir Richard O'Brien, chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, sacked today for having made the statement, the Government are already pouring out £13,000 million to pursue their employment strategy. What a great thing it would be if those people could get back to work. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are challenged to say where the money can be found. There is a pile of money that should be redistributed in favour of old-age pensioners.
In the casino economy, unlike the industrial economy, it is a different ball game. Money follows money in accordance with the market force philosophy. There is not much chance for pensioners to get into that economy. When interest rates are 17 and 18 per cent, and prime rates in the United States even higher, money is circulating all the time. While those on the scrap heap and old age pensioners have to suffer, others are getting very rich and very fat.
I hope that we are not simply engaged today in a paper exercise. I say that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. From now until the election we should concentrate on demonstrating to people that we are committed to redistributing wealth in favour of working class people and their families. That also means nine million to 10 million pensioners. It is true that the previous Government raised pensions by 20 per cent. in real terms. We have to do better still next time. We have to look after our people.
That lot on the Government Benches have demonstrated, by wrecking the economy, by pushing thousands of firms out of business and by reducing the potential to give money to pensioners, that they can look after their own. Their kind of pensioners, those who have left the Stock Exchange, are not like our friends such as Jack Jones, who has been listening to the debate. He did not leave his job in the trade union movement to take a fat number in the city. He joined the old-age pensioners' movement. He has always been concerned to try to ensure that we on the Labour Benches look after pensioners. That is the mandate for the next Labour Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will refer to some of these matters.
9.7 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the next two and a half minutes, I cannot possibly answer all the points raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I should like, however, to point out strongly, with both parties committed at least to maintaining the real value of the State retirement pension, that the loss to pensioners is the impact of inflation during the year. If inflation is running at 16 per cent. a year, they lose 8 per cent. on average in their standard of living. If inflation comes down to 12 or 10 per cent., the loss in value of the pension is reduced. I should like to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) what
616
contribution he believes those still working should make during the next 12 months in terms of our own pay settlements to make sure that those settlements come below the increase in retirement pensions to be announced in November.
A consistent approach by both sides of the House towards reducing inflation year by year until it is eliminated would create more employment, generate more real wealth and reduce the impact of inflation on the retirement pension as years pass.
I finish by giving a classic example of how the impact of our behaviour at work affects the old people. Pensioners are expected to come to this House on a Tuesday. On Tuesday we expect a rail strike. The same point applies if it is a Thursday. If there is a rail strike, can they all come here? No. They cannot come because people insist on having an 11 per cent. wage increase with no improvement in productivity. If we are to produce a better standard of living for our pensioners we have to improve the productivity of those still at work.
Building up pensions for those who retire is part of a transfer of resources in a working life. The same applies to child benefit. It is important that the Government have a wider discussion so that we can all talk about transfers during the family life cycle to look after the elderly, the sick, the unemployed and those below school leaving age, so that when they are of working age they can pay for what they have had and for what they hope that they will get when they retire.
9.11 pm
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I hope that I shall not upset hon. Members when I say that in the time available I could not answer all the questions that it appears that I am expected to, but I shall add a little to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said.
It is an Opposition Supply Day. It is an Opposition motion that asks the Government to say something and answer questions. The Secretary of State for Social Services did not measure up to the subject. He introduced a package of five points, but he did not put a cost on them. It might be illuminating if the Minister of State will tell us what the projected cost of that package is. It cannot be much more than about £1 million a year on the basis of what the Secretary of State said. In our motion we ask for an early report by the Government on how a constructive response may be made to the declaration of intent of the national pensioners' convention.
The pensioners' convention will lobby the House on 18 February. It will be the first time that the Prime Minister has met a deputation from the pensioners' convention and we are grateful that she is to do so. We hope that on 18 February the Prime Minister will not just learn something but will give some answers.
The Prime Minister will need to be better briefed on that day than the Secretary of State is today. He did not refer to any of the details of the declaration of intent. It will not wash with the leader of the pensioners' convention, such as Jack Jones and others from all over the country, if the Prime Minister says "I have listened to what you have to say; now all go away and I will think about it". The thinking time is now and the next fortnight. The pensioners and this House will rightly expect some answers from the Government.

617
My hon. Friend the member for Pontypridd gave the background to and the Opposition's considered view of the motion. I shall not repeat his speech. My job is to wind up, and I shall not get involved in the rail dispute. It would be unwise for anybody at this Dispatch Box or elsewhere in the House to do that. But I say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, that the money is not really the problem that it is made out to be. If Britain were put back to work and 3 million people contributed to the economy and added only a value of £2,000 a year each into the economy, that would be £6 billion. That is a modest amount.
If the Tory Party thinks that when a Labour Government return they will leave the present income tax system intact and not make it progressive and redistributive, they have not listened to the debates and speeches from the Labour benches since 1970. The minimum that we will do is reverse some of the massive tax handouts of the June 1970 Budget.
I turn to the lifting of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions. Why should people earning over £10,000 a year—£200 a week—and more not pay a proportionate contribution into the National Health Service and social security system? They end up paying less in the pound for tax and national insurance than people on average earnings. It is easy to discover areas from where the money can be found.
The Secretary of State waxed lyrical about the contribution of volunteers, but every voluntary body is queueing up for assistance from the Government. The doubling of VAT has crippled their finances. The Government may go further in the Budget. If the Government believe that people should assist the elderly through voluntary agencies, why in January 1980 did they abolish our good neighbour campaign? It is one of the great quangoes that the Prime Minister keeps trotting out in reply to her hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). On 26 January c. 302 of the Official Report showed that the Good Neighbour Campaign Group was wound up in January 1980. That is a slap in the face for volunteers.
The Guardian of 20 November stated:
"New council spending cuts must go ahead despite risks to vulnerable—Fowler … New measures to cut local government spending must go ahead although some crucial services for the most vulnerable could be affected, Mr. Norman Fowler the Secretary for Social Services, told local authorities yesterday. He declined to accept criticism from social services directors, who warned him that they were reaching a stage where they were faced with a surge of poverty among some of the most vulnerable groups in society."
That is the attitude of the Secretary of State
I refer to The Guardian again but of another date. It states that the Government were warned towards the end of last year that a confidential report prepared by central Government and local government officials has argued that planned spending on personal social services, including social workers, home helps, day nurseries and old peoples homes was already inadequate before the new round of spending cuts was being planned. However, the Government persist with the cuts.
It is strange that I and my hon. Friends are constantly being told by hon. Members on the Tory Benches to take politics out of Parliament. They say that politics are for general elections and not for the Floor of the House.
618
However, let me get on—although the Minister of State tells me that he wants only 20 minutes, so he cannot have a great deal to say. I have a great deal to say on behalf of the Opposition.
I have already referred to the appalling circumstances faced by the Liberal-controlled council on the Isle of Wight. One of its options was to reduce the waking day—not the working day—of elderly people in residential homes to save £43,000. They should be put to bed earlier and kept asleep longer. That was what the director gave as one option. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) tells me that it has not been put into practice. The council is upset that the matter has been raised and wonders why Isle of Wight newpapers should be in the House—but that is where I got the information from.
The Hampshire county council is not Labour-controlled. NUPE workers there have prepared a report to warn councillors what is happening. Due to cuts in staff, people in residential homes are woken at 6 am, to get ready for breakfast at 8.30 am. Two care assistants are responsible to wash and dress up to 60 residents in the morning. The last proper meal is at 4.30 pm, with only a hot drink and biscuits before bedtime. That is Hampshire county council. That is what is happening in Tory controlled councils.
Unfortunately, there are not too many places with a record of Tory county coucillors getting up and complaining about this sort of thing, although I saw from a survey in New Society last year that in the South-East and South-West, the shire counties where Tory councils predominate, the councillors do only one term on the county council. Four years is enough and they are off. There is a fantastic turnover of Tory county councillors.
There is another point about the cutback in social services and that is that there is a cutback in the accountability of the Government to the House of Commons. We, and the country, will not be able to check on their weasel words and promises if we are deprived of the informtion on which to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) elicited on 2 February an answer in reply to his question about how many elderly and disabled people received home help services in 1979–80, and how many up to the most recent date in 1981 for which the figures were available. He received an answer for 1979–80 but was told:
"Comparable figures were not collected for the year ended 31 March 1981 and are not planned to be collected in subsequent years."—[Official Report, 2 February; Vol. 17, c. 117.]
The Government are cutting back on whole areas of information. A two-page answer from the former Secretary of State for Social Services was published just over a year ago but did not include the fact that the Government were not going to collect home help figures any more. That was in reply to a question in which I asked for a statement detailing the abolition and reduction of the collecting and publishing of statistics and reports. Every Minister reeled out massively long answers and from the Department of Health and Social Security came two pages. These are all cutbacks in the information that we need to have if we are to make the Government accountable to the House of Commons.
The booklet "Growing Older" has been quoted. It is the Government's White Paper and their response to the previous Labour Government's consultative document "A

619
Happier Old Age". The titles show much concern. But on page 9 of "Growing Older" there is a claim in respect of supplementary benefit. It says:
"New arrangements under the reformed supplementary benefits scheme which came into effect in November 1980 are designed to make it easier to understand and to encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled."
It is laughable to say that the system has been simplified. It might have been so done by regulation but no pensioner will be buying up the regulations, and if they do they will not understand what their rights are. I still come across constituents, as must every other hon. Member, who refuse to apply for supplementary benefit because they still refer to it as national assistance and will not go through the means test. Because of that they are deprived of other benefits.
It is all right for the Secretary of State. Next week, every household in his constituency will be receiving a welfare rights take-up leaflet so that his pensioners, elderly, deprived and disabled, can start to claim their rightful benefits. That is a service to his constituents. It has been done by Birmingham social services department. Those who live in Sutton Coldfield and are represented by the Secretary of State do not normally like to think of themselves as Birmingham-Sutton Coldfield but his constituents will get the benefit of the initiative of the Birmingham social services department. I hope that this initiative will have his wholehearted support. Distribution and printing have cost the ratepayers only £14,000 and there are million of unclaimed benefits waiting in Birmingham. I hope that we will not have any Tory Members of Parliament such as the one for Coventry who complained when his local authority ran a welfare rights take-up campaign last year.
Mr. George Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Coventry city council took this action, the Under-Secretary said that it was most unhelpful?
Mr. Rooker:We shall see what happens when the Secretary of State's constituents start to get the benefit. I hope that everyone of them will make an application.
We have heard from several hon. Members on both sides of the House how pleased they are about concessionary fares and the problems of existing schemes. I can remember when I was sitting on the Government Benches the constant crying from Tory Members representing shire councils. They would not institute a concessionary fares policy for their elderly constituents and they pleaded with the Government to institute a national one paid for by the taxpayer. We were on the verge of doing that. We had issued a Green Paper and we were about to introduce a scheme. The matter is not dead on the Conservative side because the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) asked recently—he knows this because my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd reminded him—whether such a scheme would be introduced. The answer he received from the Minister was "No".
What were Conservative Members discussing in Committee Room 11 on Tuesday of this week at 4.30 pm when there was a joint meeting of the Tory Party Back Bench groups on health and social services? The subject for consideration was concessionary fares for old folk. What were they discussing? Why have we not heard more this afternoon about what they are doing to press their Ministers—
Mr. McCrindle: As chairman of that meeting, it might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that we did consider the possibility of a concessionary scheme, on either a local or a national basis. After much interesting discussion we concluded that the Government's approach to the matter, on the lines of local authority schemes are those that we should continue to support.
Mr. Rooker: Any comments on that reply would be absolutely superfluous because the hon. Gentleman has laid out the position in all its glory.
The Secretary of State has described the declaration of intent of the National Pensioners' Convention—he has been reminded today by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd—as a strong case put with dignity and moderation. It will not have taken the Secretary of State long to work out that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has become an avid reader of the Sutton Goldfield News. As my constituency and the right hon. Gentleman's adjoin, we both read that newspaper. I f the Secretary of State has already replied to the West Midlands group of the convention, why could he not tell the House of Commons the Government's view today? That is what our motion asks for.
Our motion is genuine and sincere. We want the Government to make a constructive response, and report to the House of Commons on the declaration of intent. I warn the Secretary of State that the matter will not go away. I repeat that he has had more than enough warning about the lobby on 18 February.
The nuts and bolts of pension levels have figured in the speeches of many hon. Members. I shall not bandy arguments with Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover put his finger on the argument. If the Labour Government's record on pensions had been less than excellent, there would have been Saatchi and Saatchi posters up and down the country. At no time during the election campaign were the Conservative Party or its propaganda experts on record as attacking our Government's record of a 20 per cent. increase in the real value of pensions.
One or two Conservative Members have trotted out a statistic that has obviously been fed to them by the Conservative Party Central Office, or by Ministers. That statistic is that from 1978 to 1981 retirement pensions have increased by 52 per cent. whereas prices have increased! by 50 per cent. That looks, in all innocence, as though the Government have given pensioners a 2 per cent. increase.
The Minister of State knows—he has confirmed it in Hansard—that that 2 per cent. came from the shortfall between 1977 and 1978, which the Labour Government promised the House to put right. It fell to the incoming Conservative Government to carry out that promise. The Tory Government can claim credit for that marginal 2 per cent. because it was a leftover from 1977–78, which the Labour Government had pledged to put right.
Last summer the former Secretary of State went before the Social Services Select Committee. In his opening statement—it was his last pitch for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's job last summer—he boasted:
"We have made reductions in social security expenditure which will amount to about £1.4 billion a year by 1982–83, and I could give the Committee a list of how that figure is made up if it is required."
He did that, but the Select Committee could not ask him about it because it was sent after the sittings of the Committee. It was slipped in at the back of the Select

621
Committee report as an appendix and did not see the light of day until 28 January 1982, when the Government put the answer into Hansard at column 433. The figure is now £1.52 billion.
How is the figure made up? £500 million comes from the Government rigging the formula to prices only. We know that the Prime Minister's pledge to keep pensions in line with prices is a pledge not to increase them. By deferring the pension increase for two weeks only in 1980, that has the effect of depriving pensioners of £100 million in 1982–83 because of the Government's accounting system. If one takes all the cuts in the list that affect retirement pensioners, one has a grand total of almost £600 million. Those are the Government's figures, about which they were boasting. The Secretary of State must answer some questions about that. It is no good the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister telling the pensioners' lobby that they have done a good job, because his Department is on record as boasting about this massive cut. It is not true that the Government have maintained their pledges.
Many matters have passed through the House in legislative form since 1979 which are only now coming home to roost. One example is the cut that affects occupational pensioners over the age of 60 whose pension is more than £35 a week. Unemployment benefit starts to be abated in the first year. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked a few weeks ago whether the Government would take measures to rescind that proposal in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, for which he voted on a three-line Whip after a guillotine motion. The matter was not debated properly. The Government boasted in their answer that they abolished the abatement of unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners aged over 60 years, which saved £25 million a year. The Government passed that legislation early in the Parliament when there was still euphoria on the Conservative Back Benches.
In last year's Budget we reached the pinnacle of cuts on pensions. For the first time ever, in the tax year from 1981 to 1982, a woman aged between 60 and 64 whose only source of income is the State average graduated retirement pension is paying income tax. If anyone doubts that, he should refer to an answer dated 22 March 1981 at column 236 of Hansard. The then Minister of State, Treasury was asked to list the years when that had happened. He could list only 1981-82. It is no good the Government saying that they did not know about it. The Prime Minister received three letters, which she passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She said in her reply that she had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the problem. He replied in a 1,000-word letter late in June, long after the Finance Bill was passed, saying that nothing could be done.
The Opposition gave the Government Back Benchers two chances to avoid that situation in Committee and on Report with modest amendments to the Finance Bill. Women of 60 to 64 are the only people affected because of the operation of the age allowance. I refer to those who receive no occupational pension or widows' pension, but whose only source of income is the State retirement pension, and average graduated pension. If that is more than 33p a week they must pay income tax. I hope that the Government are thoroughly ashamed of that.
622
The Opposition have nothing to apologise for. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Our record is excellent. We ask the Government a simple question. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd outlined the Opposition's considered view on the declaration of intent of the National Pensioners' Convention. All we did was to ask the Government to make a response. I regret that the Secretary of State did not do so. I do not expect that the Minister could do so even if he tried. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.
9.36 pm
The Minister for Social Security(Mr. Hugh Rossi): This has been a wide-ranging debate. I shall seek to answer as many of the points as I can in the time available to me.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke not so much about the narrow financial situation to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) addressed his mind as about the need to look after elderly people in the round, their needs and their care in the community. I should like to say a word about that before I come to more controversial matters.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, (Mr. Warren) that it is regrettable that we should have to argue on party political lines in this sphere and that we should seek to make party capital out of the difficulties and hardships of others. We should seek to co-operate to try to resolve those problems.
Many elderly people are in no need of care in the broader sense of the word. Instead, they have a great deal to offer other people through caring involvement and the transmission of skills and knowledge. That is not something that we should ever forget. We should not try to cast off the elderly as people who are unable to look after themselves and who want to be totally dependent on everyone else.
However, within the higher age bands there are problems, which are often serious, which need a swift response from others. What sets elderly people apart is not necessarily the onset of disabilities associated with growing older, but the frequency with which such a problem might recur and the circumstances in which a person must cope with it. As with all of us, the principal source of immediate care and support is, and always has been, the family. Often that will suffice, especially if family ties are strong and if there are supportive friends and neighbours.
One of the principal aims and objectives of the Government's policy is to ensure that the part played by such informal careers is fully recognised. To help and complement such principal supporters we have emphasised the need for the development and strengthening of local networks of informal support and care—the community in action.
Mr. Ennals rose—
Mr. Rossi: No, I cannot give way. The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities.
Even so, there is a wide range of needs to be met. Many elderly people are isolated, do not have families and need help but lack support. Many others are supported by a caring family but at considerable expense and strain to those concerned. Many elderly people who are in residential care need help to avoid vegetating.
The Government's emphasis on the importance of voluntary effort to help meet these and other needs is

623
widely misrepresented as meaning that the State should withdraw and leave it all to volunteers. We are not saying that. We are saying that there is still much untapped potential in voluntary effort and that paid workers should work in partnership with volunteers, and statutory authorities with voluntary organisations to secure the best and most effective use of all available caring resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) drew attention to the way in which voluntary organisations can and do help elderly people in our community who are lonely or need support in some way.
Mr. Foulkes: And the Government tax them.
Mr. Rossi: The Government are also concerned with measures which would help to keep elderly people out of residential care or hospital. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has referred to the improvements that he is making in the joint planning between health authorities and local government. That is crucial to the success of the policy that I have outlined.
I turn to the financial arrangements, because Opposition Members are interested in how much money my right hon. Friend's proposals will cost. Up to last March, since joint funding was first introduced in 1976, about £150 million had been spent on the schemes over a spread of about four years. In the current financial year, the Government are spending half as much again—£75.3 million—and next year we shall raise the amount to £85 million.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much new money?
Mr. Rossi: That is new money.
My hon. Friend also mentioned this in connection with our great desire that elderly people should be helped within the community and not put into the kind of residential homes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) referred, where they sit around in large common rooms facing one another and which we have all seen when we visit our constituencies.
Mr. Foulkes: And the House of Lords.
Mr. Rossi: I note the hon. Gentleman's desire to retire there.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that we are setting up a pilot scheme with three experimental homes. They will be in adapted, domestic-style, buildings which will vary according to the type of location. There will be one at Fleetwood, a former hotel on the seafront, one in Portsmouth, a former home for blind elderly in a residential area near a school and playing fields, and the Sheffield home will be in a former maternity unit in the centre of the local community on the edge of the city. The homes will have a domestic atmosphere. They will be run flexibly and participation by patients will be encouraged.
A number of questions were asked about this and my right hon. Friend said that I would give the figures. Each home will provide between 20 and 30 beds, mostly in single rooms, because a far more homely atmosphere can be created if people are brought together in smaller units. We believe that a figure between 20 and 30 would allow this. The experiment is therefore proceeding along those lines. Moreover, the patients will be able to take in their personal possessions.
My Department is developing design guidance and operational policies, which will be available to any health authority that wishes to set up its own scheme. In this
624
connection, my Department will be holding a seminar this autumn on support for elderly people in the community. There has been a substantial programme of research by Government Departments and other agencies, and we want to provide the opportunity for researchers and practitioners to come together for a comprehensive dissemination of significant findings which, when implemented, will help to improve the quality of life and standards of care of elderly people. That is our concern. The seminar will extend over three days, and the participants will include researchers, representatives of local government, the NHS, and voluntary organisations whose participation is most important.
Mention has been made of personal social sere ices for the disabled and the amount of money that is being made available to that end. We have consistently asked local authorities to protect services for the vulnerable groups in the community. That, of course, includes the very elderly and the severely disabled. The evidence is that they have done so to every possible extent. The latest figures show that expenditure on personal social services has increased in real terms by 7 per cent. since 1978–79.
I was asked about home helps. The number of whole-time equivalent home helps in England has not fallen in the past two years. Between 30 September 1978 and September 1980, there has been an increase from 44,700 to 46,600 home helps—an increase of over 4 per cent. We are aware, of course, that a number of local authorities—this matter was raised by several hon. Members—have raised their charges for home helps. Local authorities are empowered to do that, but we have asked them to do it, wherever possible, without creating hardship. My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State made is quite clear that those charges should not apply whenever supplementary benefits were in payment.
I come to the Opposition's package—the promises that were made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). I shall devote the rest of my speech to the subject. He said that the first thing his party would do, if and when it ever came to power again, would be to restore the earnings link. That is a very curious promise. The Labour Party, when last in Government, had a prices and earnings link. The curious fact is that it is difficult to see where the party kept that link or when it honoured even the legislation. The first test came in 1976, when in the 12 months to March 1976, prices rose by 21 per cent, and earnings by 19.4 per cent. The pensions increase was only 15 per cent. The prices and earnings link was broken. Now Labour Members have the effrontery to tell us that we are not keeping an earnings link when we have faithfully kept to the promise that we gave to maintain pensions in line with prices.
Mr. John rose—
Mr. Rossi: No, I will not give way.
Mr. John: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's haste to filibuster some more. However, it has not been denied that the real value of pensions rose between 1974 and 1979 by 20 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman dare to deny that?
Mr. Rossi: During our period of government it has risen by 52 per cent.
In 1976 the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Castle. admitted that she had changed the method of calculation. In an interview with The Times, she said:

625
"the historic method of calculation would have placed an additional burden on workers and wage earners of £500 million which would have inevitably led to higher national insurance contributions above those introduced this week."
That is why she did not honour the Labour Party's pledge at that time.
I tell the hon. Gentleman that to restore the earnings link, to make good the gap since the link was broken, would, by a coincidence, cost that £500 million. Mrs. Castle then found that she could not pass on to the workers of Britain the natural increase in insurance contributions that would result. I venture to say that if the Labour Party were in Government it would find it difficult to add to the national insurance contributions of the workers in Britain in order to restore something that it never honoured when it was in office.
I see the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) shaking his head at me. May I quote something that he wrote in the Pensioner's Voice in January 1979. That was another occasion on which the Labour Government broke the earnings link. He said:
"There is a statutory obligation to take these figures (i.e. earnings) into account, which was done, but no statutory obligation to get it right."
Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd? It is exactly the same question. How was it that in five and a half years of Labour Government there was a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of the pension? It was largely because we honoured the link—prices or earnings, whichever was best for the pensioner. Deny that!
Mr. Rossi: I do deny it. The Labour Party did not honour the link in 1976, in 1978 or in 1979. They left us with an up-rating deficit to make good and we did so.
The next item in the package of the hon. Member for Pontypridd is the sixth-monthly uprating. We all know the anxiety of pensioners about this matter. What was the last word of the Labour Government on the question of twice-yearly upratings? I quote the words of the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who said on 6 March 1979—not far removed from a general election—
"The Government think it more appropriate to take the shortfall into account, together with the general economic prospects, when the time comes to decide the new rates of benefit which will take effect from next November…We have now moved to a November uprating. We need about five to six months' forecast because of the tremendous amount of work that has to be done in making adjustments to pensions. We are dealing with over 9 million pensioners, and it is a very big task indeed."
—[Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 1076.]
When in government the Labour Party is unable to carry out such a step and, when in opposition, Labour Party Members make great promises that they know that they will never have to deliver, because their prospects of forming a Government is—as they know in their heart of hearts—unlikely. Labour Members can afford to be rash with their promises.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that there could only be an annual uprating because of the complexities. He mentioned that there were 9 million cases to deal with. Unless there were a complex system of withdrawing order books and replacing them with new books, at considerable extra expense, it would be
626
impossible to implement the uprating through the normal replacement cycle of order books in fewer than the four months that the cycle takes. To that must be added the additional time needed to prepare operational instructions once the new rates are known. It takes even longer to deal with supplementary pension cases because they require individual reassessment in each case. That is why it takes between six and seven months—the right hon. Gentleman's figure—to bring an uprating into effect.
The Opposition say that they would not uprate supplementary pensioners on an interim basis but would make them wait 12 months while the better-off pensioners are protected. That is obvious nonsense. If the interim increases were disregarded in supplementary pension cases in order to avoid a cut in cash income, there would be horrific administrative consequences. The Opposition have not explained how the extra cost resulting from the two upratings per annum will be met. At a steady inflation rate of 10 per cent. we estimate the extra cost to be £250 million, even if longer-term benefits—including supplementary benefit—were not given the interim increase. If all long-term benefits were covered, the extra cost would be closer to £375 million. If the special social security benefits were covered the cost would be about £600 million. In addition, there would be a significant increase in administrative costs. The hon. Member for Pontypridd then spoke about increasing the Christmas bonus to £20, although the Labour Government cancelled the bonus for two years running when it was only £10. The cost of such an increase would be £104 million. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a national concessionary fares scheme. We estimate that that would cost about £100 million. If we paid everyone a £200 death grant—irrespective of the size of the estate and of the means of those involved—it would cost £100 million.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Rossi: The total cost would therefore be in excess of £1.5 billion. That is the cost of the Opposition's proposals. They have not told us whether that cost will be paid from increased taxes, increased national insurance contributions—which Barbara Castle refused to do—or from increased VAT. The House is entitled to know the answer.
I felt sorry for the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). He was engaged in an argument with the right hon. Member for Norwich, North. He gave the five initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State scant and faint praise. He then told us about the problems of Hackney. The only contribution from the SDP did not indicate what the party's policy might be on such matters. At least the official Opposition gave us some idea of their policy, although it is all pie in the sky. It has not been costed and, as the Opposition well know, it is impossible to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that pensions had not kept in line with inflation. I do not know where he gets his figures from, but I must put him right. His statement was quite wrong and I hope that he will not go around repeating it. The basic retirement pension has increased by 51.8 per cent. since the Conservative Party came to office. During the same period, prices have increased by 51.6 per cent. The 2 per cent. uprating has been made ahead of inflation. Therefore, we have kept our pledge and will continue to do so.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 301.

Division No. 57]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Evans, John (Newton)

Adams, Allen

Faulds, Andrew

Alton, David

Field, Frank

Anderson, Donald

Fitch, Alan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fitt, Gerard

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Flannery, Martin

Ashton, Joe

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Forrester, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foster, Derek

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Foulkes, George

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Bidwell, Sydney

Freud, Clement

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Boothroyd, MissBetty

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Bottomley, Rt HonA.(M'b'ro)

George, Bruce

Bradley, Tom

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ginsburg, David

Brocklebank-Fowler,C.

Graham, Ted

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

Grant, John (IslingtonC)

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

Grimond, Rt HonJ.

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hamilton, James(Bothwell

Callaghan, Rt HonJ.

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)

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

Hardy, Peter

Campbell,Ian

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Canavan, Dennis

Haynes, Frank

Cant, R. B.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Carmichael, Neil

Heffer, EricS.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

Cartwright,John

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

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Homewood, William

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

Hooley, Frank

Cohen, Stanley

Horam, John

Coleman, Donald

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Howells, Geraint

Conlan, Bernard

Hoyle, Douglas

Cook, Robin F.

Huckfield, Les

Cowans, Harry

Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Cox,T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Crawshaw, Richard

Janner, HonGreville

Crowther, Stan

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Cryer, Bob

John, Brynmor

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kerr, Russell

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kilfedder, JamesA.

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Deakins, Eric

Kinnock, Neil

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lambie, David

Dewar, Donald

Lamborn, Harry

Dixon, Donald

Lamond, James

Dobson, Frank

Leadbitter, Ted

Dormand, Jack

Leighton, Ronald

Douglas, Dick

Lestor, MissJoan

Dubs, Alfred

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Litherland, Robert

Dunn, James A.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dunnett, Jack

Lyon, Alexander(York)

Dunwoody, HonMrsG.

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Eadie, Alex

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Eastham, Ken

McCartney, Hugh

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

McDonald, DrOonagh

Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

McElhone, Frank

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

McGuire, Michael(Ince)

English, Michael

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McKelvey, William

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

628

Maclennan, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

McNally, Thomas

Ryman, John

McNamara, Kevin

Sandelson, Neville

McTaggart, Robert

Sever, John

McWilliam, John

Sheerman, Barry

Marks, Kenneth

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

Short, Mrs Renée

Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)

Silkin, Rt HonJ. (Deptford)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)

Maxton, John

Silverman, Julius

Maynard, MissJoan

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Snape, Peter

Mikardo, lan

Soley, Clive

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Miller, DrM.S. (EKilbride)

Spriggs, Leslie

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Stallard, A.W.

Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Stoddart, David

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Stott, Roger

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Strang, Gavin

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Summerskill, HonDrShirley

Newens, Stanley

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

Ogden,Eric

Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)

O'Halloran, Michael

Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

O'Neill, Martin

Thome, Stan (PrestonSouth)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tilley, John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tinn, James

Palmer, Arthur

Torney, Tom

Park, George

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Parker, John

Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

Parry, Robert

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wellbeloved, James

Pendry, Tom

Welsh, Michael

Pitt, William Henry

White, Frank R.

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

White, J. (G'gowPollok)

Prescott, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Whitlock, William

Race, Reg

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

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Wilson, Rt HonSirH. (H'ton)

Richardson, Jo

Wilson, William (C'trySE)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Winnick, David

Roberts, Allan(Bootle

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock,)

Wrigglesworth, lan

Robertson, George

Wright, Sheila

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Young, David (BoltonE)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Rooker, J. W.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roper,John

Dr. Edmund Marshall and

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Mr. George Morton.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Body, Richard

Aitken, Jonathan

Bonsor, SirNicholas

Alexander, Richard

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boyson, DrRhodes

Amery, Rt HonJulian

Braine, SirBernard

Ancram, Michael

Bright, Graham

Arnold, Tom

Brinton, Tim

Aspinwall,J ack

Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)

Brotherton, Michael

Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

Brown, Micbael (Brigg&Sc'n)

Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon.A.

Bell, SirRonald

Buck, Antony

Bendall, Vivian

Budgen, Nick

Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

Bulmer, Esmond

Best, Keith

Burden, SirFrederick

Bevan, DavidGilroy

Butcher, John

Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

Butler, Hon Adam

Blackburn, John

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Blaker, Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

629

Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Holland, Philip(Carlton)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hooson.Tom

Channon.Rt. Hon. Paul

Hordern, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Churchill, W.S.

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

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

Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

Clark, SirW. (CroydonS)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Clegg, SirWalter

Hurd, HonDouglas

Cockeram, Eric

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Colvin, Michael

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Cope, John

Jessel, Toby

Cormack, Patrick

JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

Corrie, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Costain, SirAlbert

Kaberry, SirDonald

Cranborne, Viscount

Kershaw, SirAnthony

Critchley, Julian

Kimball, SirMarcus

Crouch, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

Kitson, SirTimothy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, MrsJill

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Lamont, Norman

Dover, Denshore

Lang, Ian

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Langford-Holt,SirJohn

Dunn, Robert (Dartforc)

Latham, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Dykes, Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lee, John

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

LeMarchant, Spencer

Eggar, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

Elliott, SirWilliam

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Emery, Sir Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Eyre, Reginald

Lloyd, Ian (Havant&W'loo)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fairgrieve, SirRussell

Loveridge, John

Faith, MrsSheila

Luce, Richard

Farr, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McCrindle, Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Fisher, SirNigel

Macmillan, Rt HonM.

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

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Fookes, Miss Janet

McQuarrie, Albert

Forman, Nigel

Madel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Major, John

Fox, Marcus

Marland, Paul

Fry, Peter

Marlow, Antony

Gardiner, George(Reigate)

Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mates, Michael

Gilmour, Rt HonSirlan

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Glyn, DrAlan

Mawby, Ray

Goodhew, SirVictor

Mawhinney, DrBrian

Good lad, Alastair

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gorst, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Gow, Ian

Mellor, David

Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gray, Hamish

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Greenway, Harry

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

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

Miscampbell, Norman

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

Moate, Roger

Grist, Ian

Monro, SirHector

Grylls, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Gummer, JohnSelwyn

Moore, John

Hamilton, Hon A.

Morgan, Geraint

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Hampson, DrKeith

Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

Hannam, John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mudd, David

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Murphy, Christopher

Hawkins, Paul

Myles, David

Hawksley, Warren

Neale, Gerrard

Hayhoe, Barney

Needham, Richard

Heddle, John

Nelson, Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Neubert, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Newton, Tony

Hicks, Robert

Nott, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Onslow, Cranley

630

Oppenheim, Rt HonMrsS.

Stanley, John

Osborn, John

Steen, Anthony

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Stevens, Martin

Page, Richard (SWHerts)

Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

Parkinson, Rt HonCecil

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Patten, Christopher(Bath)

Stokes, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas,J.

Pawsey, James

Tapsell, Peter

Percival, Sirlan

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Pink, R.Bonner

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pollock, Alexander

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Porter, Barry

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thompson, Donald

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Thorne, Neil (llfordSouth)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thornton, Malcolm

Proctor, K. Harvey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Townsend, CyrilD. (B'heath)

Raison, Timothy

Trippier, David

Rathbone, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

van Straubenzee, Si r W.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Renton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Waddington, David

RhysWilliams, SirBrandon

Wakeham, John

Ridley, HonNicholas

Waldegrave, HonWilliam

Ridsdale, SirJulian

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rippon, Rt HonGeoffrey

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)

Wall, SirPatrick

Roberts, Wy n (Conway)

Waller, Gary

Rossi, Hugh

Walters, Dennis

Rost, Peter

Ward, John

Royle, SirAnthony

Warren, Kenneth

Scott, Nicholas

Watson, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, M ichael (Scarborough)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wheeler, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitelaw, Rt HonWilliam

Shepherd, Richard

Whitney, Raymond

Shersby, Michael

Wickenden, Keith

Silvester, Fred

Wiggin, Jerry

Sims, Roger

Wilkinson, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Williams, D. (Montgomery)

Smith, Dudley

Winterton, Nicholas

Speed, Keith

Wolfson, Mark

Speller, Tony

Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

Spence, John

You nger, Rt Hon George

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Tellers for the Noes:

Sproat, lain

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Squire, Robin

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Stanbrook, lvor

Question, accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing
Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 221.

Division No. 58]

[10.13pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

Aitken, Jonathan

Blackburn, John

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Richard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bonsor, SirNicholas

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)

Arnold, Tom

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Aspinwall, jack

Braine, SirBernard

Atkins, RlHonH.(S'thorne)

Bright, Graham

Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

Brinton, Tim

Atkinson, David(B'm'thE,)

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Brotherton, Michael

Beau mont-Dark,Anthony

Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Bell, SirRonald

Browne, John(Winchester)

Bendall, Vivian

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Best, Keith

Buck, Antony

Bevan, DavidGilroy

Budgen, Nick

631

Bulmer, Esmond

Hawksley, Warren

Burden, SirFrederick

Hayhoe, Barney

Butcher, John

Heddle, John

Butler, HonAdam

Henderson, Barry

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carl isle, John (LutonWest)

Hicks, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hooson, Tom

Channon, Rt, Hon. Paul

Hordern, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Churchill, W, S.

Howell, Rt HonD.(G'ldf'd

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

Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

Clark, Sir W. (CroydonS)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

Hunt, Jobn(Ravensbourne)

Clegg, SirWalter

Hurd, HonDouglas

Cockeram, Eric

Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

Colvin, Michael

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Cope, John

Jessel, Toby

Cormack, Patrick

JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

Corrie, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Costain, SirAlbert

Kaberry, SirDonald

Cranborne, Viscount

Kershaw, SirAnthony

Critchley, Julian

Kimball, SirMarcus

Crouch, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, MrsJill

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Lamont, Norman

Dover, Denshore

Lang, Ian

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Langford-Holt, SirJohn

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Latham, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Dykes, Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lee, John

Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke)

LeMarchant, Spencer

Eggar, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

Elliott, SirWilliam

Lester, J i m (Beeston)

Emery, Sir Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Eyre, Reginald

Lloyd, Ian (Havant&W'loo)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fairgrieve, SirRussell

Loveridge, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Luce, Richard

Farr, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McCrindle, Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Fisher, SirNigel

Macmillan, Rt HonM,

Flannery, Martin

McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

McQuarrie, Albert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Madel, David

Forman, Nigel

Major, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Marland, Paul

Fox, Marcus

Marlow, Antony

Fry, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Mates, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mawby, Ray

Glyn, DrAlan

Mawhinney, DrBrian

Goodhew, SirVictor

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Goodlad, Alastair

Mayhew, Patrick

Gorst, John

Mellor, David

Gow, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

Miller, Hal(B'grove)

Gray, Hamish

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Greenway, Harry

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Grieve, Percy

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Moate, Roger

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

Monro, SirHector

Grist, Ian

Montgomery, Fergus

Grylls, Michael

Moore, John

Gummer, JohnSelwyn

Morgan, Geraint

Hamilton, HonA.

Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)

Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

Hampson, DrKeith

Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

Hannam, John

Mudd, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Murphy, Christopher

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Myles, David

Hawkins, Paul

Neale, Gerrard

632

Needham, Richard

Sproat, lain

Nelson, Anthony

Squire, Robin

Neubert, Michael

Stanbrook, lvor

Newton, Tony

Stanley, John

Nott, Rt HonJohn

Steen, Anthony

Onslow, Cranley

Stevens, Martin

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S,

Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

Osborn, John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Stokes, John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Parkinson, Rt HonCecil

Tapsell, Peter

Patten, Christopher(Bath)

Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pawsey, James

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Percival, Sirlan

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Pink, R, Bonner

Thompson, Donald

Pollock, Alexander

Thorne, Neil (llfordSouth)

Porter, Barry

Thornton, Malcolm

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Trippier, David

Proctor, K, Harvey

Trotter, Neville

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Raison, Timothy

Vaughan, DrGerard

Rathbone, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Waddington, David

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wakeham, John

Renton, Tim

Waldeg rave, Hon William

Rhodes James, Robert

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Ridley, HonNicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Ridsdale, SirJulian

Wall, SirPatrick

Rippon, Rt HonGeoffrey

Waller, Gary

Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)

Walters, Dennis

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Ward,John

Rossi, Hugh

Warren, Kenneth

Rost, Peter

Watson, John

Royle, SirAnthony

Wells, Bowen

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wheeler, John

Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Shelton, William(Streatham)

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

Wickenden, Keith

Shepherd, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Silvester, Fred

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Sims, Roger

Winterton, Nicholas

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Dudley

Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

Speed, Keith

Younger, Rt Hon George

Speller, Tony

Spence, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

Mr, Anthony Berry and

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr, Robert Boscawen,

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cant, R. B.

Adams, Allen

Carmichael, Neil

Anderson, Donald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cocks, Rt Hon M, (B'stolS)

Ashton, Joe

Cohen, Stanley

Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

Coleman, Donald

Bagier, GordonA. T.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Bannett, Guy(GreenWich)

Conlan, Bernard

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Cook, Robin F.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cowans, Harry

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

Cox, T.(Wdsw'th, Toot'g)

Bidwell, Sydney

Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Crowther, Stan

Boothroyd, MissBetty

Cryer, Bob

Bottomley, Rt HonA. (M'b'ro)

Cunningham,G. (IslingtonS)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Davidson, Arthur

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

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Brown, Rort (E'burgh,Leith)

Davies,lfor (Gower)

Callaghan, Rt HonJ.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

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

Davis, Terry (B'ham,Stechf'd)

Campbell, Ian

Deakins, Eric

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Canavan, Dennis

Dewar, Donald

633

Dixon, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Dobson, Frank

Janner, HonGreville

Dormand, Jack

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas, Dick

John, Brynmor

Dubs, Alfred

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Dunnett, Jack

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Eadie, Alex

Kerr, Russell

Eastham, Ken

Kilfedder, JamesA.

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'nSE)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

Kinnock, Neil

English, Michael

Lambie, David

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Lamborn, Harry

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lamond, James

Evans, John (Newton)

Leadbitter, Ted

Faulds, Andrew

Leighton, Ronald

Field, Frank

Lestor, MissJoan

Fitch, Alan

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Fitt, Gerard

Litherland, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyon,Alexander (York)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McCartney, Hugh

Forrester, John

McDonald, DrOonagh

Foster, Derek

McElhone, Frank

Foulkes, George

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

McKelvey, William

Garrett, John (NorwichS)

MacKenzie, Rt HonGregor

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McNamara, Kevin

George, Bruce

McTaggart, Robert

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McWilliam, John

Graham, Ted

Marks, Kenneth

Grant, George(Morpeth)

Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole)

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)

Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

Hardy, Peter

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Maxton, John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Maynard, MissJoan

Haynes, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Heffer, EricS.

Mikardo, lan

Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

Millan, Rt HonBruce

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

Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)

Homewood, William

Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby

Hooley, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Hoyle, Douglas

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Huckfield, Les

Morton, George

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

634

Newens, Stanley

Snape, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Soley, Clive

O'Neill, Martin

Spearing, Nigel

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spriggs, Leslie

Palmer, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

Park, George

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Parker, John

Stoddart, David

Parry, Robert

Stott, Roger

Pavitt, Laurie

Strang, Gavin

Pendry, Tom

Summerskill, HonDrShirley

Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Prescott, John

Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

Race, Reg

Tilley, John

Radice, Giles

Torney, Tom

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Richardson, Jo

Wainwright, B. (DearneV)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Welsh, Michael

Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

White, Frank R.

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

White, J.(G'gowPollok)

Robertson, George

Whitehead, Phillip

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Whitlock, William

Rooker, J. W.

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

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

Ryman, John

Wilson, William (C'trySE)

Sever, John

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Woodall, Alec

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Woolmer, Kenneth

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wright, Sheila

Short, Mrs Renée

Young, David (BoltonE)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Tellers for the Noes:

Silverman, Julius

Mr. James Tinn and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the action the Government is taking at a time of severe economic difficulty fully to protect retirement pensions against inflation, to provide for the statutory payment of an annual Christmas bonus, to protect the most vulnerable elderly people against rising fuel prices, and to continue the development of services for elderly people; and expresses its appreciation of the dedicated efforts of professional staff and volunteers who provide support and care for elderly people and their families.

Weather Damage (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. David Hunt.]
10.26 pm
Mr. Norman Hogg: I am very disturbed by the absence of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who has ministerial responsibility for the subject of the debate. His absence is, I understand, due to the fact that he has chosen, in preference to attending this House, to appear in a television chat show. It is known that he is substituting for another Minister who had duties in the House earlier today. Frankly, I must tell the House that I prefer his colleague's priorities and sense of duty. The hon. Member for Pentlands has acted in a thoroughly discourteous manner towards many thousands of people in Scotland whose homes were damaged by the severe weather. Above all, he has acted with gross discourtesy towards the House.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is a most unusual occurrence for a Minister to treat the House with such disrespect. Has the hon. Gentleman given my hon. Friend a personal apology in respect of his constituents? As was shown in proceedings in Committee this week, there is great interest in this subject outside the House.
Mr. Hogg: I regret to inform the House that I have had no such apology. I am, however, grateful for the opportunity to initiate a brief debate on compensation to Scottish local authorities for weather damage.
The debate arises from answers given to questions by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The Secretary of State for Scotland was asked whether he would adjust the rate support grant settlement for the next financial year to take account of the cost to local authorities of frost damage to local authority properties. The reply of the Under- Secretary of State was, to say the least, inadequate. He said:
"As my right hon. Friend announced on 12 January, a special grant will be available to Scottish local authorities which have incurred exceptional expenses in dealing with the effects of severe weather—mainly the additional cost of snow clearing operations and the repair of damaged roads."—[Official Report 27 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 876]
He went on to say that a circular would be issued giving details.
First, the circumstances are very different from those which obtained during the days of the previous Government. The Government have squeezed local authority finance to such a degree that there is no fall-back position or reserve cash to deal with the problems of the winter. They have cut the rate support grant and the housing support grant. They have presided over double- figure inflation. They have caused high interest rates. It is not good enough for Ministers to refer to the attitude of the Labour Government. The situation has changed. In addition, this winter is without precedent this century. Even in my constituency temperatures of 20 degrees below freezing were not uncommon. The extremely cold weather lasted for weeks.
The resulting damage was terrible. Of the 10,000 houses in Strathkelvin district, 5,000 were severely damaged. Of 40,000 in the Renfrew district, 16,344 sustained damage. The estimated cost of repairs in that authority is &£2.3 million. The estimated cost of damage in
636
Glasgow is £30 million, Cumbernauld £200,000, Dundee £300,000, Clydebank £500,000, Edinburgh £1.6 million and Monklands district council £750,000. Aberdeen tells me that it is still preparing its estimate.
If those costs are put on to local authorities' capital accounts, they cannot cope. If the money has to come from other funds, rates and rents will have to be increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, who was a councillor in the city of Glasgow, calculates that it would mean a rate increase of about 6p.
When whichever Minister who is found as a substitute replies, I am sure that he will mention insurance cover and the Labour Government's circulars. To save time, let me read from some of them. A Scottish Home and Health Department circular of 4 August 1976 states:
"The question of insurance for local authority property is one for local authorities to decide. Where for whatever reason a local authority refrains from insuring, they should do so in the knowledge that they will have to bear any financial losses and that no special financial assistance will be forthcoming."
A Scottish Development Department circular of 28 March 1978 gives the details of a parliamentary reply. The then Minister said:
"I shall pay local authorities involved a special grant of 75 per cent. of their excess over a reasonable threshold."—[Official Report, 23 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 757.]
The most recent SDD circular deals with storm damage in the context of the conditions which then prevailed in Scottish local government. I have pointed out that they are very different today. I have mentioned the cuts in the rate support grant and the housing support grant and the other disastrous consequences of the Government's economic policy.
Many local authorities are insured. Two authorities in my constituency are insured—Bearsden and Milngavie and Strathkelvin district councils. The former does not have a large housing stock, but authorities with a large housing stock are in a different position. It is not practicable for such authorities to insure. I refer to Clydebank, Renfrew, Monklands, Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow. None is insured. They have explained why:the cost would be considerable. I have established that the Scottish Special Housing Association is not insured and neither are the Government where they have houses. I thought that the hon. Member for Pentlands was to reply, but it appears that the reply will come from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). However, my next point is still apposite, and that is that the Edinburgh district council is not insured.
The bad weather caused damage beyond any precedent and beyond anything which might be reasonably allowed for in district council budgets. Secondly, insurance cover is not practical for the larger housing authorities and does not make economic sense. Thirdly, the Government's present proposals are inadequate to prevent the serious distortion of estimated expenditure in the current financial year. The costs, even if they attract a 75 per cent. grant over a 0.6p rate increase, will still lead to a large rate increase. Finally, I ask the Government urgently to reconsider their position. I hope that they will agree to pay the costs of the local authorities, non-insured charges.
10.36 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) on raising this important issue on the Adjounment debate. There has been great

637
doubt about the situation and a great deal of genuine anxiety. My hon. Friend was justified in every way in applying for an Adjournment debate to discuss the matter.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), is not present. It seems that he has preferred the BBC's hospitality to his place at the Dispatch Box when a matter directly within his responsibility is being discussed. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), who is the only Tory Back Bencher apart from the PPS, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), who has seen fit to grace the Government Benches while this matter is before the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East is right to raise this issue because local authorities in Scotland are facing an unprecedented disaster. Glasgow alone may be facing a repair bill of £25 million to £30 million in a year when the city's total capital budget may be as little as £50 million because of the Secretary of State's financial policies. Renfrew has more than 16,000 damaged houses and Edinburgh estimates its loss at over £1.6 million. It is clear that there has been a catastrophe. What is anything but clear is the help that the Government are prepared to give.
I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), will talk about precedent, but precedent can be broken when the situation demands it, and the scale of the disaster is without precedent. It is suggested that local authorities should be insured and that if they are not they must take the consequences. I am assured that insurance for large authorities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh or Renfrew is not a practical option. Ministers must know that it is essential that there should be a sympathetic and flexible approach.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Insurance has not been a practical option because of the considerable cost to public funds had the local authorities paid large insurance premiums in the past.
Mr. Dewar: I accept that in any normal run of bad luck with the weather, or with the fabric of housing, it would be impossible to justify an insurance scheme.
What is the position of a large authority with a large housing stock? Edinburgh, which is run by the Secretary of State's political friends, is certainly in that category, and so is Glasgow. When such authorities are faced with an unprecedented disaster they cannot be expected to deal with it. If they did undertake the task, they would be edged towards a dire financial crisis. The result would be the virtual obliteration of modernisation and new-build schemes in the areas of many of the larger authorities. If the massive burden were to be a charge totally on revenue, there would have to be crippling rate increases.
The Secretary of State has claimed consistently to be the ratepayers' champion. We are somewhat cynical about that, because we have seen the savage cuts in local authority finance that have hit ratepayers hard year after year. He can do something to redeem his rather tarnished reputation by acting generously to protect local government from the effects of a national disaster that could not have been foreseen.
My constituency is typical of that of many of my hon. Friends. Thousands of houses have been devastated. Many
638
families have suffered enormous losses because of ruined carpets and furnishings. They are the same people who faced the disruption and expense of redecoration and the trauma of being decanted to temporary premises in difficult circumstances. It has been a desperate time. Those people want and deserve an assurance that their local authorities will be put in a position where they can, with the shortest possible delay, put right the damage and get them back into homes restored to a state in which they can reasonably be expected to live.
The Government must accept that the exceptional circumstances demand a generous and immediate response. The hon. Member for Pentlands has made it clear that he is still collating the information and considering the facts. I hope that that means that the door has not been slammed. However, we must be told soon that there is no question that the 75 per cent. grant aid is available only for road repairs and for the clearance of snow, as seemed to be suggested in Scottish Question Time last week. It must be available to local authorities that are facing this massive bill so that they can restore the housing stock to a reasonable state. We are talking, not about an abstract book-keeping concept, but about the homes of people who Opposition Members certainly represent.
10.41 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) suggested that the present proposals are inadequate. I must refute that, because there is no justification for that charge to be brought against the Government. Of course the damage has been severe. That was recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement during the recess. The Government are taking a reasonable and sensible approach to the problem in the offers that we have made to the local authorities. We are following precedent, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suggests, because we are happy to follow the example of the Labour Party in dealing with such problems.
There is also a precedent on the question of insurance. The Opposition have pressed, not just once but on at least two occasions, local authorities to insure their properties. We believe that it is only sensible that local authorities should try to provide, through insurance, for such a disaster. It is in the best interests of their tenants. This lesson should drive the point home to those local authorities that find themselves embarrassed by the fact that they do not have as much money as they might have expected.
It might be helpful if I remind hon. Members of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 12 January while the House was in recess. He said then that a special grant would be made to local authorities that have incurred exceptional expenses due to dealing with the effects of the severe winter weather. The special grant assistance will be made available to Scottish local authorities on a basis similar to that adopted by them, and previous Governments, when dealing with earlier emergencies caused by exceptional weather conditions. As before, we believe that local authorities should meet part of this exceptional expenditure themselves. For that purpose we have set a threshold for each authority of the product of a 0.67p rate.

639
Expenditure beyond that level will be assisted by a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost. The Scottish Development Department will, very shortly, issue a circular giving guidance on the criteria to be adopted when determining what is exceptional expenditure for grant purposes.
We recognise that the winter has been nothing short of disastrous for many thousands of householders and for local authorities throughout Scotland. I wish to take the opportunity to express our appreciation, and that of the Opposition Members, of the gallant work carried out by local authority staff, especially during the holiday period, in unselfishly coming to the rescue of thousands of families. With a great sense of duty, they carried out a difficult operation in the midst of severe winter weather.
I understand that, as a consequence of water damage, more than 4,000 households in all parts of Scotland have had to move into temporary accommodation arranged by local authorities, and that most of them are still there. Many others have made their own arrangements with relatives or friends. That is profoundly distressing for all those involved. I extend on behalf of the Government and the House our genuine sympathy towards all the people who have suffered damage and discomfort.
However, with the immediate crisis over, councils are turning to systematic assessment of the damage and of the measures required to repair it. It is a daunting task. We still do not know the full extent of the damage, but it appears certain to run into many millions of pounds.
Mr. Frank McElhone: The Minister is adopting a rather complacent attitude with regard to the city of Glasgow, which has 50,000 burst pipes. Will he not emulate the priority given by the Labour Government of 1968, who gave £6 million immediately to the city of Glasgow? The then Secretary of State for Scotland immediately visited Glasgow. Will the Minister or the Secretary of State come to Glasgow to see the disaster in that city?
Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I visit Glasgow regularly. It is not a far-off city of which we know nothing.
I accept that authorities will wish to treat the restoration of severely damaged property as capital expenditure. Some authorities may be able to accommodate a portion of that work within their capital budgets for 1981–82, but some may ship over into the next financial year.
Authorities have recently been given guidelines for housing capital expenditure in 1982–83. With regard to expenditure on council houses, the final allocations given to local authorities will depend on their decisions about rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account.
Mr. Dewar: I ask the Minister to be specific. We understand from the Under-Secretary of State that certain categories such as damage to roads and clearing of snow would qualify for grant aid. We also gathered that it was highly unlikely that there would be any help in the form of grant aid for the direct repairs to the fabric of housing damaged by burst pipes, burst water tanks and such disasters. Is our understanding correct? Can the Minister offer us help? If not, the situation is as serious as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) has suggested.
Mr. Fletcher: It will be necessary to distinguish between damage covered by insurance and damage that is not—
Mr. Dewar: In Glasgow and Edinburgh?
Mr. Fletcher: Yes. It would be absurd for the Government to give extra help to local authorities that have not taken the precaution of insuring their property. Following the direction of the advice of the hon. Member for Garscadden, there would be little incentive for local authorities to insure their property if the Government backed them up and made it unnecessary for them to do SO.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister is not clarifying the point.
Mr. Fletcher: I am clarifying the point. The Government—
Mr. David Lambie: The Government are giving nothing.
Mr. Fletcher: The Government will distinguish between the damage that can be covered by insurance and the damage that cannot be covered by insurance. If the authority finds it impossible to accommodate the capital work alongside other essential commitments, we would be prepared to consider representations for an increased allocation in 1982–83.
Mr. Dewar: rose—
Mr. Fletcher: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point. He may not like the answer, but I have answered it.
I return to the question of housing capital expenditure. For 1982–83 we would be prepared to consider representations for an increased allocation. The scope for such allocations is limited. I shall turn to further issues.
Mr. Dewar: The Minister is dodging the question.
Mr. Lambie: We need the money now.
Mr. Fletcher: I am not dodging the question. I am coming specifically to the question of insurance. In the limited time for an Adjournment debate, Opposition Members give the impression that they do not wish to know any of the answers put forward by the Government.
I shall come back to the question of insurance, which is agitating the hon. Member for Garscadden. I remind him that the previous Administration—
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the custodian of the House. I personally resent the Minister's insinuation that we do not wish to hear the reply. In view of the grave discourtesy to the House that has occurred in that the Minister who actually knows something about this is not here, I resent that accusation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that I may fairly say to the hon. Gentleman that if there is great deal of background noise from a sedentary positions none of us will be able to hear the reply.
Mr. Lambie: The Minister is not replying. He is saying nothing.
Mr. Fletcher: On the question of insurance—
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I know that it is part of your job to protect the Minister, but it was clearly within the hearing of everyone else in the House that the Minister was

641
making an accusation that we did not want to hear his reply. I beg you to use your right to defend our interests as well as the Minister's.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument. The Minister is responsible for his own speech. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that points of order take up the time left for the reply. Let us hear it.
Mr. Fletcher: I understand that about half of the housing authorities in Scotland have insured their property against frost damage. As I think the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said, two out of the three district authorities in his constituency have done that. They happen to be the two Conservative districts, but I should be the last to make a party point about that.
As the hon. Gentleman also said, the remaining authorities, which include the four major cities, decided not to insure, or at least they decided to carry their own insurance, and they are perfectly entitled to make that decision. I was trying to make it clear to the hon. Member for Garscadden and others that if a local authority decides to carry its own insurance it cannot expect the Government to be the fall-guy in the event of that decision proving too expensive at any time. Otherwise, the authorities which had been prudent would have no recognition by the Government or the ratepayer, who is also important in these matters, for having taken the prudent decision to insure their properties. It is therefore important as a matter of principle to make a distinction between local authorities which have insured their properties and those which have not done so.
Mr. Lambie: The Government are giving nothing.
Mr. Dewar: Let us have this absolutely clear. Is the Minister saying that Edinburgh and Glasgow, which we both know do not carry insurance, in these utterly exceptional circumstances, will not be helped by any Government aid at all and that the massive bills will ultimately fall upon the ratepayer whom the Government are usually so keen to protect?
Mr. Lambie: It will fall on the rentpayers.
Mr. Fletcher: I can only return to the point that I was making earlier. The Labour Government gave local authorities the same advice—that they should insure their property. In the assistance that we give, we shall distinguish between damage which is exceptional and not normally covered by insurance and damage which is covered by insurance. It should be perfectly possible to make that distinction. Local authorities are certainly able to do so. Where the damage to property could normally be expected to be covered by insurance and is insured in one
642
district but not in another, the district which does not have the benefit of insurance cover cannot expect to be assisted by the Government. Otherwise the Government would, in effect, be carrying the insurance liability for those authorities which decided not to take the step of insuring their property in the interests of their ratepayers and the general body of taxpayers.
Mr. Dennis Canavan(West Stirlingshire): The Government do not give them enough money for the premiums.
Mr. Fletcher: The authorities presumably decided to take the risk of carrying their own insurance in full knowledge of the advice given to them by the Labour Government in 1976. This is not something that they have had no opportunity to consider or to prepare for. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) cannot point the finger at us and blame the Government's cuts. The authorities were advised by a Labour Minister in 1976 to insure their property. They have had six years of rate support grant. They had rate support grant for as many years under the Labour Government as they have had under the Conservative Government and they have had the opportunity to take that step and pay their premiums. It is totally irresponsible of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire to suggest from a sedentary position that it is this Government's control of public expenditure that prevents local authorities from taking the prudent step of insuring their properties.
We believe that we have taken steps that will enable local authorities to tackle the serious problem that they face. We have taken steps to ensure that the amount of damage will be assessed as quickly as possible by them, in conjunction with the Scottish Development Department, so that we can give the authorities financial assistance as soon as possible. The cut-off date is about June, which we think keeps the urgency of the matter in hand. I am sure that no local authority would wish to fail to give proper help to its tenants in local authority houses on a longer time scale than that.
I refute the charge that the Government have the role of a "hard-hearted Hannah" in these matters. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have acted properly and promptly in giving this advice and in providing this assistance to local authorities in Scotland. As I said at the beginning, we have followed the precedent set by the Labour Party. If Labour Members are dissatisfied with that precedent, they should address their remarks to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). We believe that the people involved in this serious situation —
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Capital Sentences (Jersey)
  Capital Sentences (Jersey)
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Miss Julie Garratt
  Miss Julie Garratt
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Prison Building Programme
  Prison Building Programme
  Police Discipline Code
  Police Discipline Code
  Smoking and Alcohol Consumption
  Smoking and Alcohol Consumption
SCOTLAND
  "Locate in Scotland" Offices
  "Locate in Scotland" Offices
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Wyndford Road, Glasgow (Fire)
  Wyndford Road, Glasgow (Fire)
TRADE
  Statutory Powers and Duties
  Statutory Powers and Duties
  Estate Agents Act 1978
  Estate Agents Act 1978
  Video Games
  Video Games
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Wind-surfing Race (Rescue)
  Wind-surfing Race (Rescue)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
  Albania
  Albania
  Passports (Common Format)
  Passports (Common Format)
INDUSTRY
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Departmental Staffing
  Departmental Staffing
DEFENCE
  Operation Drake
  Operation Drake
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Naval Fuel Production Project
  Naval Fuel Production Project
ENVIRONMENT
  Disabled Persons (Sports Facilities)
  Disabled Persons (Sports Facilities)
  Southern England (Rates Payments)
  Southern England (Rates Payments)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Fox Corner Trading
  Fox Corner Trading
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  London Royal Parks (Crimes)
  London Royal Parks (Crimes)
  Life Care and Housing Trust
  Life Care and Housing Trust
  Royal Parks (Hackney Carriages)
  Royal Parks (Hackney Carriages)
  Mobile Homes Act 1975
  Mobile Homes Act 1975
  Reservoirs (Safety)
  Reservoirs (Safety)
TRANSPORT
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Hazardous Materials (Transportation)
  Hazardous Materials (Transportation)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Poland
  Poland
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Civil Service (Management Skills)
  Civil Service (Management Skills)
  Anglo-Israel Relations
  Anglo-Israel Relations
  Disabled Persons (Technical Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Technical Aids)
  Hazel Grove Bypass
  Hazel Grove Bypass
  Weather Damage (Assistance)
  Weather Damage (Assistance)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Community Enterprise Programme
  European Community (Membership)
  European Community (Membership)
  Quangos
  Quangos
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Long Ashton Research Station
  Long Ashton Research Station
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  University Employees (Wages and Salaries)
  University Employees (Wages and Salaries)
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Non-teaching Personnel
  Non-teaching Personnel
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Advanced Higher Education
  Advanced Higher Education
  Violence against Teachers
  Violence against Teachers
  Harlow and Northway Middle Schools
  Harlow and Northway Middle Schools
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  University Fees
  University Fees
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Curriculum Materials
  Curriculum Materials
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Training Initiative
  Training Initiative
  Foreign Workers
  Foreign Workers
  Private Training Schemes
  Private Training Schemes
  Launderettes
  Launderettes
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
  Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retired Women (Taxation)
  Retired Women (Taxation)
  Funeral Costs
  Funeral Costs
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Industrial Deafness (Compensation)
  Industrial Deafness (Compensation)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Test Tube Babies
  Test Tube Babies
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Westminster Medical School
  Westminster Medical School
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wealth Distribution (Statistics)
  Wealth Distribution (Statistics)
  Local Authorities (Value Added Tax)
  Local Authorities (Value Added Tax)
  European Community
  European Community
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  Excise Duty
  Excise Duty
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Field Vegetables
  Field Vegetables
  Output (Weather Conditions)
  Output (Weather Conditions)
  Whisky Industry
  Whisky Industry
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Pig Breeding Herd
  Pig Breeding Herd
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Beam Trawling
  Beam Trawling
  Sheep Production
  Sheep Production
  Milk Producers (Levy)
  Milk Producers (Levy)
  Glasshouse Industry
  Glasshouse Industry
  Sheepmeat Regime
  Sheepmeat Regime
  Cumbria
  Cumbria
  Wheat and Barley Exports
  Wheat and Barley Exports
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Lime Subsidy
  Lime Subsidy
  Forestry Commission (Rother Valley)
  Forestry Commission (Rother Valley)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
The Lord Kagan—Took the Oath.

Commission for Racial Equality: Grant Powers
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name of the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in respect of the grant-giving powers of the Commission for Racial Equality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the recent report by the Home Affairs Committee of another place on the operation and effectiveness of the Commission for Racial Equality included recommendations relating to the commission's powers to give grants. The Government are considering these, together with the committee's other recommendations, and will publish their response as soon as possible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend confirm that the Select Committee in another place was particularly critical of the commission's exercise of its very important power in respect of grants; and are the Government considering seeking from the commission—if these powers are to remain there—assurances that these powers will be more effectively and intelligently used in the future than they apparently have been in the past?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confirm in my answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question that the Select Committee was critical of the grant-giving power of the commission as it has worked out in practice. Certainly my right honourable friend will take seriously into account what my noble friend said in the second part of his supplementary question.

Poverty: EEC Report
3.3 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose in response to the findings of the report of the Commission of the EEC on social
1394
affairs, which shows that 30 million people in Europe are living in poverty, including 1,241,000 households in Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): My Lords, the final report to which the noble Lord refers was received from the Commission within the past three weeks and it is still being studied.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether this report does not indicate that there should be a redistribution of wealth? Is it tolerable that in our society there should be golden handshakes of £75,000, that a family at a table in a restaurant will spend on one meal what others have for a whole week, and that tens of thousands of pounds should be given for kicking a ball, for hitting a ball or for cueing a ball? Are not our social values all wrong?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord addresses himself to a slightly wider question than that on the Order Paper. But I would say that in the short time that we have had the report before us we have seen that, of the nine countries with which it deals, only one has a lower proportion of householders in poverty than we do.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may I ask whether the report indicates how many of the 30 million people in Europe alleged to be living below the poverty line inhabit Europe east of the Iron Curtain?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the report concerns itself with nine countries only—the Community excluding Greece.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that people who are experiencing and suffering poverty in this country will in no way be able to take great comfort from his answer that there are many others in Europe suffering poverty as well? Does he not agree that this report reflects the absurdity of the situation in our own island that we are paying millions and millions to keep able-bodied men and women, young and middle-aged, out of work?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not entirely accept that definition. Of course we do not take comfort from other people's discomfort. I have sufficiently often from this Dispatch Box spoken of the importance which this Government give to getting the economy right to lift all of us out of poverty, so I will not weary the House by repeating that argument.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when the report has been studied, will the Government be bringing forward to the Houses of Parliament their comments and recommendations on the proposals?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I would be rash before we have studied the report to say what we shall do with it.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister has referred to getting the economy right. Does not the fact that

1395
this situation exists all over capitalist Europe show that it is not a matter of getting it right, but one of transforming it to democratic socialism?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the rules of order permitted it, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thought that Poland was a good example of the cause he advances.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, Poland is not an example of democratic socialism.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a much larger proportion of people in misery for one reason or another on the other side of the Iron Curtain than in capitalist Europe?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for underlining that aspect of things. But we are in danger of straying beyond the terms of the Question.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, without wishing to engage in a competition about misery, may I ask whether the Commission made any recommendations as to how this grave problem should be dealt with?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked me to go farther than I wish to go until I am more familiar with the report. It has suggested a second European programme on poverty similar to the one which we engaged in ourselves which I think finished last year.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as a matter of information, is there such a thing as a democratic socialist Government in Europe? If there is, is it doing better than we are?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with respect, I think we are going very far wide of the original Question. It might be appropriate if we now moved on to the next one.

Discounted Air Fares
3.7 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 whether, in view of the Answer given by the Lord Trefgarne on 10th December (cols. 1431–32), the filing of discounted air fares with the Civil Aviation Authority makes the sale of discounted air tickets legal; and, if so, when were details of discounted air fares filed with the authority by British Airways and when was approval given to these fares by the Civil Aviation Authority and Her Majesty's Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords,
1396
the reduced fares offered by British Airways were filed with the Civil Aviation Authority on 31st December 1981 and approved by the authority on the same day. Fares which have been filed and approved are neither discounted nor illegal.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is a much clearer Answer than we have received before. While wishing every success to this process, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that when British Airways finally filed on New Year's Eve, they filed really to get assent to be able to charge what fares they liked? In other words, the fares were anything between £1 and the economy fare. Would the Government feel able to approve such suggestions from other airlines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I could not give an undertaking of' approval of some proposal that is only in the mind of the noble Baroness and not in front of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, the attitude of the Government towards fares in general—particularly on these routes—is well known and I doubt whether there would be any difficulty.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, then, this question: With regard to the Question that I have down for next week, could that appear before his right honourable friend so that we might get an Answer on something of which he has previous knowledge?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the permission of the House and the noble Baroness, I will answer next week's Question next week.

Marriage (Step-parents and Stepchildren) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable certain courts to consider applications for leave for marriages to take place between step-parents and their stepchildren; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill he now read a first time.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Brixton Disorders: The Scarman Report
3.10 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That this House takes notes of the Report on the Brixton Disorders, 10th–12th April 1981 (Cmnd. 8247).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the week-end of 10th–12th April last year, there occurred riots in Brixton which involved violence and disorder un-paralleled this century. Two days after, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to inquire, to report and to make recommendations. Consistent with that prompt action is the fact that when the noble

1397
and learned Lord's report was presented to Parliament, not only did the Home Secretary recognise this as being a report of great significance, but he also gave a firm declaration of intent in response to many of the report's recommendations.
My right honourable friend accepted the general principles which the report set out for policing policy. He accepted the need to develop formal arrangements for consultation between the police and the community at different levels. He accepted the need for more effort to he put into training, and he accepted that the procedure for handling complaints against the police needs to be substantially reformed.
The ability to be able to see through a brick wall further than most other people is a rare gift. A debt which we owe to the perceptive powers of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is in respect of his creative statement as to how the philosophy of policing in this country can and must be adapted in order to maintain the law. There are, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, two related principles of policing a free society: that of consent and balance and that of independence and accountability. But to assume that this is to invite the police, in order to preserve the peace, to turn a blind eye to crime is a misconception. In the report there is no excuse for street crime and mugging, and no question of impeding the police in their task of dealing with crime.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, did not hesitate to describe the disorders as " riots ": and in his words the police officers who had to confront that violence—
" deserve, and must receive, the praise and thanks of all sections of the community ".
Indeed there were those who gave evidence to his inquiry who shared those views. Counsel for the Lambeth Council for Community Relations said this:
" If there are any who believe that some of the violence to person or property which accompanied the Brixton disturbances were the legitimate self-expression of an oppressed minority, the Council do not share those beliefs ".
But in our society the work of the police needs to be reinforced by the support of the community. Today, the functions of the police remain—
" … the prevention of crime … the protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquility, "—
the same definition given of the duties of the Metropolitan Police when the force was established over 150 years ago. To strike the right balance between those two duties is a task which requires great discretion on the part of each individual police officer in the diverse society of today. It is a tribute to the police that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, expressed confidence that they can exercise the discretion needed to do their duty despite the many difficulties they face—and, let us make no mistake, my Lords, it is the responsibility of the community to assist the police in their task.
The noble and learned Lord said that vigorous action would be required if the composition of the police service is to become more representative of the community it serves. My right honourable friend agrees, as I am sure we all do. But there are no easy options in this, and indeed the report specifically recommended against the introduction of quota systems or a lowering
1398
of standards.
There has been some progress in recruitment from ethnic minorities, but further steps need to be taken. We must ensure that applicants are not unconsciously discriminated against. We must be sure, for example, that the entrance tests are free from cultural bias. New tests will therefore be scrutinised independently before they are introduced. Also, we are discussing with the Metropolitan Police and the Inner London Education Authority the possibility of providing suitable English courses for ethnic minority candidates who are otherwise entirely suitable but who narrowly fail the entrance test because their English is not quite good enough. However, the main problem is to encourage more candidates to come forward, and so we are setting up a special study to see how ethnic minority recruitment can be improved. Representatives of the police authorities, the police staff associations and the ethnic minority communities are being invited to join an examination of the steps that have been taken by police forces and to encourage ethnic minority candidates to come forward and to consider what more might or should be done.
It takes little imagination to visualise the problems which face the police officer on the beat, particularly the many young officers who have recently joined the service, in areas where the crime rate is high. In this respect we fully accept the importance given to police training by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The Police Training Council, which consists of representatives of local authorities, the police, the Home Office and independent academic advisers, met on 28th January to decide how to tackle the recommendations of the report; and it is to meet again in the autumn to review progress. Meanwhile, the new Metropolitan Police " street duty courses " for probationers are designed now to give practical initial training. In recent years many forces have been unable to provide a sufficient number of suitable officers as " tutor constables ", and one of the benefits of my right honourable friend's determination to bring the police service fully up to strength is that improved recruitment and reduced wastage are helping to over-come this problem.
The report also pointed to three other areas where training needs to be increased and improved—race relations, public order and supervision and management. Substantial programmes are being provided in these three vital areas of training but here again, with the Police Training Council, we are looking at the needs for common programmes and minimum standards.
My right honourable friend has also clearly endorsed the need for reform of the complaints procedure if it is to command public confidence, and he has promised to bring forward proposals for change. Indeed the Home Office has made proposals for independent supervision of investigations and a conciliation procedure in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in another place, which has begun an inquiry into complaints against the police and related matters. I believe this inquiry is very much to be welcomed. The evidence to be given will undoubtedly reveal the difficulties in this whole area, but it is to be hoped that the committee's conclusions will provide some of the answers. I understand that the com-

1399
mitt e hope to complete their inquiry by Easter, and of course we shall wish to take into account their report before proceeding further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, recommended that racially prejudiced or discriminatory behaviour should be a specific offence in the Police Discipline Code. On this, my right honourable friend has said in another place that the vital objective is to ensure that the public can see that the police themselves regard such behaviour as something that they will not tolerate. This was discussed last week at a meeting of the Police Advisory Board, when all concerned—the police staff associations, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—agreed that there could be no question of such behaviour being tolerated in the police service. But, noting that this could already by dealt with under the Police Discipline Code, they were unanimous also that it would not be appropriate to proceed by way of creating a new specific offence.
The Home Secretary has welcomed the recommendation in the report that lay visitors should have the right to visit police stations. After all, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure referred to the need for some method of reviewing custody procedures. The noble and learned Lord refrained from offering a blueprint for legislation on this, and the Government arc considering the practicalities of a visiting scheme in the arrangements that we are following up for local liaison and consultation
That leads me to the welcome which my right honourable friend has given to the recommendations designed to promote effective consultation and accountability between the police and the public. I think it is fair for me to claim that my right honourable friend has consistently encouraged police authorities to provide a forum, where the chief constable can give an account of his policing policy and, in turn, the police authorities can express to the chief constable the views of the community. The noble and learned Lord recommended that there should be a statutory duty outside, and a statutory framework in, London for local consultation. Suggestions in some quarters that my right honourable friend has rejected this recommendation are wholly untrue.
But, because it would take some time before any legal changes could be made, Lord Scarman recommended that police authorities and chief constables should co-operate immediately in establishing local liaison committees. We fully endorse this. Keeping law and order is, after all, a responsibility for us all, and effective co-operation between police and public should surely have as its final objective the more effective prosecution of crime and the better protection of the public.
So a process of consultation about this has begun. It will include a programme of selective visits to force areas by officials from the Home Office. They will study the informal consultation arrangements which already exist in some areas and discuss with police forces, police authorities and other local groups how liaison committees envisaged by the noble and learned Lord might function. Against this background, we shall better be able, we think, to assess the practical implications of two recommendations made by the
1400
noble and learned Lord; namely, whether liaison committees might provide the lay visitors for police stations, and whether they might have a role in the conciliation of complaints. After this, there will then be consultation at national level and we shall then draw up guidelines which might be adaptable to the local needs of different communities. At that moment, I think we can finally decide on whether or not it should be put into statute.
In London, of course, my right honourable friend is the police authority for the metropolis and in this he is directly accountable to Parliament. Lord Scarman recommended no change in this long-standing constitutional arrangement. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord saw an urgent need for the development of more effective channels of communication between the Metropolitan Police and the communities it serves; and he saw the borough as being the proper level in London on which to base this consultation.
My right honourable friend is particularly keen to build on the good work which has been done since the disturbances to re-establish liaison in Lambeth, and he has taken the initiative in calling together a wide range of organisations and individuals, the police, Lambeth Borough Council, Members of Parliament for the area and other interested representatives to discuss with them how best this might be encouraged. My right honourable friend himself chaired the first meeting which was on 18th January, and on that day we were greatly encouraged by the desire of all those present to see arrangements for future consultation between the police and the community urgently developed. A further meeting is being held, chaired again by my right honourable friend, and it is this afternoon.
The Commissioner and the London Boroughs Association fully support these initiatives, but the key word is " flexibility ". At the end of the day, it really is for the police, the borough and the community to work out what best suits their particular circumstances. But I very much hope that the guidelines which we are trying to develop for London and England and Wales, as a result of our consultations, will prove helpful.
One of the problems which the report identified as underlying the disorders in Brixton is that of racial disadvantage. As your Lordships will know, the Government's reply to the Select Committee's report on racial disadvantage was published last week, and I would simply point only to the main lines of action which the Government are now taking. The Government are committed to ensuring full equality of opportunity for everyone in this country, irrespective of race, colour or religion. Members of the ethnic minority communities who were born here, or who are settled in this country, are entitled to exactly the same respect and exactly the same consideration as any other citizen.
One way of achieving this, while at the same time assessing more accurately the extent of racial disadvantage in this country, is by placing greater emphasis on monitoring the position of ethnic minority communities. It is understandable that some should express concern about the possible misuse of this information, but we really must have the relevant information available if we are to take effective steps

1401
to try to remedy racial disadvantage. My right honourable friend has already given some details of the Government's decision on ethnic monitoring in the Civil Service. With the co-operation of the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Commission for Racial Equality and bodies representing ethnic minorities, we hope that the results of that proposed experimental census will be helpful to other employers.
There has been a good deal of public debate about Lord Scarman's call for positive action as a means of promoting equality of opportunity. For the most part, the needs of the ethnic minorities should be met in the same way as the needs of the rest of the community. But, of course, where those needs are different from, or significantly greater than, those of the majority of the population, special measures are surely called for, just as special measures are taken to help other people who have particular needs. It really is quite wrong to suggest that action of this kind should give some people an unfair advantage over others. We are not dealing with reverse discrimination, which would involve such things as job quotas, lower standards of recruitment for certain occupations or other such measures. What is needed is simply to ensure equal opportunities.
One of the principal measures for tackling the problems of racial disadvantage is the grant payable to local authorities under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. This provision was introduced some 15 years ago, with the object of meeting the special needs of Commonwealth immigrants newly arrived in this country. Our experience of its operation, and the report of the Select Committee, have brought to light a number of shortcomings. So the main changes which we propose to make are these.
When the provision was first introduced, it was in the confident expectation that any disadvantage experienced by people newly arrived in this country would be short-lived, and that the need for a grant of this kind would diminish and eventually disappear. We now know that this has not proved to be the case. We have, therefore, decided to abolish the so-called 10-year rule, under which a grant is payable in relation only to those Commonwealth immigrants who have been here for less than 10 years. Under the new arrangements, it will be possible for a grant to be paid in respect of all first-generation Commonwealth immigrants, no matter how long their residence here, and grant will also be payable in respect of their children. We also intend to correct an anomaly, so that grant can be paid in respect of immigrants who were born in Pakistan before that country left the Commonwealth in 1972.
The Government are currently providing more than £50 million a year in grants under Section 11. This is a good deal of money and it is essential that it should be used to the best effect. With this in mind, we shall, as recommended by the Select Committee, institute a review of existing posts funded under Section 11 to ensure that they are continuing to serve the needs of the minority communities.
The noble and learned Lord's report is particularly valuable on the more general problems affecting the inner city areas which affect directly everyone living in those areas. The twin themes of his recommenda
1402
tions to tackle these problems are the need for a better co-ordinated and directed attack on the problems and the importance of involving people living locally in planning, in providing the services and in carrying out projects. The Government agree on the importance of these recommendations. Thus my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, through his Merseyside Task Force, is directing the search for new ways of tackling the problem of inner cities for the benefit not just of Merseyside but of other large cities with comparable problems.
The Government's urban programme has of course a very large part to play in this respect because it provides finance for special projects which can particularly benefit the communities living in such areas. Incidentally, it can give grant aid also to voluntary bodies. As the House will know, my right honourable friend has proposed a substantial increase in the urban programme allocation for the next financial year, which is to be increased from £210 million to £270 million.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has stressed the importance of giving black people a feeling that they have a stake in the community and has pointed out that there are too few business and professional people of West Indian origin. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry has taken an initiative in organising a well-attended meeting of the United Kingdom Caribbean Chamber of Commerce, and he is now engaged in further discussions with the Chamber and with the banks.
But one fundamental need is to help members of the black community to acquire essential management skills, so the Department of Industry is developing new arrangements for the small firms service to strengthen its links with the black community. The United Kingdom Caribbean Chamber of Commerce are also discussing with the small firms service how best they can reinforce their own service for members.
Black businessmen also sometimes experience difficulties in seeking necessary finance for projects. In discussion with the Department of Industry the response of senior bankers has been very constructive and encouraging and should lead to some positive initiatives from the banks to help black businessmen to improve their skills in seeking finance and to forge stronger business relationships with the banks.
This report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, points the way to real opportunities. It also identifies great responsibilities. Many rest with the Government and not least with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend has consistently shown his commitment to the work of the police and since he came into office there has been a growth of over 7,500 officers in police forces in England and Wales. That single fact is of enormous importance generally, and in particular for such things as training, for the handling of public order and for police work on the beat. But the responsibilities we face are not for the Government alone or for the police alone. They are for society as a whole and for the attitudes and approach of us all.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report on The Brixton Disorders, 10th–12th April 1981 (Cmnd. 8427)—(Lord Belstead.)
3.34 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan:My Lords, we join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in welcoming the opportunity to debate the content of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as well as the massive issues which stem therefrom. We wholeheartedly endorse what the noble Lord has said and what indeed has been said by so many, the length and breadth of Britain, by way of tribute to the skill and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. For the way in which he has discharged his massive task, the conscientious incisiveness with which he has analysed the facts, and the clarity with which he has presented the issues, this report must be regarded as a model of its kind.
With his customary fairness and moderation the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has ranged widely over a number of issues. I hope he will not think me churlish if I say that I myself and, I am sure, many, many other Members of your Lordships' House are rather disappointed that the noble Lord was unable to spell out in perhaps more specific terms the content of certain decisions which the Government undoubtedly must be considering in relation to their strategic reaction to the problems exposed in the report. Some two and a half months have elapsed since the publication of the report. I appreciate that processes of careful consultation have to be fully indulged in. Nevertheless, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the community expects from us swift and decisive action.
The problems with which the report concerns itself are by their nature such as to touch upon some of the deepest moral and philosophical questions affecting the concept of the Queen's peace, social justice, necessary disciplines in a free society and checks and balances upon police authority. There are many conundrums but few simple answers, and no solutions that are either easy or universally acceptable. Perhaps the most important words uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, are those which do not actually appear in the report but which were spoken by him on his visit to Toxteth on 16th October of last year, when he said:
" Brixton is a symptom of a national disease".
We must look at this report not as an end but as a beginning. Its main significance is not even what has happened in Brixton, Moss Side and Toxteth, but what awaits us in the future. If we were to turn away from the realities of this report and forget the conditions that brought about those disappointing and disgraceful scenes, there would indeed be the danger that we would pay the penalty of every community that forgets the past—which is that it is forced to relive it.
Few have sought to challenge the basic proven facts of the report, nor indeed the primary conditions which led to such occurrences: dreadfully inadequate housing, a fundamental lack of recreational facilities, a horrifyingly high level of unemployment, all fusing together in a decaying city centre area. To this there must be added the factor of steadily deteriorating relations between the police and sections of the public, particularly certain sections of the young who harboured such violent malice against the police.
1404
To that again there must be added perhaps the most potent factor of all: that the suffering of an ethnic minority was wholly disproportionate to its numbers. In saying that, I would not invite any Member of this House or anyone anywhere to seek to justify the disgraceful disruptions which occurred on those occasions, but I submit that it would be wholly unrealistic to begin to think of how society can tackle them unless one attaches oneself to the reality of the very factors which spawned those conditions in the very first place. The central finding in the Scarman Report is probably that which appears in paragraph 9.1, and I quote Lord Scarman's words:
" The evidence which I have received … leaves no doubt in my mind that racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life. It was, I am equally sure, a significant factor in the causation of the Brixton disorders".
That is a disease deeply embedded in the life of our community. Like every substantial and serious disease, it cannot be cured by minor applications of ointment to the surface of the skin. It is something that is endemic in the blood and bone and affects the whole constitution.
Dramatic outbursts of violence, although precipitated perhaps by seemingly minor events, always owe their origins to deep-lying and long-developed factors in the life of a community. Some of those elements will take a very long time to be eliminated or even ameliorated, but there are certain facets which in my submission are capable of remedy in the much shorter term. I am sure that it is those matters to which this House will direct its attention this afternoon.
I wish to deal fairly briefly with the social conditions to which I have already referred. As I said, the report binds the disorders inexorably with the fundamental social conditions which gave rise to them and which gave them force and expression. No sincere approach to this crisis can avoid or seek to minimise this central factor. There are in Britain a score of Brixtons. It is against that background that I would invite the House for a few moments to consider some of these issues in relation to that particular heading. We welcome the statement made by the noble Lord the Minister with regard to added finances. Without, I hope, raising too acute a note of political controversy in this matter, the House must always remember that over the past two years Her Majesty's Government have withdrawn some £500 million to £600 million from the inner cities through their changes in the rate-support system. What the House wants to know is, are the Government prepared to cancel out that withdrawal and from that base-line, as it were, then to consider what added finances they will channel to these most vulnerable areas?
The preceding Government—of my own party—sought to stimulate the development of inner city areas and tried to do so by partnership schemes. I think many of us will accept that there are massive difficulties in trying to bring about on the scale that is required the development that is called for. Probably one of the greatest dangers is that of looking at a number of different problems as though each was independent of the other, rather than as the facets of one central feature. I feel that there is call for two basic conditions; one is the adequacy of finance, and

1405
the other is that there should be a fully co-ordinated approach to these problems.
In a slightly different field, we have the precedent of a New Towns Act, in regard to which it was considered that a development which was as important as was envisaged in that context should be carried out by a body which had adequate finances and comprehensive powers; powers which indeed, for a period, included the powers of local elected representatives, because the situation was such that it could not be left to the ordinary, perfectly adequate processes of local government to deal with the massive task that was envisaged. I venture to suggest that the same principle is utterly relevant to this particular problem. Many Members of your Lordships' House will remember the experiment, which met with considerable success, it appears, in the founding of the Derry Housing Trust some 15 or 17 years ago, bringing together under the aegis of one agency all the powers that were necessary for swift and comprehensive development.
Again, there is the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. This committee reported in July of last year. Lip-service has been paid to very many of the 57 recommendations which it makes. At some stage, possibly at the end of this debate, I am sure that your Lordships' House will welcome a specific statement by the noble Lord the Minister about which of those recommendations the Government have come to a decision. It may mean indeed that the publication of a schedule at some early date would he most advantageous.
May I mention one other matter in the context of the social background? No one reading Lord Scarman's Report would, in my submission, fail to appreciate that the outward manifestations of the problem in many respects appear on the very streets of Brixton and similar inner city areas; gangs of young men and young women, unemployed and devoid of hope, and lacking interest in almost anything creative. The gulf between them and the police is chasmic. In the United States of America some 20 or 25 years ago, in many of the larger cities, an attempt was made to tackle such a problem by the appointment of street officers from probation agencies. They were not expected to bring about any instant reform in the attitudes of these young people but they were expected and were commissioned to form some point of contact with them. It may well he that it is only by an experiment as imaginative as this that some tenuous contact between the formal agencies of the community and these young people is possible.
May I turn now very quickly to the police. The report, as I am sure everyone will agree, takes a very balanced and libertarian view of the role of the police in the life of our community. Lord Scarman conceives of them not as a gendarmerie but, as they have so often been called, citizens in uniform. It is right that we should remember that the rights enjoyed by the ordinary police officer in Britain over and above the rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen are very few indeed. In fact, 95 per cent. of the time the police carry out their duties exercising only the rights of ordinary citizens. It might be difficult to point to any police force elsewhere in the world that has fewer additional rights than our police force has over and
1406
above those of ordinary citizens. Even with a system such as ours it is inevitable in Britain that the community should recoil in horror at scenes of massive deployment of the police force, even when we know and accept that these dispositions are utterly necessary in the situation that exists. That has been a traditional attitude of Britain for a very long time.
During the Napoleonic wars there occurred an event, indeed but a very short distance from this very chamber; one of the many outbursts against the Corn Laws occurred in the City of London. A large mob gathered outside the gates leading to the other House. Members coming into the House were beaten, and indeed eventually only managed to gain access to the House due to the fact of a squadron of cavalry being called up to clear the entrance to the House. Immediately they got there they demanded and obtained an emergency debate, not to protest at their own battered and bloodied condition, but to censure the Home Secretary of the day for having dared to use force in the precincts of Parliament without a specific decision of Parliament itself. That, I think, gives some indication of the horror with which our community regards even the utterly necessary use of force. And I join with the noble Lord in what he has said of the courage and skill with which the police met this, almost, for many of them, young people, utterly unprecedented, experience.
I am disappointed that in the context of racial prejudice the Minister was not able to give us an assurance that was very much firmer. Lord Scarman recommends that there should be a weeding out of would be candidates to the police forces of Britain who are thought or suspected to harbour deep racial prejudices. Furthermore, that, of course, it should be made a specific disciplinary offence. I cannot myself see how in logic, reason and consistency the Police Federation or any police officer can object to such a rule. There arc rules in the discipline code that spell out specifically standards of hygiene that officers must observe, something that has a Victorian ring to it. I cannot see how in the context of such specific rules they can baulk at spelling out what must be a rule of every decent society. I am sure many of us would heartily endorse the recommendation of the report when it says that the breach of such a rule of discipline should normally be dealt with by way of dismissal. Racial prejudice openly manifested in a police officer must be more corrupting, must it not, than criminal corruption itself? Nothing, surely, can bring greater harm to the functions of the police than such an attitude.
We on these Benches would indeed have liked to hear the Minister deal again with the question of the recommendation that the training period should be increased to a minimum of six months. At the moment the period, as the House knows, the basic initial period, is 10 weeks training in the provinces, 15 weeks in the Metropolitan Police district, a very short period of time, bearing in mind the package of skills that the community expects of the most humble police officer, bearing in mind that that officer more often than not has to act, not in the company of colleagues, but on his own, and has to exercise a fine, nicely balanced discretion in situations that might he thrust upon him at a moment's warning. I am sure that the House would regard this as one of the most

1407
important recommendations in the context of the police. Of course, it will be a very severe drain upon resources, but this surely must be the basis of a much wider curriculum for the training of police officers, and a curriculum that would deal specifically, perhaps centrally even so far as officers who are going to carry out their duties in inner city areas are concerned, with the question of race relations.
Many of us would endorse what the noble and learned Lord said on foot patrols. As a very junior Minister in the Home Office in the late 1960s, I can well appreciate why it was necessary to use the Panda car so extensively, not because it was thought that there was any inherent virtue in the Panda car, but because it would have been impossible to provide the necessary ground cover otherwise with the manpower that we had in England and Wales. But the time, surely, has come to de-pandarise, if one may use such an ugly expression, our police forces. It may be that the level of street crime will not be spectacularly diminished thereby. There are studies, which have been carried out in many parts of the world, which suggest that that does not in any way of necessity follow. But what it does mean is that the public is always convinced that it has a better and more effective cover, and that feeling in itself is invaluable in the success of policing in a community.
Time does not permit me to deal, as I would have wished, with the question of accountability, particularly bearing in mind the composition of police authorities in the provinces. I raise this question. Bear in mind that half the membership of a police authority is made up of magistrates, people who by their interest and dedication to public service are often quite ideally suited to this role. But let us look at this through the eyes of an ordinary citizen, an ordinary young black youth, if you like, from Lambeth. He conceives of the magistrates' court as the police courts, probably calls them police courts. He appreciates that the vast majority of criminal cases, something like 95 per cent. of all criminal cases, are dealt with by magistrates. Will he regard the police as being accountable to an independent body if he knows that half that body is made up of magistrates themselves?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me. The proportions are one-third and two-thirds.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, that is indeed so; the moment I said it I appreciated that I had slipped. The principle remains the same. Does the ordinary citizen conceive of a body upon which there is a substantial, one-third, representation of magistrates as being possessed of that independence that is utterly necessary if accountability is to mean anything at all in practice?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if I may intervene, the ordinary citizen knows practically nothing of police authorities all over England.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, that is one of the problems that has brought about the situation that we are debating today. I am sure the noble Lord would
1408
not seek to dissent from that. Time permits me only to deal with one other matter, and that is the question of complaints. The judgment of Lord Scarman upon this matter was very clear. I do not think one needs to add to these words, when he says, on page 88:
" The evidence, which was given in the two Phases of my Inquiry and reinforced by my visits to the West Midlands and to Liverpool, has convinced me that there is a widespread and dangerous lack of public confidence in the existing system for handling complaints against the police. By and large, people do not trust the police to investigate the police. This may not be fair to the police: but unless there is a strengthening of the independent ' non-police' element in the system, public confidence will continue to be lacking ".
We are concerned with grave events—events which undoubtedly cast long and deep shadows into the future. It may, indeed, be the judgment of history upon us that we reacted with vigour and with imagination and with dedication to this situation and proved ourselves equal to the peril which confronted us. It may, on the other hand, be the judgment of posterity that we turned irresponsibly and cravenly away from this situation. The rubble of history is littered with communities that allowed the quiet cancer within to bring about a destruction which the malice and might of enemies from without was not able to achieve.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I had the opportunity of attending as an observer the beginning of the inquiry. There was a large number of black youths outside the Lambeth Town Hall who were very actively demonstrating with banners and placards calling upon their friends and colleagues to boycott the whole proceedings. By the end of the first week the great majority of those youths were inside the Lambeth Town Hall taking an active and constructive part in the proceedings. That, I think, is perhaps the first measure of the success which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, achieved in carrying out this inquiry. He went to a community that was deeply suspicious and convinced them so very quickly that here was a person of integrity, of sympathy, with no prejudices and with no biases, who was prepared to report fearlessly upon their problems and upon the remedies that were needed.
The second measure of the achievement of the noble and learned Lord was, of course, the succinct report which we are debating this afternoon. It is, indeed, succinct, because it in fact provides material for some eight or 10 major debates in your Lordships' House and it is quite impossible, I think, to cover the many areas in any detail in the course of one day. There is, for example, the noble and learned Lord's analysis of the social conditions in the inner city areas, in Brixton, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol and, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has said, many other cities as well; and the steps that might be taken to improve those conditions.
There is also the role played by racial discrimination in our society: the extent to which it exists, the extent to which it is believed to exist (even if it does not) which in many ways is just as important and difficult a problem; and the steps that might be taken to remedy that. Again that is material for another totally separate discussion.

1409
There is also the part of the noble and learned Lord's report that deals with the whole question of law reform and what improvements might be made, particularly in our criminal law, to diminish public disorder. That again, in some ways, could be a separate topic. I only want to make one comment under that heading; that is, to ask your Lordships whether it is not perhaps time that we began to query whether the words " right to march " really mean anything at all and whether people in this country really do have the freedom, or should have the freedom, to collect together in order to go along the highway—not simply to pass along it—to an area which they know is one of maximum racial sensitivity, simply for the purpose of provoking, if possible, some degree of violence. I do not believe that there should be that sort of freedom, and I think it is very unfortunate that, as the law now stands, no such procession or march can be banned unless all marches and processions, for however innocent a purpose, are banned for some period of time. That is perhaps another matter that one might, on another occasion, debate in your Lordships' House.
I want to confine myself to what I believe to be the most far-reaching section of the noble and learned Lord's report, which concerns the whole question of the organisation and the role of the police in our modern society. So far as the organisation of the police is concerned, let me say at once that it seems to me highly desirable that we should do our very best to ensure that the police in future are recruited in such a way that, to a substantial extent, they represent all sections of the community, including our ethnic minorities.
It was said, I think, of Sir Robert Peel that he made it a deliberate policy to recruit men who had not the rank, habits or station of gentlemen. One understands what that distinguished figure was seeking to achieve: a police force which represented all sections of the community. I would not be as hesitant as the Government apparently are, or as, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was, in considering whether there is not a case for some degree of reverse discrimination in order to ensure that the ethnic minorities are adequately represented in the police force—not, of course, by the lowering of the necessary standards, but perhaps by encouraging suitable applicants and then training them carefully and specifically so that they can reach the necessary standards and thus become fully-fledged members of the force. I believe that it is important that that training should be given and that that degree of mixed police force should arrive as a result.
I agree, too, with what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about the period of training of police officers which is clearly, one would have thought, at this stage inadequate. One might perhaps hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would be able to give a clear commitment before the day is over as to the possibility of adopting the specific recommendation that some six months' training is really the desirable minimum for the very difficult and complex tasks that the police have to perform in a multi-racial society.
I agree too—and I shall say no more about it—with what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about making racial discrimination by a police officer a disciplinary offence. I would have thought that the
1410
arguments were strongly in favour of that, and I have certainly not yet been persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that there is anything substantial to be said to the contrary.
Finally, on the matter of the organisation of the police, I would agree that we must at some stage, as a matter of urgency, look at the whole question of the complaints procedure. I find rather impractical the suggestion that complaints against the police should be investigated by a wholly separate body. The idea of setting up a different collection of people rather like traffic wardens, who would not be police officers at all but who would carry out the very job for which police officers are trained, is, I should have thought, an unnecessary and expensive exercise. But clearly it is necessary that there should be a greater degree of independent participation in the whole complaints procedure.
I do not want to stress this too much, because I rather suspect that much of the agitation that takes place over the inadequacy, or alleged inadequacy, of the present complaints procedure is really something which stems from dissatisfaction with the police force as a whole as it is at present organised. If our police force began to play a rather different role in our society then it might be that the emphasis would be taken away from the argument about complaints against the police and their investigation of them.
The last words that I want to say, therefore, are on the major issue of the whole role of a police force in a modern society. The police represent authority: they represent the power of the state. Quite inevitably, they are sometimes distrusted, sometimes suspected, sometimes admired, sometimes respected and sometimes feared, but only too rarely can it be said that they are liked. I venture to think that that is because in these days authority by itself is not, in its existence, a sufficient reason for anyone therefore to obey it. There is no reason indeed why that should be so. We have learnt—have we not?—in the course of this century that people will obey other people willingly and successfully only if they are let into the whole process of negotiation, discussion and consultation. We learnt it in the Army when the troops in the last war were not simply told what it was they would have to do, but why they were going to have to do it and what it was that was sought to be achieved. In some ways it was the great contribution that Field Marshal Montgomery made to the second world war. We have learnt it through the whole field of industrial relations in recent years. It is not sufficient for management to tell men what it is that has to be done. There must be a degree of consultation and a degree of exchange of views if industry is to run successfully.
I believe that in precisely the same way we now have to begin to look to the whole problem of involving our police much more as members of their own community. We, as Liberals, want to see power spread down from the top, and I am sure that that is an aim which is shared by many Members of your Lordships' House. We want to see as many local small communities as possible interested in their own environment, and playing a part in the decisions that will affect them. We would want to see the police so organised that they also become integrated members of those small communities, living among them,

1411
being friendly with them, discussing their problems freely with them and being accepted as friends and not as rather distant figures of whom one has perhaps to be somewhat afraid if one sees them coming along.
In order to achieve this, I believe that it is necessary that we should begin to set up a statutory framework within which this form of police participation in the community can take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, suggests that police authorities should be set up and that there should be local consultations or liaison committees, and that there should be a statutory duty on the police to co-operate with those committees. It might even be possible to go further. It might be possible to set up a statutory framework in which there are community police councils which are composed partly of representatives of the police authorities, partly perhaps of representatives of the county councils, and partly of representatives of the voluntary organisations that work in the neighbourhood.
The tasks of those community police councils would be to incorporate the community as a whole in the negotiations and the decisions that are being taken from day to day. I have in mind such matters as the whole question of law enforcement. They can be discussed freely between citizens and police officers; there is no reason why they should not be so discussed. The whole question of the staffing of the police in an area, questions of which police stations should be kept open, which perhaps are no longer necessary and where new ones are desirable, issues as to staffing and whether the local police force is adequately staffed and whether improvements might be made, are all matters that could be the subject of general discussion among the local community. It would, of course, also be those local police councils which would be responsible for the important task of sending representatives from time to time to visit police stations to ensure that all is well and that the various procedural rules are being complied with. I believe that if we can build up that sort of system—and I think that it would have to be done on a statutory basis—we could, in fact, create an atmosphere in which citizens and policemen will work side by side in complete harmony.
I know that there are those who will say that this is perhaps a little fanciful and that perhaps it is not practical to suggest that the police should necessarily consult with local representatives of the community before taking certain major decisions. I accept that there are occasions, of course, when secrecy or surprise is absolutely essential to a police operation and, of course, the sort of situation that I have been envisaging obviously could not apply. But I suspect that there are many instances where the instinctive reaction of police officers might be to say, " No, of course we cannot discuss that in advance ", when on cool and calm reflection it would be realised that it might serve a very useful purpose and that no harm could be done. I take as an example from Brixton, Operation " Swamp ", about which your Lordships will have read in the course of this report. It is difficult to see that any harm could have been done if that had been discussed with the local community leaders, and it is quite certain that if it had been, some of the consequences—the unhappy consequences—would never have taken place.
1412
It would, of course, also be for these neighbourhood local police councils, together with the police, to ensure that there was a proper supply of neighbourhood police officers or home duty police officers whose specific function it was to mingle with the community and get to know them. It would be necessary for there to be much more co-operation than there is at present between the police and the local schools and the children, so that the children should grow up to regard the police as friends and not as enemies.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, although I agree with an enormous amount of what the noble Lord says, what would have happened if the local people had said, " No, do not do ' Swamp ' ", and the local police operations officer had said, " Yes, for operational reasons we have to do it "? Then what would have happened? I think that what the noble Lord says has an enormous amount to recommend it, but it seems that he has not put his mind to answering that sort of query.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, it is, of course, always possible that there may be a difference of opinion. But that was never even explored in this situation. It might well have been that if the local community leaders had said to the police officers, " This would be the effect of the operation; we strongly advise you against it ", the police officers, who were accustomed to work with and trust the local community leaders, would have accepted their advice.
In conclusion, I would say that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country want to live peacefully under the law. The overwhelming majority of them want to be friendly with the police; they want to join with the police in suppressing crime and in preserving law and order. I believe that it is vitally necessary that we should move forward now from the present position to one in which we can create avenues for co-operation between the police and the community that will remove much of the suspicion that unhappily gave rise to these disorders which we are debating today.
I have spoken for long enough. I must present my apologies to your Lordships for the fact that a previous commitment will prevent me staying for the whole of this debate. I shall look forward to listening to the other contributions and to reading those that I cannot hear on a subject which I believe is of the greatest possible significance to the future of our society.
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: The My Lords, the tributes already paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, are well deserved, and it is appropriate to give credit to the Home Secretary for acting so promptly to set up this inquiry and for his choice of the man to conduct it. I regret that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, through illness, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, through an inescapable engagement, are not able to take part in this debate. They would be better qualified to reflect the recent experiences and attitudes of the churches in places like Brixton and Toxteth. But I was anxious that these Benches should not remain silent on such a grave moral issue.
In recent months I have done my best to keep in

1413
touch with church and community leaders in Brixton, and at the very least I would wish by my presence and contribution to record support for those who are anxious that action should be taken as soon as possible to implement the Scarman recommendations, and also to record the commitment of church men and women to play our part in removing those obstacles which block communication, and to underline the confidence and co-operation on which alone true community life can ever be established.
I begin, however, by questioning the idea that violence, whenever it occurs—Toxteth, Bristol, or Brixton—can ever simply be explained in terms of bad social and economic conditions; conditions which can be improved by the appropriate injection of Government will and finance. Unemployment and bad housing certainly play a major part in fuelling discontent which erupts into riot. We cannot be complacent about a situation in which today 55 per cent. of the black youth in Brixton are unemployed or, as the report states, 12,000 households in Brixton are living in ovrecrowded conditions. But the arithmetic of reasonable grievance does not add up without remainder to violence. All societies are flawed by fundamental human failings; selfishness, aggression, and the lust for power over others. Properly disciplined force is needed to keep these other forces in check. Men and women are not naturally peaceable and law-abiding, and no matter how good the communications, how restrained the police, force is alas, sometimes inescapable.
We do not help the police in their difficult and sometimes dangerous work by pretending that if only certain new procedures and reforms were adopted then the problem of violence would be painlessly solved. There is a danger that police seal themselves off from open debate because of defensiveness and cynicism towards critics who do not acknowledge that law enforcement must involve force, and that police officers in a real world have to choose between evils on many occasions. But the noble and learned Lord unerringly points to those factors in the Brixton riots which are susceptible to reform and Government action.
The Brixton Council of Churches issued a statement immediately after the riots:
" We want to see a policing that the community can truly support and actively contribute to. New approaches that have worked elsewhere should be seriously looked at. A new forum is needed in which police and community leaders can really listen to each other, and some kind of new procedure for examining and defusing incidents of friction and grievance should be looked for, because the existing complaints procedure has proved of no use for the kind of incidents which happen here, and has lost the trust of the community ".
I refer to those areas of the report which respond so unambiguously to that. The question of police training: the Home Secretary has accepted all the main recommendations on police training. But, of course, it will be very expensive. There is also a wealth of experience among other professions on the relationship between initial and in-service training. It would be good to think that there was more sharing of the way in which other professions in the inner city tackle their own dilemmas in working out their attitudes; social workers, community leaders, and clergy.
Then, second, the setting up of an effective framework of police/community consultation which has the
1414
confidence of local people and in which their representatives genuinely participate. The Home Secretary has again acted with commendable speed towards setting up a voluntary liaison committee. But on the membership of that committee will depend the credibility of the experiment quite as much as the powers it will carry. Here will be the place to do battle with the sense of powerlessness.
But the question remains, how do we consult those who will not easily turn up for round-table consultation? It has been said to me more than once that it is vital to get over to the Home Office that people in Brixton, young and old, black and white, are abe to articulate their needs and have insight and experience of their area. What they lack is not leadership and know-how but channels of communication of those needs, and the material resources to meet them themselves.
While we wait for the promised legislation on statutory liaison committees and a complaints procedure, the coming months will be crucial for building the confidence in the kind of consultation machinery that the Government have in mind. The noble and learned Lord has called for a well co-ordinated and directed programme to combat the problems of racial disadvantage. He sees this in terms of enhancing the education and training of ethnic minority children to bring them to a point of equal opportunity. He does not advocate a policy of reverse discrimination under which quotas are reserved for black students.
Whatever may be the pros and cons of reverse discrimination, it is surely right that special effort should be made to give deprived sections of our community, whether black or white, the education and training opportunities which will enable them to compete on an equal level with young people in more prosperous areas. The White Paper on Racial Disadvantage published by the Government on 26th January seems to me to make splendid statements of principle but bypasses most of the recommendations in the Select Committee on Home Affairs report. Is it responsible to suggest that many of these are matters for local government when that means finding more money at a time when, as has already been stated from the Benches opposite, their rate support grants are being so savagely reduced?
In the debate over this report the concept of " community " is constantly invoked. What precisely is this " community " which we are seeking to involve and represent? One of the difficulties of work in the inner cities is precisely that the sense of community has disintegrated. As Gertrude Stein once said of Los Angeles, " When you get there, there is no there there ".
Now communities are not built of sympathetic legislation. The Scarman recommendations will act as scaffolding. We have to look for ways of replacing the bricks and mortar of community; the floors and walls we have allowed to crumble. A real community is not even built on better housing or more jobs; it is built on the way in which people treat each other.
I regard the churches in Brixton and in other inner city areas as vital agents in this fundamental community building. They are much more than bodies to be invited to give evidence to local commissions; they have a positive and creative role and they are served by ministers and priests who are actually resident in the inner city, close to their fellow citizens in a way

1415
few other professionals are and able to bring together the most diverse and antagonistic parts of the population.
It should also be remembered that the black community in this country has a better record of active church membership, largely in black-led churches, than perhaps any other section of the nation. Some of the best ministers and lay leaders I know from different churches are deployed in the inner city, and, despite financial and manpower difficulties, we are determined not to abandon the inner city and retreat to suburbia. If the Church is not seen to have a creative role to play in the future of the inner city, that is possibly a reflection on the culpably low profile on political and social matters which the Churches have adopted in places where politicians, commentators and academics live.
However, I know that in the light of this report we shall be seeking ways of extending and consolidating Christian work in education, the youth and voluntary services, as well as helping to change the malign stereotypes that groups have of each other, and challenging the mythologies which have been created. I hope and pray that Christians can be resident mediators.
We are grateful today for the encouragement we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and for the characteristically frank way in which he admitted that we were far from reaching a conclusion about the way in which the recommendations are to be implemented. The need for action at both Government and local level is very urgent, since we are perilously close to the loss of consent which must be at the basis of all public order in a free society.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I join with every previous speaker in praise of the Scarman Report, and in particular for the combination of thoroughness, sensitivity and speed with which it was produced in the critical situation which erupted last April. There can be very few other people with the requisite stature, intellectual and humane, than the noble and learned Lord who measured up to that job. I used the word " critical ", and it is important to remember that the crisis is still with us; it has not been wafted away by the exposure and analysis of the situation which was given to it by the noble and learned Lord. And nothing less than the full and, I believe, prompt implementation of the Scarman recommendations will do.
I have certain reservations about a few of the recommendations. I hope it will not strain the budding alliance between these Benches and the Liberal Party if I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that I have reservations about the recommendation of the sanction of dismissal for racially prejudiced behaviour on the part of a police officer, but perhaps he would agree that it is bound to be dependent on the degree and nature of that behaviour. But I feel strongly that the piecemeal selection of some recommendations and the rejection of others will not do.
Doubts were expressed by the Shadow Home Secretary in the other place during the debate on 10th December on the report. His doubts were whether
1416
the Home Secretary would implement the report in full. I admit that I was surprised by those doubts, on two counts: first, because I have no hesitation in saying that I have the highest regard for the integrity and will to implement the report, in so far as he is able, by the present Home Secretary; but also because the implementation of the report does not, it should not and it cannot, rest with the Home Department alone. It lies with several departments of state; it lies with the Government, and it lies with Parliament to keep it under review and to monitor the progress of the action of the Government, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, speaking for the Government and not just for the Home Department.
The report devotes the majority of its space to the police and policing policy, twice as much in fact as to social conditions and social policies. That I think is in the nature of the circumstances in which the report was commissioned; but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, would agree that had it been within his remit—had the circumstances been different, and indeed had it been (because the word was used by the noble and learned Lord) within his competence—the relative proportions devoted to policing and social conditions might have been reversed because, as the report says at page 100, paragraph 6.1:
" Any attempt to resolve the circumstances from which the disorders sprang must embrace the wider context in which policing is carried out ".
That was a most important and timely declaration in view of the focus of public attention directed by the press on the police during and after the disorders, and I wish to make a brief comment in support of the police as they have been revealed by the report.
I received this interesting quote from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who had received it from community leaders in Liverpool 8:
" We've always had bad housing and few jobs. We've learnt to put up with that. But please, get the police off our backs ".
Similar statements have been made to me by community leaders in Brixton, and there is no doubt that black minority feelings are running in that direction. But I do not think it is quite fair to the police. It is essential to bear in mind the situations—the social, economic, political and criminal situations—in which the police have to operate in Brixton, Toxteth and in our other inner city areas. Those conditions are not the making of the police themselves and they make the job of the police both distasteful and very difficult indeed.
Because the responsibilities range so widely, I wish to draw attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, had to say about the need for a coordinated approach to tackling the inner city problems. At page 101, in paragraph 6.6, he draws attention to,
" the lack of a co-ordinated policy for the control of services, which must be central to any strategy designed to tackle the problems of inner city decline and minority disadvantage ".
and he recommends action to remedy it. I believe that to be the most important single observation and recommendation in the whole report. It underscores the fact that its implementation must be broad-based and that it is incumbent not only on the statutory agencies but also on the local community, and not least the leaders of the ethnic minority groups.
I should like to touch upon two points relating to

1417
the police which bear on the question about the involvement of the local community and the ethnic minorities. The first concerns the policy and practice in regard to foot patrolling, which has already been mentioned. On pages 90 and 91 Lord Scarman states that beat officers must be seen as being,
" in the forefront of the police team ",
and that their status must be enhanced. I whole-heartedly agree with that, and I should like to add two points from my own experience as a former police officer and from experience gained during the inquiry into the police forces in Northern Ireland in 1969.
The first point concerns training. It is quite obvious that foot patrolling calls for special training, and I suggest that in the spirit advocated by Lord Scarman members of the local ethnic communities might give valuable advice during, and take part in, courses for this kind of work. My second point has regard to the selection of officers for patrolling on foot. It is quite obvious that beat duties are not for every police officer. The work calls for certain qualities that not all of us have. But I hope that such duty will not develop into an exclusive, a separate and permanent job—after all, it is very largely a matter of a measure of both humanity and commonsense, and these are qualities which the great majority of police officers have in large degree—and it is not in the interests of officers themselves nor of the police force as a whole, nor, least of all, of the community, that that should happen.
I believe in the importance of ringing the changes, of enabling most officers to gain experience of at least a number of the jobs and skills in which police officers have to be involved. They should not be retained overlong in any one of them. That was one of the recommendations that we made in 1969 in regard to the formation of a special patrol group for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I believe it is equally relevant to the special patrol group in the metropolis that they should not be on the job permanently and so be a separate kind of force.
My other point refers to the Scarman dictum contained in paragraph 51.3 on page 78 of the report, where it is stated:
" The object of policy must be that the composition of the police fully reflects that of the society the police serve ".
That is obviously a very important statement. Under-representation of the ethnic minorities is a very serious feature of our urban police forces. In enjoining chief officers of police to make renewed efforts to rectify that, as Scarman does—and I was so glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, say that some progress is being made—it is very important to bear in mind that the responsibility does not rest with the police alone. It lies also with the leaders of the ethnic minorities to use their influence and to offer their co-operation in the creation of an ethnically and proportionately diverse police force.
I was very sorry to read recently in The Times that the Confederation of Indian Organisations had urged Britain's ethnic minority not to join the police forces until the Home Office had instituted an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which a Nigerian student had been injured in Brixton. Whatever the circumstances of that case, there is no future whatever in such a negative and unco-operative attitude. In
1418
passing, I would add that the policy of proportional diversity must be applied to all the social services. I have especially in mind the probation and aftercare service, and r would add that this is very strongly the view of its representative body, the National Association of Probation Officers.
There is much more that I should like to say about the Scarman Report, but there are a great many other speakers in today's debate. I shall conclude by stressing once again the urgency of acting on the report. Mr. Richard Crawshaw, the Member for Toxteth, speaking in the debate in the other place on 10th December, was good enough to quote from a report submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Science in July 1967 by a committee of which I was chairman. I do not relish quoting myself, and if I do so now I hope that your Lordships will agree and accept that it is only for the purpose of pointing to the question of urgency. On page 67 of our report, in paragraph 287—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am loath to interrupt the noble Lord in this important debate, but the House does have rules. I am afraid that one of them is that you cannot quote from Back-Bench speeches in another place during the current Session.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. I was going to quote not from the speech in the other place, but from my report. Do I have the permission of the House to do so?
Several noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Hunt: I thank your Lordships very much. We wrote:
" We subscribe to the view of the Brixton YMCA in their survey "—
which was part of the evidence which we received—
" if England is not to be the scene of race riots, the time for action is now. The second and succeeding generations of coloured Britishers will rightly expect to be treated on equal terms and have the same opportunities as the rest of us. Within 10 years there will be enough of them to make their voices heard. Will each one be accepted on his intrinsic merits as one of us? This is the crux of the matter ".
That was written 15 years ago. Our inquiries pointed to similar dangers in Sparkbrook (Birmingham), Moss Side (Manchester), Toxteth (Liverpool), and parts of the West Midlands. It gives me no pleasure at all to point out that our prophecy has been fulfilled; and it has been fulfilled, at least partly, because too little was done in the years succeeding 1967 to implement some of the recommendations that we made. In Lord Scarman's report that dire warning comes through once again, loud and clear, and with far greater authority than we commanded in 1967. We shall court further and greater disasters than those which occurred in Toxteth and Brixton if we do not now heed that report.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept that what I have to say is said with a new sense of responsibility, because I propose introducing a note of dissent into what has hitherto been

1419
the unanimity of the debate. I do so with full regard to the importance of the subject and with the responsibility of anyone who speaks in such a debate. A visitor from another planet, or from another continent, who came to this country in November of last year and read and saw the media reaction when the Scarman Report was published, might have been forgiven had he believed that in April of last year gangs of policemen had gone down to Brixton and started to throw petrol bombs at numbers of black youths. That situation was contained not in the report itself, but in the reporting of the report, and it was the fault of the media, of which I shall have more to say a little later.
I confess that after studying the report I am concerned by what it omits, as well as by what it stresses. I say that in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the author, to whom I am bound with great elements of respect and affection as an old friend. The report is a masterly and narrative recital of facts. It is a lucid and readable document, such as has been only rarely presented to Parliament, and its findings on the facts as to what happened are totally acceptable. The noble and learned Lord heard the evidence, he paid the visits, he was demonstrably anxious to be fair and reasonable, exhibiting all the qualities of the good judge.
Yet to me the form of the report, the reflections on the social circumstances, and its tone, leave me with a feeling of anxiety. Of course, I accept that this was an inquiry under Section 32 of the Police Act 1964, and therefore the role and conduct of the police was a major element. But what dismays me is that despite the passages in the report concerning the courageous, well-intentioned police efforts, and the difficulties that they face, I am yet left with an impression of underestimation of the difficulties and problems of the police and of the justifiable anxiety of law-abiding citizens, who are the majority. I think that that impression which was conveyed to me contributed to the reporting of the report by the media, which was so slanted against the police.
My Lords, it is important to see what a heavy responsibility the media bear in regard to what happened in April of last year. They bear a very substantial degree of responsibility—not the press so much, but the television authorities. It is cited in the report that the responsibility for the escalation of the disorders, including looting, on April 11 and 12, and for the introduction of an initiative element in the later disorders, was much due to the media. The television authorities have never faced this problem with a sufficient sense of national responsibility, because they are always so greatly motivated, it seems to me, by their attitudes and determination to entertain and, alas, to sensationalise.
The consequential increase of violence in our society is in my view not a little due to the attitude of the television authorities to these matters. The ambivalent role played by the broadcasting authorities in the situation in Northern Ireland, and their attitude towards assassins, has always struck me as being very serious indeed. Some in the BBC, I know, have tried, but the corporation as a whole has never decided what is the right policy and attitude to adopt in these situations.
Nowadays, we are getting a new development—the
1420
introduction of a blurring of the distinction between reporting and commenting. There has been, in my view, a generally deplorable decline in the quality, form and amount of news reporting, especially with the BBC; and, therefore, its authority and reputation has been much reduced. Unless this decline is stopped, it could lead to demands for the removal of the news from the control of the corporation, leaving it with the role of entertainment; in other words, vesting the news bulletins in a separate entity, as is done in the case of independent television, where ITN is totally separate.
The role of the police and others in these disorders has been the subject of massive comment, but what about the television authorities, who permitted their producers so to produce programmes as to escalate disorders? Where are the programmes about their responsibility? What answers have they given to the criticisms made about them? What are the governors of the BBC and the directors of the ITV authority doing? What changes are proposed? I would ask my noble friend to tell us when he replies what the Home Secretary has done in regard to that matter.
The second body responsible are the local authority leaders. It is the responsibility of the Lambeth Borough Council. An irresponsible role was played then, and previously, by demagogic leaders. The 1981 working party on community and police relations in Lambeth, again the report indicates, worsened community relations. What has been done about the position of Councillor Knight? What about Councillor Tony Banks, chairman of the GLC Arts Committee, who is reported as saying that it was hard to tell the difference between the police travelling in plain clothes and other undesirables?—at which, I was glad to note, 10 of the Labour members of the GLC walked out of the debate. And what of the equivocal role of Mr. Botell of the GLC? What is happening to them? Is their conduct being examined as closely and as critically as that of the police? What of the CRE, about which the impression is given that it, too, is influenced by extremists and special interest groups?
Then, lastly, somehow, some of the Churches. I say this as a member of that communion whose report about Rastafarians, by the Catholic Commission on Racial Equality, has aroused general mockery and led to great distress, and has totally distanced the vast majority of reasonable members of that Church from that kind of report by that kind of group.
My Lords, those are persons all of whom bear their responsibility for what happened in April of 1981. But the essential finding is that the riots were essentially an outburst of anger and resentment by young black people against the police. That is the basic finding —and 279 policemen were injured. Of course, as the report says, nothing can excuse that conduct; but it led on, as again the report indicates, to that sinister contribution by the agitators making the petrol bombs—those people whose sole aims were directed to the destruction of a free society.
It is the philosophy behind the report which, I confess, troubles me. It is founded, as I understand it, upon the basic conception of the disadvantageous position of these newcomers into our society, and that that is unfair. Hitherto, in our society, despite the

1421
Hugenots and the Dutch at the time of King William, or even the Polish soldiers in 1945 or the refugees from the pogroms in Russia and Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries, this has always been a homogeneous society. This society has seen the arrival of not a few but of a mass of others of different attitudes, cultures, tastes and customs; and a scale of immigration over these years beyond that of helping to man the railways or the hospitals—a mass of people voluntarily coming into a wholly different society.
Is it not inevitable in such circumstances that there should be disadvantages for immigrants and their children who have emigrated half way across the world into a reserved and centralised society with long traditions and historic customs, and which must seem mutually strange and alien? It is the same for any group. What of the " Poms " (very much fewer in number) who go to Australia? They have to become Australian before they are totally accepted, and that sometimes means having to cheer for Australia when it is playing against England. When, here, those great cricket lovers are cheering for an England victory over the West Indies, that will be the time when they will be accepted as totally English. So the obligation is on the newcomer to fit in, and many have done so: welcomed they have been, and striven and succeeded. But there is no right to demand changes in the rules or the laws of the host society. If the customs conflict with those of themselves and their children, they must be prepared to change and accept them—and many do.
The report goes on to comment:
" … in the police, as in other important areas of society, the ethnic minorities are very significantly under-represented ".
Of course, they must be. They are totally unrepresented in the ranks of the judges or the chairmen of companies or the major generals. What would you expect? You would not expect it, in one generation. But this report goes on to say that they do not join the police force for
" fear of being alienated from family and friends ".
Noble Lords may have seen the picture of one of the ethnic minority in a fire brigade uniform and some comment by some so-called leader that it was the uniform which put off members of their family and friends from joining.
That is a great indictment. If that is the attitude, then it is a destruction of our society and there will never be any place in it for them. Of course, there has always been some police harassment. They are not perfect, for heaven's sake! There always has been and always will be. I, as counsel, have represented, using their civil remedies, whites against the police, and blacks. Two of the most distinguished lawyers in the West Indies now were very badly harassed here many years ago, and for them we obtained, as they were entitled to obtain as residents or citizens of this country, damages against the police.
That attitude is not confined to the police. In my own profession of the Bar there are many able and honourable black lawyers. The Bar's tradition is to represent the prosecution and the police, the accused or the individual, the state or the citizen. The noble Lord who is to follow me in this debate has a son of great distinction. He was a colleague of mine on the Bar Council when I was chairman of the Bar Council. A member of my own chambers, a black counsel,
1422
was one of the counsel to the Tribunals. He was one of many who exercise their profession with the greatest of honour and distinction. But there are the racists, the politicians, who vilify many who practise the law in accordance with the proper traditions. They seek to disrupt the profession. Where, for example, a judge criticises counsel for incompetent conduct, they mount a campaign against the judge as being a white racist, using the privileges of representation to advance political extremism. That is a serious problem. It is only a minority, but it creates serious problems in, for instance, my profession; and the courts and the administration of justice are the first targets for extremists. They are the real racists in our society.
I find that the report, not in its findings of fact, does not sufficiently accept the difficulties facing the police and the dangers that are threatened to our society. It is right that we should speak and be honest about it: for it is far worse and does far greater damage not to speak frankly about matters. Certainly, there is some proper criticism to be directed against the police: modern standards of courtesy and attitudes to the public are not all that they were. That is probably very general. In my view, too, the police have been too hesitant to permit some lay element in their complaints procedure. But, overall, the police in the inner cities face the gravest and acutest difficulties they have ever encountered. In face of demagogic local authority leaders who are temperamentally and politically hostile to all police, and of a negative Commission of Racial Equality, over-influenced by pressure groups and, frankly, by some misguided clergymen; and in the face of mounting street crime, of the mugging of the elderly and of mounting majority public anger and resentment, what are the police to do?
How do you police in such circumstances? The report recites the difficulties, but does it give sufficient weight to them? Did anyone ever see the Gardes Mobiles in action in France, or the New York city police, or the police putting down riots in Germany and Japan? What alternative have the police force, given the responsibility which we give to it? What alternative has it to constant and active stop-and-search and an active presence in a particular area where there is street crime and mugging on such levels?
What alternative was there, in fact, to Operation Swamp, whatever one may think of the name?—community police. There is a picture in the newspaper of a community policeman in Bristol. He is lying injured in hospital. And what of the aftermath? Have the muggings in Brixton reduced or increased in number? What of the elderly, brutally struck down? We have had recently the whole country up in arms about the evil crime of rape. Why not an outcry about the elderly, beaten about outside their doors, some of them terrified to go out? In Bristol, there were jeers and insults shouted at the police, and gangs invaded the supermarkets taking things out because the people were almost too frightened to prevent them—and the police were not there because they have to be tactful.
I am glad that as a result of this the police hereafter will be better equipped—so they should be—and better trained in riot control and more experienced to deal with the petrol bombers, those sinister people. I

1423
wonder which side of the political fence they come from? I do not think there is much doubt about that. One other matter I would raise about the report. It is the dismissal of a new Riot Act. From 1714 to 1967! Of course, the original, draconian in penalty and punishment is wholly inept and unacceptable; but I hope that the Home Secretary will consider (perhaps in greater depth than has been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord), the principle of " Disperse or be arrested! ". I do not accept that it is not possible to announce that there is a riot and that anybody who remains on the scene is liable to be arrested and convicted as a rioter. Make it a duty to keep clear and impose a burden on those who do not go away, who do not disperse and who are present. And put the burden on them to prove their innocent attendance. The report, I consider, dismisses this particular proposition too shortly.
I understand the great burden shouldered with skill and distinction by the Enquirer and the civilised desire to cool the situation and the inherent liberal reasonableness of the report. But there is anxiety which none of us can ignore lest the majority, still bewildered by the changes of mass immigration imposed upon the nation (as they think), turn against the newcomers. They say: " Who are they to overturn our society, to change our laws, because it is their custom? " Then there are the trouble makers, the immigrants who are badly served by apparently self-appointed leaders, most with extreme political views, and by those who manipulate them and who may be well meaning but misguided. The natural targets of those who wish to destroy society are the police and the courts.
The Home Secretary, I heard, has visited some victims of street crimes. I welcome that. The present situation calls for firm and resolute leadership from the Home Office; the strengthening of the police and not the weakening of it, demonstrating our society's determination not to be overborne by those who, if they do not like law, do not keep it. When the crisis arises, when the whole fabric of our society is threatened, then society must ensure that its priorities are preserved—and that is so in peace as well as in war.
In April 1981 there were the seeds of a threat to the dissolution of the state. That is how it was seen overseas. The national will and character must be demonstrated and the duty lies firmly with the Home Office Ministers. The first priority must be the forces which stand between society and anarchy; and the first lesson from the spring and summer of 1981 is that Ministers should stand by the men and women in the first line of the defence of liberty.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his report and for the extremely useful service that he has rendered the community by the manner in which he carried out his inquiry as well as the report. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out that when the noble and learned Lord was first appointed there was a campaign to boycott the inquiry. But the noble and learned Lord completely overcame the opposition, soothed their fears, removed their
1424
doubts; and at the end those who came to scoff remained to praise. It is an indication of the success of the noble and learned Lord that there has been widespread anticipation of a report with radical recommendations and there have been indications of disappointment that the report is not as revolutionary as some expected.
Unlike the previous speaker, I personally regard the report as a first-class document which, if implemented, will go a long way towards improving the situation which now exists. I must confess that I am by no means encouraged by press reports of the likely Government response. Therefore I am particularly sorry that I was not in my place to hear the beginning of the Minister's speech. I apologise to him for that. I was hoping that he would be able to reassure me this afternoon.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I shall comment on some of the recommendations. I strongly endorse the recommendation for statutory consultation machinery and that members of that committee should be empowered to pay visits to police stations, inspect detention, areas and report on those visits. The Home Secretary should be congratulated on the speed with which he has established machinery—or at least tried to establish machinery—and one hopes that he will be successful in Lambeth.
I am however in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord that it is essential that these committees have a statutory basis. Quite a few committees exist at the moment up and down the country. They are voluntary committees and they tend to break down at the first adverse circumstance. In the first crisis somebody pulls out, others feel that out of loyalty to that group they ought to pull out too, and the committee breaks up. Therefore, if we are going to have these committees they need to have the underpinning which a statutory basis will give them. I hope that the Minister will try to persuade his right honourable friend of that fact. I was in the Chamber in time to hear his outline of the way in which they are proceeding in dealing with this matter. I have no quarrel with that. I hope that the Home Office will bear in mind the importance of the statutory underpinning of the committee when it is established.
The next aspect on which I want to comment is the mention in the report of the crucial importance of inspectors and sergeants in the manning of the forces and in the degree of management training they receive. They hold the key to making sure that constables are aware of the consent principle, and that mistakes, errors and slight misconduct are dealt with quickly.
With your permission, my Lords, and I do not think it is against Standing Orders, I want to read a leader from the Westindian World of last week. Its headline is: " Darcus nicked … then let go ". Darcus in this case is Darcus Howe who is editor of Race Today. I am reading from the leader:
" This point is highlighted by the experience of two men who were arrested in Oxford Street last week. The importance of case is not that it happened to our contributor Darcus Howe, but that it happened at all in the way it did.
" The facts of the case are that Darcus went down to Oxford Street to buy a pair of shoes for a funeral he was attending the next day, which anyone knowing his normal sneakers and boots footgear will not find surprising.
" He went with Michael Cadet, one of the Race Today collective,

1425
to visit two shops, where they expected to find a bargain. In one of the shops they met a friend of Cadet's, one of the assistants, and chatted briefly, before Darcus went next door to the other shoe shop to check the basement.
" All normal so far, but on emerging to the pavement, Darcus was stopped by two policemen, Police Cadet Willis, and PC 411 from West End Central station, who insisted on searching him as a suspicious person. He asked the reason and was told he had been seen dipping into ladies' handbags. He refused, and was arrested, waiting twenty minutes in custody out on the pavement, until a police van arrived.
" Once in the station, he was taken to a detention room, where the sergeant came in and asked for the policeman's version of the story. The story had changed since the arrest. PC 411 now said that Darcus had gone into six shops, and that there had been another man waiting outside, as a lookout. The police turned to grab the man, who ran, and they failed to give chase because Oxford Street was crowded.
" The seargeant then asked Darcus for his version, to which Darcus replied, ' He's crazy '.
" Imagine his surprise when the sergeant simply asked him to sign for his belongings and told him he was free to go.
" There are a number of possibilities. Either it was such an obvious stitchup that the sergeant was too embarassed to carry it out. Or the evidence was too flimsy to justify an arrest. Or once the sergeant realised who Darcus was he was having no truck with it.
" But whichever one of those it was, it is odds on that if Darcus had been any of the youths around Oxford Street at 4.30 on that day last week, he would by now have been tried, convicted, sentenced and tucked neatly away, with a big blot on his record.
" Willie Whitelaw and his cohorts, and our representatives, ought to be considering the meaning of that fact very carefully before they decide what sort of machinery we require for controlling the police ".
I am grateful to your Lordships for permitting me to read this because it indicates the problems and the dangers. I do not know what the sergeant said to the constables, but I hope they were made aware of the harm that their action had done. The leader that I have just read also underlines the point that the noble and learned Lord made in his report about the care with which this power of stop and of search should be used and the degree to which constables should be supervised.
The next issue I want to touch on is the question of the recommendation that racially discriminatory behaviour should be an offence under the police disciplinary code. I noticed in today's Times that this is a matter that the Home Secretary is not prepared to agree to. I ask the Minister to plead with his right honourable friend to consider his attitude in this matter. It is as important, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, pointed out earlier—he said it was more important; I am sticking to the fact that it is as important—that police officers should be disciplined for racially discriminatory behaviour as for corrupt or improper practice; improper dress, untidiness, drunkenness or entering licensed premises. All these matters are mentioned in the disciplinary code. So I hope that the Home Office will reconsider this particular one and take note of that particular recommendation.
Now the dissatisfaction over the manner in which police complaints are dealt with is perennial. We are all accustomed to hearing about it, and since I have been active in this field for 30 years I have been hearing it for 30 years. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that nothing but a completely independent investigation into complaints against the police will satisfy those who are critical of the present method. My own view is that this can be done by establishing an appeals machinery to which both the complainant and the
1426
police officer can appeal if they are dissatisfied with the initial adjudication.
The appeals machinery can work much as the appeals machinery against decisions of the magistrates can work—that is, at the moment, a judge sitting with two magistrates deals with appeals from magistrates; in effect the case is heard all over again and a decision is then arrived at. My view is that, if it is done that way, we may at long last come to the end of the continued criticism of the manner in which complaints against the police are dealt with. This is another matter which I gather from the press that the Home Secretary is not very keen on, but again I hope the Minister will be able to persuade him that he needs to think again on this.
Whatever the machinery established, I hope the conciliation proposals contained in the report will be acted on. I think they are excellent proposals and will go a long way towards meeting a lot of the minor complaints that crop up when what people really want is an apology—they do not really want any long-scale trial and punishment. I think the conciliation suggestion is excellent.
The question of recruiting more black policemen is a very old one. The truth is that the present failure to secure the recruitment of black policemen is tied up with the present relationship between the black community and the police. They both stereotype each other, and it is the breaking down of that barrier and the shattering of the myths which exist on both sides that are really required. The present situation cannot be allowed to go on, and determined efforts must be made by both sides to try to understand each other. The truth is that the police and the black community are both minorities and react as such. In fact, they have more in common in the way in which they react than they realise.
In the meantime, the black community must be helped to understand how important the police are to them and also how important it is that black people should be in positions of authority at every level of society. Just as we need more black Members of your Lordships' House, more black Members of another place, more black councillors, more black teachers and more black magistrates and Ministers of Government, so we need more black policemen. Because just as we need black judges, so we need black officers in the higher ranks of the police services; and we cannot have black commanders or black superintendents if we do not have black constables. That is the point that needs to be got home. I personally believe that the best course is to make maximum use of the cadet scheme and try to get black youngsters fresh from school to go to the cadet college together, and in that way help to reinforce each other.
We have been told that black constables have problems regarding the attitude that the young blacks have to them, but I want to remind them that the first set of black footballers had a lot of problems. They were barracked from the terraces and spat on; but they endured it all and today we in the black community are very proud of the large number of black footballers in the top ranks of the football leagues, and we were all proud when Viv Anderson and Laurie Cunningham played for England. Therefore, it is worth bearing in mind that although there may be

1427
problems to start with, the rewards are worth while.
Now I should like to say a few words about racial disadvantage—because I cannot leave it—and particularly about racial discrimination. If you discriminate against me in the type of employment that I can get, you limit me in the area in which I can live and in the social concourse which I can have. If in addition to that you discriminate against me in housing, then you further limit me. On top of all that, as a consequence of these two things, there will be a limitation on the type of education my children will get. If you then proceed to discriminate against them in their education, you have created a cycle of deprivation which can be quite terrible.
Let us face it, my Lords, we have already gone through that cycle of deprivation. What happened when the first immigrants came? They got jobs because they came here to work in industries where they were needed and, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, some of them were recruited at home in the Caribbean; they were brought here to work, so work was not the problem. At that time housing was the problem, because it was in housing that they were competing with the home community, and it was in housing that they experienced discrimination. But their children were born here and have been to school here; and their children are now coming to a situation when they are finding it difficult to get jobs. More-over, we have a new situation—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew attention to what his committee said in 1967, because it has come true—where the youngsters will not take the sort of discrimination their parents took and they will not react in the " accepting " way in which their parents reacted. They rebel, and will rebel, and it is as well that we should recognise that.
Therefore, we should set about dealing with racial disadvantage and racial discrimination, and the Government are in the best position to deal with this and to give relief. They are the largest employers of labour; they are the largest providers of contracts; they have the nationalised industries which they can influence. They can also influence local authorities—although it seems to me that local authorities are more mindful of their responsibilities than central Government.
I welcome the decision of the Government to monitor the Civil Service, but we are moving so slowly that it is not funny. The article in The Times this morning says that when the Home Secretary was asked about time, he admitted that we did not have much time. The Home Secretary was absolutely ight about that. We may not yet be at midnight, but we are at the eleventh hour and we do not have much time. In any case, time is not necessarily a useful weapon. It is a good weapon only if you use it well.
In order to illustrate what I mean, I shall talk to your Lordships about Liverpool. I have the report on racial disadvantage by the Home Affairs Committee of another place, and in the first paragraph on Liverpool they said:
" Liverpool's ethnic minority population is estimated at around 40,000 by the Merseyside CRC (eight per cent. of the city's population) half of whom are black British of several generations. The criteria for section 11 funding excludes Liverpool as having fewer than two per cent. Commonwealth immigrants, and it is
1428
not widely perceived as a city with race relation problems. The situation of Liverpool's ethnic minority population is, however, of particular interest because of the way in which patterns of disadvantage in employment, education and housing, so far from disappearing with the passage of time, have if anything been reinforced over the years, to the extent that Chinese or Asian ' newcomers ' are in a better position than Liverpool's indigenous blacks. If we cannot combat racial disadvantage in our other cities now, we will soon have a dozen Liverpools but on a far greater scale ".
That is a fact. Liverpool is there and has been there all along, as an example of what we must try to avoid. During the whole of my period on the commission, I have tried to get the Government to understand that simple fact; that if we do not take active steps to combat discrimination and to deal with racial disadvantage, what we shall have will be a large number of Liverpools.
In one of Martin Luther King's famous speeches, he said that he had a dream. I must confess that I have a nightmare and I have had it for 20 years. What is more, as time has gone on, and most of the things I feared have happened, my nightmare has become worse. I said earlier that this is the eleventh hour. What I really believe is that the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, can be used as a pointer, to point us in the right direction. By using and implementing it, we can stop the drift downwards and move towards the sunlit uplands. I said earlier that time is not on our side. Let us start acting now.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest—an interest by association. I was, until the end of January last year, chairman of the Police Complaints Board, I was deputy chairman of the Edmund-Davies inquiry into the police, chairman of the Home Office working party which looked at certain proposals for handling complaints made by the Police Complaints Board and I am still chairman of the Police Negotiating Board, which settles their pay and conditions. Therefore, over the last few years I have had a very considerable amount to do with the police. But this afternoon I want to confine my remarks to the handling of complaints.
There are each year about 30,000 complaints against the police, of which just short of 15,000 go forward to investigation, and those complaints originate in 43 forces throughout England and Wales. About 20 per cent., or slightly more, arise within the Metropolitan Police area and about 33 per cent., or slightly more go on to the Director of Public Prosecutions. All are seen by the Police Complaints Board.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, proposed in his report that there should be a completely separate body to investigate complaints against the police, if confidence in the way in which complaints are looked at was to be restored. Indeed, he went on to say that the main stumbling block to confidence in the police was really the way in which complaints against them were investigated by the police themselves. Quite naturally, he did not in his report say how he would organise a completely separate body of this kind, but he pointed out that there were practical difficulties. How would it be staffed? To whom would it be responsible? What would be its relationship to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Police Complaints Board and, most important, to chief constables

1429
who would remain responsible for the discipline of their forces?
In preparing our triennial report, the complaints board studied the possibility of setting up an independent body, but we rejected it, partly on the grounds of the volume of complaints, partly on how you would recruit and train sufficient people to carry out investigations of this kind and partly because, as most of the information of which a complaint has to be investigated is in the possession of the police, you would have to invest the members of a lay body with the powers of a constable.
Where would you recruit people of this kind? Obviously, it would not be sensible to recruit ex-policemen. That would not restore confidence, if confidence is lost, because they are now investigated by policemen. Some people have said that you could recruit lawyers. But how would you make a career structure of a kind that would attract the sort of people who it is suggested might be brought in? You would need to have people who not only had the confidence of others, but who were also trained in investigation. My own experience is that investigation of this kind is a very special attainment.
May I say, anecdotally, that in 1954 when I became the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, we had many hundreds of people who had not been security cleared, and until they were cleared we were unable to exchange information with the United States Atomic Energy Commission. We recruited about 150 people to do this work. Most were retired policemen, but some were people who had been intelligence officers in the forces during the war. Some were retired lawyers, and there were others. I can only tell your Lordships that our experience was that the policemen were far better at doing this work than the others. The others were impatient and upset people, and we had proportionately far more trouble—not from all, but from some of them. Of course, one could train a body of men if one could recruit them.
Sometimes, I think it is not realised how extensive is the range and volume of inquiries that are necessary, even for quite a minor complaint of indiscipline. Witnesses have to be seen, but they are not always there. Witnesses are sometimes unwilling to be seen. They may be scattered throughout the country. For instance, football match incidents could mean that the people concerned had scattered and were miles apart. Having read many files of cases, I can assure your Lordships that one accumulates an enormous volume of paper which is the fruit of a great deal of time. So there would have to be a lot of people in a body of this kind.
What is the real extent of the dissatisfaction? In their triennial report, the complaints board, consisting of 19 men and women drawn from a wide range of professions and experience and from all parts of the country, who between them had seen many thousands of complaints and the investigations which had been made into them, was able to write:
" The Board are satisfied that in the vast majority of cases which come before them a thorough and fair investigation has been made by the police into the complainants' allegations and though this may not reveal the whole truth it will nevertheless provide all available evidence on which to make a proper adjudication ".
Perhaps the most important point about setting up an
1430
independent body would be a conflict of interest. One would be setting up a kind of second police force—a police force to police the police. To me, for the reasons I have given, this would present unacceptable organisational problems and it could lead to very great morale problems.
The complaints board was not satisfied with the way in which all complaints were dealt with. It felt that unexplained injury, sustained by someone during arrest or while in police custody and which was denied as having been caused by the police themselves, presented the main focus of the discontent over complaints against the police and the way they were handled. They believed that violence is the factor which causes the greatest damage to good relations between the police and the public. In their triennial report the complaints board put forward the proposal that a body of policemen should be seconded for a number of years, that it should be under the direction of a layman, preferably a lawyer with some judicial experience, and that it should be charged with the investigation of complaints of serious injury while in police custody.
The Home Office set up a working party under my chairmanship to look into this proposal. For a variety of reasons it came to the conclusion that to set up a seconded body of people would not be the right way to go about it. In cases of serious injury, after the usual initial inquiries, the normal procedure should be to bring in an officer from another force, and an assessor from some body, either the complaints board or the Director of Public Prosecutions, should be associated with the inquiry. It was made quite clear that this procedure would in no way affect the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate criminal proceedings if he thought that this was right.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, accepted the suggestion of a special body if he was unable to secure a completely independent body to inquire into all complaints. But he added two important points: that rather than having any discretion in the matter, deputy chief constables should be placed under an obligation to appoint an officer from another force to investigate all complaints of a serious nature. He went on to say that the independent supervisor, whom he suggested should be the chairman of the complaints board or his deputy, should be involved in the investigation process from the beginning and should be treated as a member of the investigating team. That is, he should keep regularly in touch with the progress of the investigation and should be able to offer guidance and influence its conduct. To use his words:
" He must not be treated as an irrelevant fifth wheel on the investigation coach ".
I accept that these proposals are a great improvement. I endorse them and hope they will be accepted. I go so far as to say that in the long run I hope it will be found possible to have a seconded body of police officers, under a civilian, to investigate cases of serious injury, corruption, or anything of that kind which it is felt should be investigated. This was felt to be unacceptable to many senior police officers. But most police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, have set up a unit specially to deal with complaints. I do

1431
not see why it should be more difficult to do that nationally than to do it locally. If, however, this is to come about it will need the wholehearted backing of senior police officers.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that there should be a mechanism for extending the process of conciliation for the handling of minor complaints. He said that at every police station there should be an inspector with the duty of receiving all complaints before recording them and then seeking to conciliate the complainant. My experience is that many complainants do not really want to go through the whole disciplinary procedure. They want to register a grievance and to receive an apology or an explanation of why the action was taken. This is already done on an informal basis in some forces and I fully endorse the suggestion that it should become universal.
I believe the suggestion that a lay person should sit with the conciliator should be tried, but on an informal basis—I would suggest, at first possibly in one or more city centres. I suggest that one needs experience of hybrid work before one can set it up on a formal basis. Some commentators have suggested that dissatisfied complainants should have the right to have their case independently reviewed after the event, on the lines of the ombudsman. There are two objections: first, the sheer volume of the work involved. I believe that the ombudsman investigates about 300 cases a year. With a volume of 15,000 cases, many more people would, I am sure, be dissatisfied with the result and would say that they wanted an ex post facto review. This would introduce, in a big way, a double jeopardy for police officers, which is a very real difficulty. If a police officer had been through either the Director of Public Prosecutions or a disciplinary body and was told that he was innocent and if the matter was investigated again and the decision reversed, I do not believe that this would be acceptable. If this power was not to rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions, I cannot see what good it would do.
I believe that the noble Lord endorsed a suggestion of the complaints board that there would be a real advantage in trying to avoid having to refer every case of a criminal nature to the Director of Public Prosecutions; obscene language and minor road traffic infringements and things of that kind. I am sure that it would require legislation, but it would be quite possible to do, and it would simplify the very elaborate way in which it now has to be done.
It is sometimes suggested that public disquiet about the complaints system is due to the fact that so few police officers are prosecuted. What is overlooked and that, apart from cases where formal charges are preferred, about 8 per cent. of all complaints result in officers being advised or admonished. Any of us who have had responsibility for people will know that to give him advice is very often a far better way of helping the young and inexperienced person; it might be quite severe advice as to how he should behave, but that is much better than carrying out a form of punishment.
Some people, when commenting on the police, seem to forget that policemen have the same rights as other citizens; they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a body of 125,000 men and women there will always be a small minority who are bad-tempered,
1432
violent, and corrupt, as in society as a whole, but if we put a body of men and women in authority over others, as we do with the police, we must require them to be better than the average in society, and to achieve this requires wise selection and better training. I was encouraged when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, placed emphasis on the extra training that I thought he indicated was going to be given to the police in all manner of things, and in particular in the way in which they deal with the public.
In seeking to put all this right, we must not allow our natural indignation to endanger the morale of the great majority of decidated and devoted men and women in our police forces. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in his report, in considering disorder the role of the police is critical. It is not the police who create social deprivation, poor education or racial disadvantage. The police are not responsible for the disadvantages of the ethnic minorities. They did not create unemployment and frustration. That wider responsibility rests with society as a whole; it rests with all of us.
Following on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, I feel that there are a great many good things—not that I agree with all of it—in Lord Scarman's report. But what is essential is that we should get on with implementing them and not spend too much time discussing the minutiae. I was encouraged because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was indicating that that was the Government's intention.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I would like as a very junior Back Bencher, to congratulate very sincerely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on his brilliant report. To me, it was brilliantly written and brilliantly put together. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said most lucidly, the report was so helpful and covered so much ground. I am very grateful to Lord Scarman because it was in 1959 that my late husband was made Secretary of State for Colonies, and in the ensuing two years I had the opportunity of meeting people, not only in London when they came over to conferences, but also people whom we are calling tonight the black ethnic minority in their own homes. I learnt then to have a great affection for them and to be completely colour blind; and I also wished with all my heart that when they came over here to live they would be well and truly absorbed into and be part of our community.
In reading the report, I asked myself the reasons for the riots. I came up with an answer nowhere as good as the noble and learned Lord's, but I came up first of all with unemployment, which, of course, all noble Lords know a great deal about. Then I put down the lack of leisure facilities, discontent, frustration, insecurity and unhappiness. When I went into it further, I discovered that 22 per cent. of all the single parent households in Lambeth are in the two wards of Tulse Hill and Herne Hill. Not only that, but 21 per cent. of the children in the same wards were in care—that is, children under 18 years of age who have no home of their own. Further, I discovered that it is reported that between 200 and 300 young people are sleeping rough or in squats. Those three figures

1433
are, in my view, a recipe for insecurity and unhappiness. If those young people were to grow up to be unemployed and have nothing to do then surely we were asking for trouble—and in 1981, unfortunately, we got it.
I am rather keen about sports, and on page 6 of the report I looked to see what the noble and learned Lord had said about the lack of leisure facilities. I discovered that there was only Brockwell Park and Angel Park—both very small pieces of open ground shown on the map at the back of the report—which can be used for outdoor facilities for sport. However, there is the Brixton Recreational Centre which was started in 1973, and I personally hope that it will be completed in the new near future. Unless people have something to do they are going to muster on street corners. We all know that the black people in their own countries do muster on the street corners, because they all come from nice, happy, sunny lands—but mustering on the street corners in this country in the snow and the wet is not exactly a happy way to spend one's days. That is perhaps part of the frustration that they find.
I would like to see every single square inch of land such as school land and school playgrounds used to the full whenever it is not being used by schools. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, referred to some of our most brilliant cricketers, athletes and soccer sportsmen who come from these countries and who are now British and playing for us. I need only remind your Lordships of Sobers, Roland Butcher, Viv Anderson, White and Laurie Cunningham; of Daley Thompson, Tessa Sanderson and Sonia Lannaman. They are all of international repute. They have come to our country and they are now representing our country.
I also looked to see what the noble and learned Lord had to say about the police. I am not nearly as well qualified as the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, or other speakers in your Lordships' House, to talk about the police. I have a great regard for all they do, but I realise the difficulties of a young policeman trying to keep law and order among people from a different culture, albeit on his territory. It is a very difficult problem indeed. Therefore, I would like to see more training given to the police by people who know, I would hope perhaps at first hand, the background from which these young people who have been causing these disturbances come, because it is very different from our culture here. One needs very little imagination to know the difficulties of young policemen put straight on the beat in the areas concerned. I was also hoping that the six months' special training period would be brought into effect, certainly for police who are likely to have to go into these areas.
I also have another suggestion, to which perhaps the Home Office will not take too kindly. In this country we have always had special constables. I think perhaps we have not nearly as many as society would like. I have always understood that special constables were people who were part of the local community, people who were trained in policing and trained in law but who were also known as people who could be approached; not always in uniform; people who had some sort of qualification, albeit small, to give up some of their time to help in policing their local areas. The ordinary policeman will obviously go up the ladder—at least one hopes so—and may leave the area he has got to know
1434
very well; and therefore the young person will suddenly find himself bereft of the policeman that he has perhaps had tremendous regard for. I would have thought that perhaps special constables, drawn from the local community, of all colours, would fill the gap. They are there. They might well be of the older generation, people who have up to this time done their very best to obey the laws of our country.
My Lords, I am grateful indeed for what my noble friend Lord Belstead was able to tell us this afternoon about the way in which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is hoping to implement the very important parts of this report. I, for one, hope that such flexibility will always be part of the thinking. I am grateful that the Government are acting so quickly. But, for my part, I hope that such a report and the reasons for it will never occur in our country again.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, may I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the House because I shall not be able to stay to hear his reply to the debate. With a lot of regret, I have to put in a dissent to the general expressions of praise which have greeted the publication of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I followed the inquiry very closely and I was well aware of the good impressions that were created in many quarters about the noble Lord's handling of the inquiry. I am all the more deeply disappointed by the report as it has come out.
My views were very much reflected by the same Mr. Darcus Howe to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred, in an eloquent and disturbing article which he wrote in The Times on 26th November entitled, " My fears after this failure ". The essence of what he was saying was that the good recommendations in the Scarman Report amounted really to no more than tinkering in the face of the failure to face up to the one historical factor which above all caused the Brixton disorders, which is that the police force in Brixton and other inner city areas have again and again and again abused the rights and freedoms of black citizens. They have abused them without their superiors or their political masters or the courts making the efforts which are called for to stop them. That was the charge that was made and which has been made by responsible leader after responsible leader of the black community.
I want to examine how the noble and learned Lord deals with that central charge. The key part of the report is Part IV. The noble and learned Lord reports on a deep and widespread sense of grievance among the black community against the police, and that I share. But he does not come to terms with whether that widespread sense of grievance is justified or not. In paragraph 4.67 there is a key passage which reflects much of the analysis in the report. It reads as follows:
" Whether justified or not, many in Brixton believe that the police routinely abuse their powers and mistreat alleged offenders. The belief here is as important as the fact. One of the most serious developments in recent years has been the way in which the older generation of black people in Brixton has come to share the belief of the younger generation that the police routinely harass and ill-treat black youngsters ".
Where I do not agree is with the contention that the belief is as important as the fact. If those beliefs are

1435
justified, they call for a far more root-and-branch examination of the way in which our police force polices than emerges from the report.
Equally, if that belief is not justified, it is necessary to say so, and in saying so, of course, to be saying that members of the black community are over-credulous, are hasty to make accusations, are purveyors of myths about racialism where they do not exist. My belief is that that sort of charge would simply not be true, that the black community in Brixton has borne racial discrimination with enoromous patience; that it accepts that the guilty people among its community should be punished, but what it does not accept is that the innocent should be harassed and framed.
The central finding of the report on this issue is at paragraph 4.63, and it is this:
" Such plausibility as this attack "—
that is, the attack of racialism—
" has achieved is due, sadly, to the ill-considered, immature and racially prejudiced actions of some officers in their dealings on the streets with young black people. Racial prejudice does manifest itself occasionally in the behavour of a few officers on the streets ".
That comes nowhere near the mark in the experience of countless people in the black community, who have written and spoken about the conduct of the police in their midst.
It is extremely difficult for those of us who are trying to bring home that unpalatable truth, to do so with effect upon the authorities. If we raise particular incidents such as that which was detailed by my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead, or such as those which from time to time are made the subject of campaigns in the press, we are told that those are just isolated matters which are unfortunate. If we make more general statements, we are accused of being over-sweeping and generalised.
I recall with some bitterness a debate in this House on 14th December 1978 on a private Bill to abolish the crime of " sus ". I sought in that debate, in talking about police misbehaviour, to rely upon responsible sources: upon reports written and published by people who were worthy of respect—and very bitter reading they were. I recall the speaker for the Government—who was, incidentally, the same speaker as the one who is about to follow me; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—saying that I had made a quite extraordinary speech and implying, indeed, that it was pernicious.
Today I would like to take one episode, which is dealt with in the Scarman Report, and the noble and learned Lord's treatment of it, to try to show that we are failing to treat occasions of harassment with the seriousness that they deserve. I am referring to a very important incident because it is the one which caused the commencement of the gravest of the disorders on the second day, the Saturday. It is dealt with in paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31 of the report. I shall quote the facts as they were found by the noble and learned Lord. The incident occurred on Saturday 11th April and the scene is a car hire office and a car parked outside it. It says:
1436
" As the two officers passed the car they looked in and saw the driver placing what appeared to be pieces of folded paper in his right sock. Having in mind the reputation of the area for drug trading, they thought that the pieces of paper might contain drugs and decided to investigate.
The officers approached the driver and questioned him about what he had in his socks. They explained that they thought he might be in possession of drugs and asked if they could search him. The driver laughed and told them that as a mini-cab driver it was his practice to put his money in his socks for safe-keeping. He agreed to be searched. PC Cameron searched him and found nothing incriminating. The pieces of paper proved, as the cab driver had said, to be bank notes ".
If the incident had ended there, there might never have been a riot; but it did not end there. The police officers in question continued by insisting to search the man's car, and doing so. A crowd was gathering all the time; tension was mounting all the time; protests were mounting all the time; and within minutes there was an arrest and the disorders were set ablaze. I should have thought that any of us would say that that decision, once the initial suspicion had been allayed, to conduct a search of that man's car was an unlawful invasion of his freedom. But that is not what the noble and learned Lord finds. At paragraph 3.78 he dismissed it as a piece of police action of no great consequence and in the next paragraph as an action which was not unlawful, but merely perhaps a bit indiscrete.
The relevance of that is not merely that that incident started the riot and was something which manifested to those who were watching yet another example of the over-use of police powers. The relevance of it is that even the noble and learned Lord did not think fit really to censure it. I suggest that we are beginning to lack vigilance if we fail to see, even in comparatively small actions of over-use of police powers, that our freedom is being invaded. If we tolerate and condone that, then we are on the way to tolerating and condoning things which are much worse.
What are we now to do? I am as anxious as anybody to be constructive about the future. I do not believe that the black community is so alienated from the democratic process that they will not want to take part, if they see it happening, in positive democratic improvements to the way in which the police are acting and are controlled. So first I shall take what I feel to be the good recommendations of the noble and learned Lord.
I shall deal first with the matter of police training. We give a huge power to police officers to dispose of our lives day by day, to stop us, to search us, to arrest us and even to prosecute us. Yet the training period in London is 15 weeks and 10 weeks outside and then a period of, as it were, learning on the spot. I would go to the recommendation which the noble and learned Lord I think wanted to make but did not, and say that a 12-month period of training is the minimum which can adequately allow a young officer to have the powers that he or she has. The training needs to go much wider than the techniques of policing: it needs to include the social history of the United Kingdom and the history of the communities which form part of it. It needs to go far wider than the particular laws which have to be enforced—the reasons for them, the concepts of natural justice and civil rights.
Secondly, there is the question of discipline. Like many noble Lords I was appalled to hear, first the Police Federation and then, as I understand it, the

1437
Government, oppose the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord that racial discrimination should be a disciplinary offence. Thirdly, there is consultation and the proposal that there should be a statutory duty to consult. It was deplorable that an operation which affects the community so much as " Swamp '81 " should be carried out without any kind of advance warning or explanation or consultation whatever. It is the mentality of the police seeing themselves as a force and the community as an enemy; and you do not, of course, communicate with the enemy. If that is the attitude, it affects the way in which every member of the force carries out his duty.
The question was raised during this debate about what happens if there is a clash between the community and the police over this kind of operational decision. I go further, much further, than the noble and learned Lord and ask for a real accountability, particularly of the Metropolitan Police. In the ultimate it should be for the democratic representatives to decide. At the moment, in London in particular, there is nowhere to complain to and I wholly support the efforts of the Greater London Council to establish a police authority for London.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the wider question which has been raised, of social deprivation. To say that social deprivation causes riots does, I think, blur the issue. You can have social harmony and harmony between police and public in conditions and areas of poverty. You can have good community relations in areas of poverty. Indeed, there are many good community relations in Brixton itself. Conversely, the spending of money does not automatically cure or redress grievances. What provokes rebellion is the experience of injustice, and particularly injustice which goes unredressed.
Racism by those in authority is among the bitterest forms of injustice. The whole community has a duty to stamp out racism, but where it is experienced, principally by the black community in areas like Brixton, is at the hands of the police. I implore that we recognise this and that both within the police force and outside we do the necessary to reduce it, and also to provide channels which can work to punish the offenders where racism occurs.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, let me begin by saying that I propose to devote the whole of my speech to those aspects of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, relating to the police. In doing so, I should, I suppose, declare an interest of a kind in that I am a trustee of the Police Foundation, with the noble Lord, Lord Sieff of Brimpton, though that foundation has no views on the matters which we are discussing today. I should make that clear at the outset.
I think there has been general agreement throughout this debate that what happened at Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side, and, indeed, elsewhere last year was deeply disquieting. As has been said by a number of people, the police have not, of course, created the social conditions that have arisen in our decaying inner city areas. But they, like many others, have to recognise that there have, indeed, been errors and
1438
that in a number of respects there will have to be new attitudes as well as changed policies.
Let me say at the outset—and it is a particular pleasure to say this, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—that I believe that by his report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has rendered a notable service to the state. It is, I think, a report of high intellectual quality and great wisdom. I believe that if a Government were to ignore his recommendations, they would do so at the greatest peril. Fortunately, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has indicated that the Government accept the report and I, for one, welcome that. However, in one important respect, with which I shall deal a little later, I have not detected firm evidence that the Government do, indeed, propose to implement some of the noble and learned Lord's most important recommendations. As I indicated, I shall return to that issue in a moment.
Before coming to the three particular issues I want to discuss this evening, I should like to say this by way of introduction. I think it is imperative that the police draw the right conclusions from last year's disturbances. However, I am sometimes a little concerned at the belief, apparently held by a number of people—certainly many outside this House, but perhaps some within it—that there is some relatively simple solution to the problems of crime in our inner city areas if we were to take some special type of action.
Certainly, I agree that the police have to get closer to the people whom they are policing. Yes, there must be a more determined effort to get more black recruits into the police service. But there is no easy formula, no style of policing, which, if adopted, could necessarily be guaranteed to avoid the clashes that we have seen in the streets, and indeed—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, pointed out earlier this afternoon—what happened in Bristol only last week-end, when a well-liked community constable, Police Constable Bennett, who had worked in the area for some years was savagely beaten up by a gang of youths: first a bottle was smashed in his face and then a block of concrete. It is quite obvious after episodes of that kind and the dedicated efforts made by the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset to change the style of policing in the St. Paul's area, that changing the style of policing will not, by itself, avoid episodes of that character.
Neighbourhood policing, community policing, however it may be described, is admirable. It is impossible to overstate the importance of involving local beat officers with youth clubs, old people's groups and, of course, the various social agencies. Indeed, this is being done in a number of police force areas from Birmingham to Exeter to Leicester. But however responsive the police become to the needs of their local communities and to the oppressive problems in many inner city areas, it is an illusion to believe that policing, however skilfully practised it may be, can by itself necessarily avoid some of the serious problems that arose last year. I believe that the police can play an important role, but others too have responsibilities: the Government themselves elected local representatives and local community leaders.

1439
I come, if I may, to the three issues which I wish to raise this evening. The first is the question of complaints. Having been involved as a Minister in introducing the Police Act 1976, I accept at once the finding in paragraph 7.14 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that the new procedures have failed to stem criticism of the complaints system. However, I also agree with him that no one will satisfy all complainants or silence all critics, even if there are the most substantial changes in our complaints system. I think that the noble and learned Lord was right in his judgment when he said that dissatisfaction with the present system arose primarily in relation to the most serious allegations of police misconduct.
Here, one starts with two very substantial practical difficulties. I should like to take two examples. First, one has to recognise that when an allegation is made that, for instance, a prisoner has been assaulted in a police station, in the overwhelming majority of cases there will be no witnesses other than other police officers. Secondly, it is important to recognise too that there are a very substantial number of false allegations made against the police. It is also important to recognise that, indeed, some professional criminals make a particular point of making allegations against the police in an attempt to create a satisfactory explanation as to why they have made some damaging admission.
This, frankly, is where I come to one point of doubt as regards the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is the issue of the independent investigation of complaints. I do not propose to go into this matter in great detail because the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has already produced a very powerful argument as to why, as I think, this matter has to be thought through extremely carefully. I have great doubts about creating what, in fact, would be a national police force with the role only of investigating allegations against the police. I think that it would be costly and ineffective, and I think that there are great problems in terms of recruitment, because if one was to recruit a new wholly independent force, presumably one would have to refuse to accept an application from any present or past member of another police service. I think that this creates exactly the sort of problems which were highlighted in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and is why I have some doubts, certainly at the moment, as to whether a new system of this character would necessarily be desirable.
Nevertheless, I welcome the more limited recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, particularly, if I may say so, in relation to the suggestion that he made that not all minor allegations of criminal conduct should necessarily be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that there should, indeed, be some new conciliation procedure. I think that both these recommendations are admirable and, speaking for myself, I welcome them unreservedly.
I turn now to the question of accountability. I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has indicated in the clearest terms the very significant powers already held by police authorities. All I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, whose speech at the beginning of the debate was, I think, one of considerable im-
1440
portance, is that I doubt his view that there is great public concern about the existence of magistrates as members of police authorities. Of course, I am quite well aware of the fact that many elected members do not like having magistrates as members of police authorities, but I think that that is a view held much more passionately within local government than outside it.
I would add that when the noble and learned Lord made his recommendation (which is an important one) that there should be a new statutory framework of consultation within local communities, one problem arises, and it is desirable to face it bluntly: who is to appoint the members of these new local liaison committees which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, recommends should be established? I am not sure that there would be immense enthusiasm if local authorities were given this responsibility, for it would be just another form of patronage placed in the hands of local politicians.
Any of us who has served on local authorities has witnessed—sometimes, I regret to say, has participated; one must not be self-righteous on an occasion such as this—the ritual execution of school governors which takes place when power changes in a particular local authority. I would therefore be particularly sorry, if these new local committees were established, if the whole power of appointment was given to local authorities. On the other hand, I am by no means convinced that this is a role for central government either. I think it is a matter which requires a great deal more careful consideration.
In the meantime, I should like to welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has confirmed the position of the Home Secretary as the appropriate police authority for London. Successive Governments have rejected the proposal that the Greater London Council should be the police authority. I very much regret the fact that since going into Opposition the Labour Party has changed its position on this matter. In our capital city it is right that the Home Secretary should be accountable to Parliament for the Metropolitan Police. I believe that that view would be supported by the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens. Without wishing to embark on particular partisan comments in a debate such as this, I am by no means as convinced as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who preceded me, that there would be a great deal of public enthusiasm for power being transferred to the Greater London Council led by Mr. Livingstone.
I come to the third and last issue and, in my view, one of the most important single elements of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord. It is the one to which I referred earlier and it is the one which causes me most anxiety, and that relates to police training. It is always, I think, unreasonable when one has heard a skilful speech, if I may say so, from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at the beginning of this debate, to criticise the Minister concerned, who has had to cover such an immense amount of ground, for not having covered a particular issue in which one is interested oneself. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take a substantial amount of time at the end of the debate in explaining whether the Government are, or are not, going to accept the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.

1441
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will have heard a formidable array of speakers in this debate today—the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Elystan-Morgan, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and others—all of them asking for a specific undertaking on this particular question. I should like to remind the House what the noble and learned Lord said in his report on this matter. In paragraph 518 he says.
" I am satisfied that the length of the present period of initial training for recruits is insufficient. It cannot be right—and it is no criticism of them if I say so—that young men and women of 19 or 20 are enabled to exercise the powers and responsibilities of the office of constable after a period of initial training which lasts only 15 weeks in the Metropolitan Police and only 10 weeks in the training centres which serve the provincial forces."
After pointing out that there is an addition of some limited additional training within the forces, the noble and learned Lord adds this:
" Nevertheless, the recruit to a British police force receives a good deal less training in total than his counterpart in a number of other countries. I do not see how the increasing complexities of a police officer's task can be adequately covered—even at the basic level—in the present initial training period. I am fortified in this opinion by the fact that it appears to be the view not only of the great bulk of those non-police organisations and individuals who commented on training in submitting evidence to me, but of at least two of the three police representative organisations. "
The noble and learned Lord indicated that in his view—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made this point—a case could be made for establishing an initial training period of 12 months. Nevertheless, he recognised that there were substantial resource implications so far as this particular recommendation was concerned, and he said that in these circumstances he would recommend six months, and he would keep the probationary period at two years. The noble and learned Lord's recommendation on training was welcomed immediately by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Superintendents' Association. It is also backed by the Police Federation.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, quite bluntly: Is this recommendation going to be accepted? We are, I suspect, all well aware that of course this recommendation has significant resource implications, but I am sure that the Government will appreciate the consequences of not accepting this recommendation, or of trying to suggest that there is some form of cheap, cut-price alternative. There is not. The present length of the initial recruit training is by a large margin the shortest of any police force in the industrialised West. Even if it is raised to six months, it would still be one of the shortest, if not the shortest. It seems to me quite extraordinary—and I say this as a former Home Office Minister who must accept his responsibilities for the existing situation—that we have put up with the situation of having this absurdly short training period for as long as we have. The reason we have done so, of course, is money.
I recognise, in having said that, that the Home Secretary faces formidable difficulties. One of his major accomplishments as Home Secretary has been largely to exclude the central law and order services from the Chancellor's public expenditure cuts. Indeed, in a number of areas he has secured substantial additional resources, in particular for the increased prison building programme. I know that some believe that this programme is a profound mistake, but I
1442
believe that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary is right, and that his critics are wrong.
Of course, in this situation it is obvious that the Home Secretary is in a difficult position in demanding still further resources from the Chancellor. But I must put it directly to the Government that there will he the most serious alarm throughout the police service if it becomes clear that the noble and learned Lord's recommendation, one of the most vital in his report, is in fact not going to be implemented. Indeed, if anything, I understate the case.
The police both in London and elsewhere have been criticised in a number of respects for their response to the disturbances. The noble and learned Lord has rejected many of these criticisms, but he has undoubtedly upheld a number. He has made it abundantly plain that he does not believe that further errors can be avoided in future unless there are new policies. One of his central recommendations is on this question of recruit training, and I do not believe that the Government can do other than to accept in full his recommendations. I hope to hear tonight that they will do so.
Indeed, improved training lies at the heart of the report, just as it did that of Mr. Byford when he was making his recommendations following the errors which undoubtedly took place during the investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper case. Mr. Byford, a distinguished former chief constable and now an inspector of constabulary, pointed out the need for better training in a number of respects at superintendent and chief superintendent level, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, refers, quite apart from the issue of recruit training, to the urgent need to improve management training for sergeants and inspectors, a view which I share completely.
As I indicated in the House following the Statement of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the Yorkshire Ripper inquiry, it remains my view, having been a Minister at the Home Office for some time, that the resources we are making and have made available for training are woefully inadequate. The police college at Bramshill has, I believe, improved markedly under the leadership of Sir Kenneth Newman, but the resources at the college remain very limited indeed compared with those provided by the armed services at their staff colleges. The training opportunities provided for potential assistant chief constables compare extremely unfavourably with those provided for the officer who may command an infantry battalion, and I can see no conceivable argument to justify such a lack of balance.
There are no simple solutions available to meet the formidable array of difficult issues which are identified in the Scarman Report. Certainly many cannot just be solved by infusions of more and more public money. But in the area I have raised— the resources available for police training—a substantial improvement is now urgently required. I believe that despite all the difficulties they have faced in the last year, the police service retains a high reputation among the British public. But there is a clear need for changes in a number of important areas; a requirement for a more outward-looking service better attuned to the needs of the increasingly diverse society it serves. That is the challenge that confronts us all—the police

1443
service, Parliament, Government and public—and it is essential we should succeed, for it is the only way by which we can maintain the cohesion of our society which, despite all our problems, remains the envy of much of the world.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am glad indeed to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, not least because we have both taken part in debates on a number of occasions where the police has been an important subject, and although we have not always agreed, one thing we have in common is that we both have a great interest in the police service. I have been long interested in police problems and, from speeches I have made in your Lordships' House, many noble Lords will know that I have had a close association with the police, and one of the reasons why I have maintained that close association is that I have felt trouble was coming. I look on 1981s misfortunes not as a great surprise but, to some extent, as a harvest of wasted years; so little preparation did we make in the face of the many warning lights. I have never served as a regular police officer, but I have had that long association and I wish to pay tribute to the help I have received from several police forces in this country, some of them much more forthcoming than others—but no names no disciplinary charges!
The Scarman Report refers in paragraph 5.58 to the police,
" slipping into an enclosed fortress of inward thinking and social isolation which would in the long term result in a siege mentality ".
I will not continue with that quotation. All too few of us arc familiar with life inside the fortress, other than perhaps cell passages, but the ways of the police and the whole life of a policeman is not too well known in this country and one of the things we must do over the next few years is to narrow that gap between the police and the public they serve, and that means greater knowledge. The tendency has been reversed by Sir Robert Mark and those who have followed him, but I still feel that life inside that fortress is too far removed from the life of the rest of our people.
I must also pay tribute to the help that I have received from several German police forces. It is fair to say that no request that I have made to extend my experience has ever been refused by a German police force; it is a remarkable privilege to have had extended to a foreigner, and the reason I gave for my motivation was so that I could be a more useful Member of your Lordships' House because I should then be in a position to compare what happens in this country with what happens in another industrial country. I am not sure that is quite as urgent as it was because my researches lead me to believe that there are three Members of this House who are serving regular police officers.
I do not want to make an unjustified claim, but what I shall say tonight is based largely on practical experience, not just on what I have read in the press or seen on the television screen, and there have been some dreadful things recently on our TV screens. I admit too that I am as infected by police loyalty as are many regular officers, and a very strong force it is, but I am, I hope, not so far infected as to be encouraged always to close ranks, whatever the reason, or to fail to dis-
1444
tinguish between the stronger and weaker points in the service, about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, spoke.
Strong points in the service are numerous, although no purpose would be served in my just reciting them. Much more purpose is to identify the weaker sides and help bridge the gap between police and people. I have found the Scarman Report most valuable, not merely because of what it says about Brixton but because of what is said in relation to the long-term problems as well. However, the speed with which the noble and learned Lord had to work and the terms of reference restricted him somewhat, and I feel that a complete survey should give more consideration to the problems of senior ranks and of the Home Office; but perhaps it was difficult for the noble and learned Lord to comment too much on the Home Office, considering he had been appointed by the Secretary of State. At this point it is worth noting in passing that in this House over two or three years in a number of short debates in which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has played a big part, we have discussed many of the points raised in the Scarman Report and have come to the same conclusions. However, our debates and the conclusions we reached in them have never had the same attention paid to them, either by present or former Ministers, compared with the interest paid to the Scarman Report; but I must not go further into that or seem envious.
Before coming to the main points I wish to raise, I would make two general comments. I feel it is rather hard that we must have a £30 million riot before the Home Office and some chief constables start talking about home beat men and returning men to patrolling on foot. Similarly, there is talk about the great innovation they are achieving by having young PCs spending rather longer on the streets under some system of working with older men which has just been devised by the Metropolitan Police. Neither is an innovation. They are both the basis of sound policing and should never have been abandoned to the extent they have been. The Scarman Report says a lot about young PCs, and perhaps too much criticism has been directed at them. It is probably true that too many immature young men have been working in Brixton and similar areas, and I have heard it said that during the troubles some young PCs were taken to Brixton from Hendon in the middle of their initial training and to provide a reserve, to be available to thicken up the thin blue line should things become worse. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us whether that was so.
The period of the initial training, which has been referred to, is without any doubt the shortest in Europe. The period of six months which appears in the report of the noble and learned Lord is the same period as was discussed in this House on the Home Affairs day during the debate last November on the humble Address to Her Majesty. I would agree with the noble Lord opposite that six months is all too short a period, when one considers that the Germans, who attach much greater importance to training than we do, take 2½ years, and include a great deal of general education in the training too.
I should like to feel that our problem is not only a question of extending the initial training, but also of changing its character, so as to include more general

1445
education in the syllabus and to have a certain amount of the instruction given by civilians—and not all of it by police officers. We must accept the fact that a young man's training after he has joined any uniform police force includes a big element of conditioning, as well as general education, but we do not want to let that element of conditioning get out of hand, as it has threatened to do during the short initial training period that we have had in this country.
Again, before we criticise young PCs too harshly, we must realise that the world, or a crowded street, looks different when one views it from underneath a cap with a diced band. You feel isolated and self-conscious; or you can feel twice the man. But I would say that neither of those feelings is helpful to a young officer on duty; and I would imagine that that applies even more so in his early days when he is wearing a helmet.
We must remember, too, that the police are a tribal organisation and, rightly, a very tough organisation. We want them to be an organisation that we respect, and I should like to feel that the criminal world also has an element of proper fear of our police. But a young man may feel that he must show his manliness or toughness before he can be fully accepted, and he may be encouraged, too, by his fellow officers as well as by a tough sergeant. Even though keeping a league table of arrests is now out of fashion in most police stations, I am sure that it still exists in some.
It is understandable that there should be fewer references in the report of the noble and learned Lord to senior ranks, but I would say that any survey is incomplete without an assessment of seniors as well as juniors. In different forces in this country I have met senior ranks of outstanding quality, and I have also met other men under whom I would not be at all happy to serve. So unimaginative and insecure did they seem that I wondered how they had got so far. They must once have been competent PCs or sergeants, but these are different qualities from what are needed after an officer has been through a staff college (to use the general term) and finds himself in a position where the responsibilities are quite different and are not merely those of a sergeant on a much bigger scale. I do not wish to be unfair, but noble Lords will remember many appearances recently on TV screens of men of fairly senior rank repeating predictable party-line comments on various situations.
Taking this point a little further, I come to chief officers. The Sunday Telegraph newspaper had a very good article about two weeks ago on the recruiting and training of the type of men whom we want to see going through the initial stages, then the specialised training, and finally to hold the highest positions. The article was of the view that we were not getting a large enough share of the really able young men coming into the service at the bottom, and I believe that that is a view which is widely held.
We have some very outstanding men at the head of our police service, but we have others who seem strangely over sensitive. We in this House are quite accustomed to being told that we ought to be abolished and to having other remarks made about us. But senior police officers seem strangely sensitive about any comments on their position or powers. Some are oversensitive and over-concerned about their powers and their autonomy. Nearly all of them suffer from
1446
paranoia about politicians, a strange disease but widely spread. They tend to hold at arms length too many people of good will who are willing to help them and who are prepared to work. And today the police need help from all of us in this country; that is, from people with every kind of background.
It may be unusual to quote St. Theresa of Avila during the course of a debate of this kind, but the other day I came upon a remark of hers. Speaking of God, she said that she was surprised that he had any friends, he treated them so badly. I feel that the same thing could be said about the regular police in Britain.
I do not wish to be unfair, but chief constables, too, have a very remarkable power of survival after things have gone wrong. In the Army or in business if there is failure in operation, generally there is also a change of men in the senior positions. But if we have failure or difficulties in the police service, we have, first, rather traditional statements from Home Office Ministers, and then the same chiefs reappear ready to stay on until the age limit for retirement which, as we have on other occasions said in this House is completely out of step with the age limits for ambassadors, senior civil servants, major generals, and the rest. It is very remarkable and not to the advantage of the service that this exception should continue.
I now turn to the question of consultation. Much has been said about consultation, and very important it is. It is not easy to devise a system which will be acceptable all round. On the whole the police are not keen to consult and discuss their problems, especially with the rather more partisan type of local authority member, if I may put it that way. But I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have studied what has been happening in Germany since the end of the war. In the British zone we encouraged the Germans to set up a system of consultative bodies for their police, and that has met with mixed success.
Clearly it would be very wrong for the Minister to suggest any particular scheme to us without having assessed the system which exists there and which was partly set up under our enthusiasm. Such a scheme would be particularly difficult in London, where there are approximately 30 boroughs. It is suggested in the report that we might have such committees on a borough basis. It seems to me that that is far too small a scale. Members of the committees would tend to be parochial, and an enormous strain would be placed on senior officers to attend the committee meetings. I should like to think that there might be one overall committee of certain high level, with perhaps four in a second tier. For certain purposes the Metropolitan Police district is divided into four, and anything below that would be on a much less formal basis.
I want to move on quickly from point to point, I do not want to speak for much longer. I turn to the question of lay visitors to police stations. I am sure that there would be great advantage if something acceptable could be worked out, but I am too much of a policeman not to be suspicious of this proposal and in particular of any panel drawn from local politicians. I wondered why there was no reference in the report of the noble and learned Lord to such panels being comprised of members of police authorities, who have rights of access to these premises at all times; the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has twice told me so

1447
during the course of last year. I should have thought that without the need of any legislation police authorities could form small groups—we do not want more than four, five or six in a police area—of members who could be charged with this special duty.
Another alternative would be to put the high sheriff in charge of it, because at the moment high sheriffs are not overburdened with work and are non-political. They are the principal law enforcement officers of the Crown and they are not political. It could be done, too, with a high sheriff in charge of a panel of former high sheriffs. But the Metropolitan Police, of course, are a special case, and it is too late for me now to go into any detail about some reforms I should like to see, leaving always the Secretary of State as the authority for the Metropolitan Police.
My Lords, few of us would want to change our police for any other that we know and our recent political history has given our police great advantages over some continental forces. They have very many strong points and they have some weaker ones, which we have been discussing during this debate. Without any doubt our task in this House, as I see it, is to help those who are responsible to overcome the weaker points and to strengthen the bonds between the police and the public, and I sincerely hope that our debate today will be a help to that end.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I must add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his report, which I found very fair and excellent, although, of course, tragic. Having read it, I must confess that I came to the conclusion that we are dealing with a crisis situation which needs immediate remedies without any necessary relevance to any long-term plans. I think that things are extremely serious, not only in Brixton, as the noble Lord says, but all over the country. We have seen that again recently in Bristol.
There are two other reports which I have read since I have read the report by the noble and learned Lord. One is a report which appeared in 1977 called Inner Cities—Dispersal and Balance, which was produced at the instigation of, I think, the DoE. It was a deep research project based on Stockwell, which included the Brixton area. The same lessons were drawn in 1977; and there was also a White Paper called Inner Cities produced in the same week as that report was brought out. I must say that I am rather glad that the author of that report is listening to this debate today.
Taking those three reports together, I have decided that I am not going to say anything at all about policing. I will deal with Part VI, which covers social and other environmental problems. The reason I am going to do this is because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, himself says:
" I have sought to identify not only the policing problems specific to the disorders but the social problem of which it is necessarily part. The one cannot be underrated or resolved save in the context of the other ".
If I may say so, I think it is high time that we had a good look at this as well as at the policing, as a material part of the report. The noble and learned Lord then defines the aspects to which he wants to give specific attention, and they are housing, education and employment.
1448
I will start with talking about housing, because the earlier report to which I have referred described the appalling state of housing in the inner city of Lambeth, and I see from the present report that there is no improvement. I find it horrific to think that there are now 18,000 people on the waiting list for houses, and that there are 12,000 houses which they say are overcrowded. People will say, " I know, but we have not got the resources to put this right ". I want to give your Lordships, perhaps to put this in perspective, the ratios in other countries as compared with our own. I find these extremely interesting. The figures I have are from the OECD report, and they are up to the close of the year 1979.
The statistics are as follows: that we in the United Kingdom spent 16 per cent. of our fixed capital formation on housebuilding; the comparable figure for France was 29.8; in Germany it was 28.7; and in the United States it was 26 per cent. As a proportion of GDP, which is perhaps more important, the relative figures are: 3 per cent. in the United Kingdom; 6.4 per cent. (that is, over double) in France; still more, 6.9, in Germany; and 4.8 in the United States. My Lords, our priorities must be wrong. We know perfectly well that our housing stock is going down instead of increasing. We know also—at least, I know from my experience when I was chairing the Committee on Personal Social Services—that in some areas, particularly in London, the children's department would say that 50 per cent. of their entire work was due to inadequate housing, which caused misery, crime and ill-health. This seems to me a priority now which cannot be denied, and it seems an absolute tragedy that even the GLC are saying that they are going to do no more for housing.
Another figure that I think I must give your Lordships is that according to my Economist's Diary, which I opened this morning, there are 20 million households in this country. It also says that it is reckoned that 60 years is the average life of a house. If you divide the first by the latter you find that merely to stand still we ought to build 325,000 houses a year. Another statistic I was given is that the number of houses completed in 1981 is 120,000, and the estimate for 1982 is another 120,000 houses. This seems to me an appalling situation, and if we do not put it right then by the end of this decade we shall be in a real mess.
Another point which I think is relevant is that I think housebuilding is one of the least costly ways of reviving the economy. Housebuilding is not only creating an asset—it is not being wasted—but it in fact affects almost every industry one can think of in the country; that is, all the consumer durables, particularly all sorts of elements of the construction industry, where there are already 330,000 unemployed, which is more than there are in a great many other industries. It seems to me that this has been well aired in your Lordships' House and in another place and in the media, and I find it very difficult to understand why there is not a very high priority, for all the reasons I have given, on housebuilding.
Now I come to education and employment. These things go together. We know perfectly well from the Scarman Report and other reports that in the inner cities, and particularly in the area that we have been dealing with, in Brixton, the black youths of 16 are

1449
coming out completely ill-equipped for life. Their standard of education is far too low for them to be accepted in normal terms by commerce and industry. This is a complete failure of our present educational system. I am going to tell your Lordships (I may have mentioned this before in your Lordships' House) of an experiment in which I have been involved since 1977—an experiment in seeing what is wrong.
I was a founder member, and am still president, of Project Full Employ. This is an organisation which tries to find what is wrong and how to improve the situation of these young men—actually, the age group we take is between 18 and 21—as to why they cannot get jobs. We started the first course in 1977, which lasted 3¼ months. I must admit that we actually placed them in jobs, but a year later 75 per cent. of them were still in jobs.
I will now give your Lordships very short case histories of three of the students—I have picked them out at random—who we have been training in recent courses in Project Full Employ. The first case, which I will call Miss A, is an unmarried mother in Bristol. She is not yet 19. She has two children, one aged five and one aged two, so your Lordships can work that one out. She had no qualifications of any kind, and she had given up applying for jobs. She had no self-confidence, but after attending our course, although at first she failed to get a job, she came back as a volunteer and set up her own mini-employment bureau in the office, and shortly got a full-time job as out-reach and is now in fact training to be a careers officer.
Miss B was aged 19, and was a single parent. She was brought up in a children's home and had no self-confidence and no qualifications. She had had one temporary seasonal job only, and had given up looking for one. After our 3¼ months she is now a telex operator with an American bank in London, and is taking evening classes in more advanced office technology.
My last case is Miss C. She is 18, one-parent family, expelled from two schools and has a criminal record. She was referred to Full Employ by her probation officer and is now a shorthand typist with a clearing bank. She has been so for a year and has given complete satisfaction. Some of these girls have come from Bristol; there are boys as well, and not all are black. The method used by Full Employ (which, to my mind, has proved so successful since its original course) has enabled us to increase the scale and we now operate in a number of places, including Bristol and Birmingham as well as London, and the through put is about 600 students a year. Thus, in this decade, we shall probably save 6,000 young people from the scrapheap.
The other interesting thing is that, although, on the first course, we cheated perhaps by placing these children in jobs, we now do nothing like that. They get their own jobs; there is no discrimination and nothing charitable about it. They are being rescued, all of them. What is the secret? The three months' course is run on commercial premises by secondees from commerce and industry, who have no teaching experience other than the normal in-experience that one gets in business. They are experts in the particular jobs in which they are training these people. They know what is required in the office or in the shop.
1450
This soon changes the attitudes of the young people, none of whom have had any work experience and who, for the first time, appreciate and understand the value of companionship and of working with others—and they like the discipline that goes with this office work. This is a real education for life and is something which will never be found in the present educational system and can never be found there. I am not sure that it can be found even in further education when it is handled by local authorities.
The students get employment because they are eminently employable and in no sense objects of charity. The positive discrimination that I advocate is merely giving the disadvantaged the same opportunities to develop their potential as their luckier contemporaries in a more stable environment. I do not say that this example of Full Employ is the answer to our problem, but it is an answer. It shows possibilities for new initiatives and methods as a departure from the old principle of teaching. It shows two important things. One is that the people that we take on with no qualifications and who have mostly been in trouble are potentially capable and all get jobs. In the follow-up, six months later, we find that 80 per cent. of them are in the same job. This is an extremely good record.
Your Lordships may remember a very moving speech made in your Lordships' House not many weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who spoke about unemployment. He told us of his experience in the 1930s when he was in an area where schoolchildren were leaving at 14 years of age and many of them, if not most of them, had four years of unemployment—at the end of which time they were unemployable. He ended by saying pray Heaven he does not see that again in the 1980s. He is seeing it in the 80s; he is seeing it in Brixton. I feel that there is a very strong case for positive discrimination for youth and for getting them into employment before they become unemployable.
The cynics ask whether it is any good making people employable if there are no jobs. What about the jobs? I have already said why I think we should discriminate in favour of these young people. In fact, the training we do is for shop assistants and for office workers and particularly the new technological jobs. There is a great shortage of people for these jobs and there is no difficulty in employing them. We do not turn anyone else out of employment. It is worth saying, too, that even if there are no jobs, the essential thing is that there is some structured activity in the lives of these young people. They need it. I do not want to go on any longer except to say that I am not suggesting that nothing is being done and that there are not a lot of other activities—for example, in Lambeth there is a host of community projects—and I know that the Government have plans which I hope are being implemented as a matter of urgency. I end by repeating what I said at the start. I am convinced that we are in a crisis situation where immediate remedies are essential without necessarily any relevance to long-term plans. I also hope, therefore, that Brixton may show once again that good may come out of evil.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sccbohm, has made a weighty speech and we have

1451
listened in the last four hours to many weighty speeches. I shall not attempt to compete with them even if I were capable of doing so. My speech, I expect, will be the shortest of the day—although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is to follow me and he is not usually long; so perhaps I shall be the shortest but one. I shall speak from a special angle, a limited angle, certainly a relevant angle. I am speaking as one who has been a patron for the last 12 years of the Melting Pot Foundation; that is, ever since it was started. It is a black community organisation which offers shelter, counselling and training to young blacks in the Brixton area. I have visited it often over 12 years but I visited it immediately after the riots. It is close to that scene.
The Melting Pot, I should say, receives considerable support from Government funds and I think it can be said to have won a wide measure of respect. It provided evidence for the Scarman Committee and was represented before that inquiry. I am sorry to say that what I am about to tell the House—and it is something which represents the point of view of the Melting Pot Foundation—may be unwelcome to some Members of your Lordships' House and certainly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—although he knows the minds of the black community so well that I hardly think that what I say, when he reads it, will come as any surprise to him.
The Melting Pot Fund were deeply impressed by the noble and learned Lord as a human being. For example, they were touched when he took Lady Scarman to tea with them and when, in many other ways, he showed his desire to place his mind alongside theirs to the fullest extent. I quote something that they wrote to me:
" We are convinced that Lord Seaman sought diligently for the truth. While doing so, he gave a sense of security to the black community. We are grateful for the earnestness, sincerity and sense of urgency which he brought to bear and with which he conducted the inquiry ".
That is how they found the noble and learned Lord during the inquiry and I am sure that their respect for him as a human being is not diminished.
But I am afraid that they were grievously disappointed with a rather fundamental aspect of this report. They are disturbed by the noble and learned Lord's failure to acknowledge the real nature and pervasiveness of institutionalised racism in our society. This is an expression which the noble and learned Lord, I am sure, dealt with quite fully; although it was not an expression that was familiar to me. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, wrote:
" It was alleged by some of those who made representations to me that Britain is an institutionally racist society. If by that is meant that it is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject the allegation ".
He goes on to say that there is a sense in which he would realise that it would have a good deal of meaning. In the view of the Melting Pot Fund—and they are responsible black people; their leaders are responsible, though no doubt many of those people who use the facilities are wild young people; but the leaders are responsible people—the noble and learned Lord has gone sadly astray. When I say they are responsible people—and I take one example—the chairman of Melting Pot came over to this country in the war to serve in the Air Force. That is one example of their
1452
patriotic outlook. They consider that the evidence submitted to the Scarman Committee supports the view that Britain is an institutionally racist society. We may feel that these are words, and I have not in these few remarks I promised to make in this short time the opportunity to explain what they may mean by that phrase, or what others might mean.
There may be people who say, " In Britain we-never have any institutional discrimination ". Some of us may remember that for 40 years after women were admitted to the House of Commons they were kept out of the House of Lords. That was institutional racism in the most blatant way. Even after four eminent ladies were permitted to come here as Life Peers, still the hereditary ladies were discriminated against for another five years. They only came in by a side wind. So when we are so sure we never discriminate in our institutions, we have a very blatant example of how we did until very recent days, long after the time when many of us entered this House.
However, I am really here to explain, on behalf of these responsible black people, that the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in this matter is in their opinion much too optimistic and much too favourable to our actual society. If anybody chooses to say, " Well, that is just what they say ", the answer is that these are representative black people and if their opinion is going to be ignored, it would be at our peril. They are just one black organisation and no doubt we shall hear from others. So I am afraid that I must ask the House to believe that this was a great disappointment and they regard this institutional racism as the prime causal factor of the disturbances. They take the view that until that is recognised we shall never put our house in order.
May I sum up their attitude in my words? They believe that the black community will never get a fair deal and can never be expected to have confidence in the forces of law and order until it is recognised that there are powerful elements in our society which deliberately discriminate against them—that does not mean that everybody discriminates. I did not hear every speech in this House this afternoon. I do not know whether a doctrine of racial discrimination was preached by any noble Lord—perhaps not explicitly, though I believe one noble Lord shocked a good many Members of the House.
At any rate, we hold these debates here and in another place and, on the whole, an attitude of universal objectivity is adopted. The idea of racialism is regarded as beneath us. Yet the people that we are talking about believe that this attitude of racial discrimination is very strong. I am not going to continue, my Lords—I have promised to be short—but it is only right, as I have been associated with these people and I have such confidence in them, that I should place their views before the House.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is over 40 years ago since I published a book entitled Public Order and Popular Disturbances. I was dealing with disturbances to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, referred, in the late 17th and early 18th century, when one of the causes of disturbance was prejudice against immigrants not from distant climes but from

1453
the Continent of Europe. Many of the same things that have been said in criticism or enmity towards our more recent immigrant population can be found in the popular literature of that time.
In defending them, Daniel Defoe wrote a once famous satire entitled The True Born Englishman in which he pointed out that wherever you stood in British history, the population was in fact the result of long waves of immigration which gradually coalesced into whatever the English nation was at a particular juncture. He said in the preface to this satire:
" An Englishman of all men ought not to despise foreigners as such, since what they are today we were yesterday, and tomorrow they will he like us "
In other words, Defoe believed nearly 300 years ago that the key to success in continuing an organised and—with exceptions—law-abiding community in this country was an ability to assimilate.
It would obviously be more difficult, and is obviously more difficult in a variety of ways with which we are familiar, to contemplate assimilation—certainly with the rapidity with which, let us say, French Huguenots or the Dutch followers of William III were assimilated into English society. As my noble friend Lady Macleod reminded us in a moving speech, it is colour blindness that would have to be added to the other virtues of tolerance that Defoe preached.
What I find difficult about the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and about other publications in the general field of relations between the races in this country to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, is that I am not clear whether what is hoped for, what is envisaged, as a long-term solution is a situation in which there is so little prejudice—and prejudice there must always be—and so much colour blindness, if I can use that shorthand, that relations between citizens and the authorities are not affected by this factor. However—and sometimes this seems to me to appear in some of the phrases used in the noble and learned Lord's report and in other documents of a similar kind investigating these problems—do we now assume that we are for good what is called not only a multi-ethnic but often a multicultural society?
Do we think it necessary not merely to preserve the freedom of the individual, to have access and even to try and make his access easier to employment, to promotion, to a full participation in national life, or do we say that we have somehow to treat these groups as though they were separate, independent and permanent features of our scene? This in many parts of the world is a familiar situation. In a country like Malaysia there are three such groups. In other parts of South-East Asia, in parts of Africa and in a different sense in the Indian sub-continent, there is this situation. All one can say is that although such relationships exist, they make democratic Government and many aspects of Government very difficult. In other words, when we are encouraged to give the toleration of cultural diversity a prominent place in our schooling or the training of our policemen, do we do this because those spheres are, as of now, obliged to face these evident facts of difference, or do we now say that we are embarking on a wholly new period of British history?
The interpretations of what happened at Brixton seem to vary—sometimes internally in the noble
1454
and learned Lord's report and certainly in what has been said about it in various quarters—between these two quite separate basic underlying philosophies. The noble and learned Lord's explanation, as we know, is that there is a continuation of deprivation—and how deep that deprivation is we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—falling particularly heavily on the young coloured population in the Brixton area, together with some insensitivity in policing policy, which is perhaps the easiest element to correct in this situation, and that if we make a double-pronged attack on deprivation and insensitive policing we shall have solved the problem.
But that is not the only view of what happened in Brixton, The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred us to an article which was written by Mr. Darcus Howe, the editor of Race Today, in The Times on 26th November last. If one reads that article, one finds that Mr. Howe is not talking in terms of a riot or a disturbance. He is talking of an uprising, a revolt, which the mere palliatives (as he sees them) recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, can do nothing to prevent from deteriorating into something more serious—what he calls " full-blown manifestations ".
When I read that article 1 was tempted to say that it is known that Mr. Howe is perhaps one of the more extreme leaders or spokesmen of the black community, but we have had him recommended to us today by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who is very familiar and intimate with that community, as a representative figure. We find, indeed, that friends quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, also believe that the matter is much more serious than anything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has been willing to contemplate.
So that while I think there would be, and ought to be, general agreement on positive discrimination—if you like, direct attacks on disadvantage of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred—and although I agree that the price of doing this could be the possible feeling of the host community that some people are being given advantages which arc denied to others, I believe myself that this is perfectly acceptable, but acceptable only if it is seen as a means by which the black community's situation can be " normalised "—I should prefer that word rather than the word " assimilated "—so that we can look forward to its members filling a variety of roles in our society rather than being condemned to roles, many of which are humble and connected with material deprivation.
But when we come to the noble and learned Lord's recommendations about the police and their recruitment, he says:
" The object of policy must be that the composition of the police fully reflects that of the society the police serve. Nothing less will suffice ".
That seems to me, if I may say so, to be a quite breathtaking doctrine, because it is surely highly improbable in any society that the police will accurately reflect the various divisions which may exist in that society. Some groups will find such a career more attractive than others. If you take the greatest multiracial city in the world—New York—it would appear at first blush to be inhabited mainly by Italians, Jews and Puerto Ricans and to be policed largely by Irishmen.

1455
Nobody, I think, suggests that is something which must in itself lead to discrimination.
Obviously it is desirable, particularly as a short-term measure perhaps in order to help to restore the faith of at least some members of the black community that there is no institutionalised racism, that the numbers of black policemen be increased. But it is also the case—and this has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson—that many of them would be prevented by their community from accepting positions in the police, even if arrangements were made for them to be better equipped to face the tests of entry—because to some extent it has become a part of, if you like, the community philosophy of this group that participating in the exercise of authority is itself damaging to their own self-image.
Again, I find in the matter of police training, to which the noble and learned Lord refers and which has been referred to by others—and I would not at all disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the need to extend and deepen it—that he says something very specific. He says that police training must be directed towards an understanding of cultural backgrounds and attitudes to be found in our ethnically diverse society.
Obviously it is desirable that all of us should be aware that we live in a society in which many people have different backgrounds, attitudes, faiths, philosophies and habits; but when you say that the police especially must be aware of this, I do not think we should overlook—and I believe this is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, was reminding us of—the fact that the business of the police is primarily the protection of society against crime—to put it at its simplest, to make the streets safe to walk in. I think one must then ask: When it is desired that the police should have some of this special training in inter-ethnic sensitivity, is there something about these minorities which makes their participation in the crime which the police are supposed to prevent numerically or actually more significant than that of the community as a whole? It seems to me that you are then very near to the position of adopting another form of racism. Of course a policeman should not show prejudice or preference in respect of one subject of the Queen's rather than another, but I think it is dangerous to go without query into the assumption that there is this direct connection between ethnicity and crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that he could see no reason why racial prejudice—which is of course, when discovered, already an element in the police disciplinary code—should not be brought out and made a specific offence, quite apart from other offences which might be charged against a policeman. If the noble Lord were present, I could only reply to him that my reasons were amply illustrated by the speech of his noble friend Lord Gifford. It seems to me, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that any policeman who arrested a member of the black community might well find himself up against an advocate whose line of defence would be that the policeman was racially prejudiced; and a policeman who cherished his career prospects would hardly wish for that to be the case. I believe that there are other members of the legal profession—and, again, the noble and learned
1456
Lord, Lord Rawlinson, referred to them—who, out of political ambition, to put it no worse, would be prepared to make it an additional case. In other words—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would the noble Lord particularise this grave allegation against the Bar as a whole?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord was not present when the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, examined a case in the Scarman Report about the stopping of a driver of a minicab, who asserted that the policeman in question, in continuing to search the cab, was animated by racial prejudice. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is a member of the Bar. The other was a reference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who no doubt had other examples in mind.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what I was complaining about was the generality of what the noble Lord was saying. He was not addressing his remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, at the time. But I shall not pursue cross-examination.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is, though, very difficult to see why there is this pressure to put this element into the police disciplinary code, unless it is expected that it will be used. I think there is a general view, which has been stressed by many noble Lords, that policing can be of full effectiveness only where the community itself is disposed not to tolerate the aspects of criminality against which the police are bound to strive. This means, of course, that there are implications for education, and that an element of discipline, which has been absent from our schools—as so many West Indian parents have pointed out in evidence to various bodies—needs to be restored; because one way of coping with any tendency towards taking the law into one's own hands is to be brought up to respect those placed immediately in authority over one, even at the level of a child.
Again, it has been said that it would be important, as a contribution of the educational authorities, if the curriculum of schools was varied further to introduce what is sometimes called a multi-cultural aspect, to instil in children respect for those of other cultures. No doubt, in an ideal world this ought to be an important element in the education of everyone. But I should have thought that, from the point of view from which we approach this, which is the matter of crime and violence arising out of police attempts to repress crime, there is something more important that ought to figure in the education of an insufficiently homogeneous community; that is, some insistence upon what I take to be the core of our own civilisation in this country—the long struggle to impose upon the strong an indefeasible element of protection for the weak. That, I should have thought, is what English history is about. If one recollects the success which the American school has had over the past two centuries, in accommodating to the American way of looking at things—which is not the same as ours, but is equally respectable—generations of very varied immigrants, one can see that, perhaps, there is somewhat of a

1457
national failing at the moment, when we think it more important to teach other people's cultures than our own.
There is only one question which must arise in relation to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and to whatever part of it—or the whole of it—the Government are going to implement; that is, will it be truer, or less true, that an unarmed woman of any age can walk safely through any London street, at any time of the day or night? Statistics suggest that we have not yet attained, and are not yet in the process of attaining, that position. But until we do, it seems to me that there is a degree of sentimentality in assuming that there is any short-cut to becoming once more a harmonious and ordered society.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, it is a matter of great personal regret to me, and it may be also to your Lordships, that I am not qualified nor equipped to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, into those areas on which he has touched in the course of his stimulating and reflective speech. Indeed, the only point that I wish to make to your Lordships is a short, sharp political one of no great subtlety, which I imagine will not commend itself a great deal to noble Lords opposite, or such of them as are still here when I come to it. Let me just say that, if I take more than 10 minutes to come to it, I shall sit down and allow the debate to proceed. But if I do come to it in under 10 minutes, I shall take just a moment or two to make it.
The country as a whole is, surely, in debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for this report and I would echo the many words of admiration which have been expressed by so many of your Lordships tonight for his efforts. I am only sorry that I have no original wisdom to contribute to your Lordships' debate, but having listened to it I must say that I found the most stimulating contribution the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, combined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, because they both questioned the validity of the report from two somewhat different points of view. Certainly, as I listened to what they had to say—and I do not say that there was not validity in much of what they both said—I felt that if we probed underneath what they were both saying, we should be likely to arrive at the truth.
What we know from the report is that over that weekend in April last year, there was an eruption of violence in Brixton of such ferocity that the events there, together with those at Toxteth and elsewhere, will have a significant place in the history of riot in Britain. The essence of this immensely valuable report is to give us a vivid and detailed picture of what it must have been like in Brixton during those four days, and to identify the variety of contributory factors. We need not be frightened about this picture, but we must all—particularly Government—think seriously about it. After thought, there is something for all of us, but particularly for Government, to do, if we are not to have a repeat performance and a further deterioration in the field of law and order.
1458
I would echo the words which have been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and others, so far as the urgency of action is concerned. Because this is a field in which I have been engaged a good deal, off and on, since World War II, I have pondered greatly on what I ought to say about it. The area of the country in which I was involved in this field of law and order did not have the complex problem, so acutely presented, of the ethnic minorities which have been spoken about in the course of the debate. So I was a little hesitant about what to say.
I thought at one stage of more or less philosophical reflections upon the unwillingness of so many in modern society to accept authority without question, starting perhaps with the stirring words of one of the Bacons. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I am sure, will know which one. I always confuse them. I never could tell Francis from the others. He said.
" Truth is the daughter not of authority but of time ".
These philosophical reflections can have no place at this time of night.
At another stage, I thought of talking of racialism. Then again I saw that I was in the company of people like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and many others who know much more about racialism than do I, and I should have thought it a presumption on my part to say anything.
Then I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, touch on the history of immigration into this country. He seemed to imply, starting with the Huguenots and finishing up with the French and the Germans, that we should be less concerned, because of that, about the present state of affairs. This led me to remember that we all know that many animals resent the intrusion of the stranger and the foreign into their territory. Apart from the Huguenots and the French, the German and the Russian immigrants, I have no doubt at all that when the Scots took the high road to England after 1603 there was a good deal of harassment on the streets of London by the authorities for law and order. I am sure that at that time there would have been a lobby for a voluntary repatriation of the Scots. I sometimes think that something of that attitude lingers on in certain ruling circles in Britain. But that does not make the present racial tension any more acceptable. Xenophobia is an illness which must be treated if it is not to disrupt and perhaps destroy our society. I felt that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, in his most interesting speech did not sufficiently recognise this.
I thought of saying a word about the media. This has been touched upon, too, in the course of the debate. I would have started with the report, which I wonder whether some of your Lordships heard, of Mr. Dimbleby on BBC1 on Monday. I thought this was a most unhelpful report, one unlikely to promote understanding of the problem. His statement that crime is worse in Brixton today than before 10th April may be true, for aught I know, but his implication that this was the fault of Lord Scarman's report showed a narrowness of conception, appreciation and approach which in this context I should have thought a really good media man would be better without.
I come to the only point I want to make, which is the sharp and political one. I want to take a swipe

1459
at the Conservative Party. I want to take a swipe at that Party for its cynical electoral exploitation of law and order. The fact is that over the last 20 years, and more, the Conservative Party at the hustings has presented itself as the party best equipped to provide the British people with protection against lawlessness. It is a rich and sad irony that after two and a half years of Conservative government we have had over these last months at one end of the country, Brixton, and at my end of the country an application for a private prosecution for a crime of bias. It would be improper for me to anticipate the outcome of this application but it is clear that, because of the muddle and guddle in the Crown Office in Edinburgh, for the first time for the better part of a century we have an application for a private prosecution in Scotland which I gather is unlikely to be opposed by the Crown.
Having made that point, I am not saying that this Government are responsible alone for what happened in Brixton. That would be too silly. I am not saying that the Conservative Party is alone responsible for what happened in Brixton. That, too, would be silly. I am not suggesting that politicians should not as individuals talk on the subject of law and order if they feel so disposed, or if they are asked about it. But I am saying that it is a little ironical, in these circumstances, that a Party which officially has presented itself as the Party concerned about lawlessness and likely to give the protection to the people that they want should find itself, after two and a half years, in this situation. What I hope noble Lords (who would never make such claims, of course) will say to their Party is that this is not a matter for the hustings.
Over my five years as a law officer in the Labour Government I took the view that it did little good and a significant amount of harm—this was a view which was supported by such respectable organs as the legal correspondent of the Financial Times—if the issue of law and order was treated as a vote-catcher by any political Party. Whenever it was so treated I thought it produced much confusion in the public mind. The argument tended to be polarised around and dominated by two brigades, two extremes: the " lash'em and bash'em " brigade and the " let's not be unkind to the criminals who are the product of our society " brigade. This polarisation contributed not at all to the resolution of this quite complex and troublesome problem of the socially recalcitrant in modern society.
Before I sit down, let me just say that this was nowhere better reflected than in my favourite strip cartoon which appeared in the New Statesman in the days when it was easier to read than some of us think it is now. The first little picture in the cartoon presented the wretched looking criminal in the dock facing the judge who was saying to him, " I find you guilty ". The next little picture showed the outraged criminal saying, " What do you mean, you find me guilty? I am only a product of society ". In the next little picture the judge was saying, " So am I. Hang him ".
8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, your Lordships will be greatly relieved to hear that I shall drastically curtail my speech. It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and
1460
I hope he will forgive me if I do not retrieve the political gauntlet that has been flung down, really for two reasons; it is rather late, and its admission is rather irrelevant to the very serious subject which we have the privilege to debate. But however one curtails this speech, I would wish to associate myself with the tributes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who by the imprint of his own personality, no more no less than that, has influenced our way of thinking as a requisite prelude to remedial action.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that all facets of this problem require attention, a point well made, if I may say so, with great objectivity and eloquence. And those factors include, of course, the social and economic factors, which of course provide no excuse for public disorder but at all events an explanation for it. The report itself has said that if we ignore these we put the nation at peril. However, it is not my intention to deal with such matters, but only to concentrate on two aspects.
The first point is that it was a relief to hear from my noble friend Lord Belstead in opening, that steps had already been taken to implement recommendations as regards recruitment into the police, as regards participation in police related activities and as regards liaison and consultation pending the formulation of some statutory framework—a very great relief, and, if I may say so with respect, a very great credit to all of those concerned in its implementation. But there is, your Lordships may well think, a very serious problem of implementation of these recommendations as regards recruitment and participation that has not really been fully considered in your Lordships' debate. It was touched upon by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, so eloquently as the breaking down of barriers, the shattering of myths—a phrase that I shall always remember for its power and its picturesque eloquence.
The problem is this. There are many—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, would agree with me—of the representatives of the ethnic minority communities who not only respect the police but co-operate with them, but do not have the respect and the co-operation of those whom they represent, for this reason: sometimes you have a generation gap, not even one generation but two; sometimes you have the gamekeeper-cum-poacher syndrome. I see the noble Lord nodding his head. Sometimes you have status considerations. Sometimes you have earnings differentials. There is this gap. There is the problem. How do we deal with it? None of the noble Lords who have spoken has really seized this problem.
I, with respect, do not know how to deal with it; I can only make respectful suggestions for your Lordships' consideration. How do we soften this hardcore of resistance? Well, I would respectfully suggest that what should be done is that we mount a campaign and that it should be on two levels, central Government and local government. Here, with respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I would suggest that the prime responsibility should lie with local government, and not with central Government. At central Government level I would respectfully suggest there should be an advisory panel with the three elements—Home Office, police and representa-

1461
tives of the ethnic minority communities. They should provide material which is suitable to implement the recommendations, material which is available for the local authorities. They should also seek to establish a panel of voluntary speakers, approved, who could go down to the local government, when asked, in order to further these ends. At local government level one would rely on voluntary associations, the schools, the training colleges, the Churches, and of course direct police involvement. This is why the brunt of the drive is really at local authority level. I wish I could say to your Lordships that I knew more about it, but from the little I know, the problem is disparate in different parts of the community in England; therefore, to deal with it effectively, and in an understanding and humane fashion, and to produce results, one needs perhaps slightly disparate treatment in the different areas where this arises.
Lastly, my Lords, I wanted to say a word about the police complaints procedure. I was relieved up to a degree, not a very great degree, to hear my noble friend Lord Belstead say that this was under active consideration. But surely it is essential that a tribunal or board should be set up which is independent of the Government of the day, which is independent of the Government and Parliament, and which is independent of the police. Surely it is right that the procedure for this tribunal should be laid down by statutory instrument approved by both Houses of Parliament; that the chairman should have legal experience; that the lay members should include a representative of the Home Office, a representative of the police, and in every case where there is an ethnic minority community complaint a representative from a panel—he would be one of the representatives on that board. Why?— so that not only may justice be done but, indeed, be seen to be done.
I defer to the doubts, of course, expressed from experience by the noble Lords, Lord Plowden and Lord Harris of Greenwich. But let me remind your Lordships of what is said in the report at paragraph 7.16. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, says:
" I find that the existing system is more concerned with the determination of disciplinary matters concerning individual police officers than with satisfying the complainant ".
Then at paragraph 7.28 he said:
" A complaints procedure which is generally acknowledged to be fair and impartial—to the public and to the accused police officer—is essential if the police are to enjoy the degree of public support they must have in order to discharge their onerous and necessary task. If public confidence in the complaints procedure is to be secured, the early introduction of an independent element in the investigation of complaints and the establishment of a conciliation process are vital ".
Those are the recommendations of the report. Although, of course, one defers to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, in particular, I would submit to your Lordships that, if one sets aside a separate category of the apology cases with a sifting mechanism for those, the broad thrust of the Scarman Report should be implemented notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Plowden and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The reason is given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report, and I would suggest that a system such as that is essential because it would
1462
do much to remove tensions and to remove, for example, the sense of injustice which leads to rebellion, if one wishes to use the concepts of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—and why not? The noble Lord speaks from the other side and that has a value because those are the fears. If one does not cross the divide to meet the fears one cannot cope with the problem. Therefore, it is no use pretending that there is not a problem. I would most earnestly urge upon the Government that they should give consideration to the implementation of this wholly independent complaints procedure. Apart from the fact that every newcomer must be at a certain disadvantage, which was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, who fortunately is present, would agree that once the newcomer is allowed to remain here as of right, he is then entitled to say, " The law is no respecter of persons ", and to have the full benefit of that legal concept. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson would not have wished, and did not in fact suggest, otherwise. If we look into the mirror of the mind and we see two images, one black and one white, then it is time that we either changed our spectacles, consulted an oculist or even perhaps a psychiatrist.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, towards the end of this long debate I rise to draw attention to the Rastafarian dimension in the life of the West Indian community in Britain. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, mentioned this on page 44 of his report. He wrote—and I compress very slightly his words:
" The Rastafarians, their faith and their aspirations, deserve more understanding and more sympathy … from the British people. The true Rastafarian is deeply religious … His aspiration—the return to Africa …—is embodied in a religious and peaceful discipline ".
I believe that we should ponder very deeply this assessment of a group which might, at first sight, appear outlandish and incomprehensible if only because of their hairstyles and their devotion to the late Emperor of Ethiopia.
The roots of Rastafari are to be found in Jamaica in the last century. In this century, Marcus Garvey's teaching anticipated much of the later and still current black theology, black consciousness and black power. Some Rastafarians are members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, an ancient Christian body. Those who do not belong to this church are, however, profoundly Biblical people who draw deeply on Judaeo-Christian sources. Prayer and meditation and discussion play an important part in their lives.
Over the years in Britain we have come to give respect to many religions, including some that we once used to persecute. Respect is what Rastafarians ask for, and I believe that we should give it to them just as we do to the Jews or to the Sikhs. We should recognise Rastafarian customs and observances, just as we do those of other faiths.
I should like to draw attention to the report on Rastafarians in Jamaica and Britain, recently published by the Catholic Commission for Racial Justice. Not all are in full agreement with this report, as was made abundantly clear by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. However, I would dissent from him and I commend the conclusions of this report

1463
both to the Christian churches and to the Government. I urge that Rastafari should be recognised as a genuine and valid religion. In this connection, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether he can confirm that the Home Office is revising Circular No. 10 of 1976, which is of great importance to Rastafarians who are in prison. If so, when does he expect the new guidance to be published? Can the noble Lord say that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that Rastafarians are treated with sympathy and understanding by all departments of central Government and by local government and, of course, most importantly, by the police?
Rastafari is more than just a religion: it is also a culture which expresses itself in many ways, not least in reggae music. It gives cultural identity to some of those who reject both traditional West Indian society and contemporary British urban values.
In the last few days I have been able to meet and to talk with Rastafari leaders and with ordinary members of that movement. Both groups impressed upon me most vehemently their concern with repatriation. They pointed out that though some West Indians came to Britain freely and as adults, others arrived with no choice in the matter since they were children at the time, or else they were born here subsequently as the second generation. Some now desire to return to the West Indies; others wish to go to Africa. This point is touched on in the evidence given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on behalf, for instance, of Caribbean House.
I think that we should discuss the question of repatriation very carefully, very thoroughly and very dispassionately, freeing ourselves from prejudice, from racialism, and from fear, or from any other disturbing emotion. I suggest that we need to face our own past history and present attitudes to West Indians openly and honestly. In the past we were leaders in promoting the slave trade and we were also pioneers in emancipating the slaves. We invited black people to work in Britain, and yet our inner cities leave very much to be desired, both for indigenous and for immigrant people alike.
Our responsibilities are, therefore, very great. It will only be with courage and with strong leadership that we shall begin to discharge them. I support what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and then noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said when they urged the importance of caring for and fostering whole local communities as well as meeting the needs of individuals and families. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would say that I believe that this applies just as much to whites as to black communities.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I welcome the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as being a very real contribution towards solving what is a very difficult problem. I want to concentrate on and refer in particular to what he says in his conclusions, when he calls for a concerted attack on discrimination co-ordinated by central Government and related in particular to education and employment. He says:
" A policy of direct co-ordinated attack on racial disadvantage inevitably means that the ethnic minorities will enjoy for a time
1464
a positive discrimination in their favour. But it is a price worth paying if it accelerates the elimination of the unsettling factor of racial disadvantage from the social fabric of the United Kingdom. I believe this task to be even more urgent than the task of establishing on a permanent basis good relations between the ethnic minorities and the police ".
I should like to say something about positive discrimination because I feel that there is some misunderstanding of the problem. Indeed, in his otherwise very admirable speech today, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, appeared to be confused too, because he challenged the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and asked whether it would not be preferable to go in for reverse discrimination. He went on to define reverse discrimination as being a policy to encourage and train immigrants for the police. Surely this is the positive discrimination for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, calls in his report.
From listening to some of the discussions that have taken place on the media since the report was published, it is clear that there is confusion on this issue. It seems to me that if we are fully to understand why positive discrimination is necessary, we need, first, to understand what is meant by indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination is a much more dangerous concept than the concept of direct discrimination, which most of us would recognise and on which we would be able to make an immediate judgment. But indirect discrimination is really the equal rule with the unequal effect. It arises not from deliberate discrimination, but from the way in which institutions and procedures adversely affect an individual or a group of people. Therefore, it is something with which we need to familiarise ourselves and to try to take account of in our thinking on this whole problem.
I recall a seminar and a discussion on discrimation in which I was involved some few years ago when the concept of indirect discrimination was illustrated by the fable of the fox and the stork. The fox invited the stork to have supper with him and provided two flat plates of soup which, of course, the fox was able to lap up without any difficulty, but the stork found it impossible to partake of the soup. If we relate that to our institutions, very often the services which are provided by our institutions are, like the soup, not readily and not easily taken up by our immigrant communities. But unlike the stork—because the stork was able to get his own back on the fox by inviting the fox to dine with him and providing the fox with a pitcher of liquid which, of course, the fox was not able to enjoy—our immigrant communities are not able to reciprocate in that way because they are here in this community and they have to work with and through the institutions which are operating in the country. So I think that we need to bear that problem in mind when we are looking at the positive measures, the positive discrimination, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has advocated.
In his report in relation to the police at Part V, paragraph 5.9, he deals with this very admirably. He does not call for quotas because positive discrimination is not quotas; he does not call for a reduced standard, because, again, positive discrimination is not reducing standards. But what he does is to ask for special help for the ethnic groups to be trained up to the minimum standard which the police require. That surely is what we all want to do—to lift up the immigrant

1465
community to the necessary standard so that they can compete on an equal basis.
On the other side of the coin, the report goes on to call for better training within the police service so that police officers can understand the culture and the problems of the ethnic groups. I totally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on this. I do not see anything wrong in asking that the police—who are dealing with a group of people who have a different background from the indigenous community—be given some training which will help them to understand the approach of the immigrant groups. Indeed, I would go even further. If one were talking about education, one would suggest that in the training of teachers there is an element which deals with this problem of the ethnic communities. If one is talking about employment, again one would want to see in the training which is given within companies for management, shop stewards and trade unionists, an element of training on the problems of the immigrant community.
This is not something new. This is something which surely any personnel officer in a company with good policies would endorse, and he would say that this is the natural and straightforward thing to do. I would disagree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his approach to this. I hope that, not only within the police force but within the many areas where the ethnic community has to be dealt with in groups as part of the structure of society, attention will be given to this whole problem of understanding the differences in culture between the new immigrant groups and ourselves. Again, I would disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, on this.
I do not think that by doing this, by introducing this element of training, we are doing anything different from what has been done in the past. Surely in the past all of us who have been associated with new groups coming in have tried to understand what the differences between the groups are. We may not have set out deliberately to alter our institutions, but nevertheless the development of British society has been influenced by the influx of new people.
Reference has been made to the Huguenots. Certainly in the part of the country I come from the Huguenots had a tremendous effect on the development of the culture and attitude to work. So again I do not think we arc introducing new principles but are dealing with a problem with a different dimension, because we are dealing now in some parts of the country with a very substantial percentage of the population which is not indigenous to the United Kingdom. At least some of them are now indigenous because they are second and even third generations, but they have not been with us sufficiently long, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, to be assimilated into our community.
Because of all these reasons there is a need in our educational policies, in our employment policy, to be positive; to encourage positively the minority groups to come into industries and professions where they are not present at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said earlier, it is absolutely essential that in all the different professions in the country we should see members of the immigrant communities at the top so that it can be demonstrated that they are assimilated and that they are part of the total community.
1466
But this is not going to happen by itself. It is not going to happen unless companies and educational bodies deliberately set out to build into their policies help for these communities. That is what is meant when we talk about positive discrimination. Again, the report refers to the need to introduce general information and education about the problems that will have to be faced in the work situation if we are to integrate the ethnic communities and if we are to avoid a backlash and a resentment developing. Part of the policy must be to try to help the white community to understand why these policies are being carried out. In that respect the Government could, and I think will, give some lead but it will have to be taken up at all levels.
It is no good expecting central Government to be able to do everything. Central Government, as the report says, must give a lead and must co-ordinate, but the issue must also be taken up at all levels within our community. And nowhere, I would suggest, is it more important than in the workplace, where it is absolutely essential for matters to be taken up equally by management and trades unions, and for a contribution to be made to a greater understanding of the problems of the minority groups. Therefore, I would certainly commend the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I would underline the urgency which is written into that report.
8.36 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I think I am the only Member who has spoken today who had agricultural estates in Jamaica. I went there regularly for 12 years after the war, and so I got to know the people extremely well. In all the time that I went out there, I never came across any riots. The only riots I came across were riots of joy on the estate, because when I arrived I always gave a big barbecue for all the children and the people, and it was a riot of joy.
It is rather difficult for me, speaking so late in the evening as the last speaker, because I should have liked to say a great deal as I have great experience of the West Indies from first-hand. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was speaking about the Rastafarians. I quite agree with the noble Lord that they want to be repatriated. If they do, I think that the Government ought to give liberal funds for them to be repatriated. I cannot see why any immigrant family, if they are unhappy here, should not be repatriated if they want to be, and I should like to see the Government giving a family £5,000. Of course, at the moment the Government give them only the barest travel allowance.
In Jamaica, the only thing we rather had against the Rastafarians was that I think as part of their religion they smoke marijuana, ganja. I never had any trouble on the estate. I had only kindness, politeness, and no rudeness. It was frankly one of the happiest periods of my life. The only trouble that we met occasionally was when they smoked marijuana, ganja. Then they lose their inhibitions, and for their own protection there had to be strict laws to protect them from themselves. When they lost their inhibitions they would never harm a white man in those days, but they would harm themselves. That was the only trouble one ever had.

1467
Your Lordships must remember that on those estates the Jamaicans were in their own environment. There was a mild discipline and they were very happy on my estate, certainly, and I was sorry to leave. But I am glad to say I left it in a better condition than when I found it. I recall that when independence was coming certain things happened. For example, on one occasion when I was parking my car in Kingston—actually my estate was on the West coast of Jamaica, whereas Kingston is on the East coast—I asked a black man if he would mind backing his car a few feet to enable me to park mine, and he said, " You want me to do that only because you are white and I am black ". I replied, " Don't be so silly. Nothing of the sort. If you do not want to move I will find somewhere else to park ". But once that sort of attitude crept in I felt it was time to leave.
I find it very difficult to think that the stock of those people, who I knew well and who, to me, were not at all violent, should have changed so much. Reading the Scarman Report and seeing such happenings on television and so on, it seems incredible that such people should make and throw petrol bombs. It is not in their character to do that, and I am sure those petrol bombs were given to them or thrown by others, probably some of them white people.
One cannot blame the immigrants for coming here. There were certain not particularly scrupulous agents who figured out—I am going back to 1959–60, that sort of time—that a combination of cheap air transport and the welfare state, coupled with a number of vacancies here at that time, was a golden opportunity to bring immigrants over. In one year in those days I believe 600,000 were brought in from the West Indies, and of course in this grossly over-populated country it was difficult to find them all jobs.
The agents about whom I speak told them, " If you do not get a job, no matter because you can go on the welfare state, where you will get as much ". We must remember that the total income of some of those people would probably have been about £50 a year, although that is not a fair comparison with this country because in Jamaica one does not need any heat and hardly any housing, and even if one is unemployed it is possible to live off the land because it is so fertile, with four crops a year and plenty of delicious fruit and everything else. They all thought the streets of London were paved with gold, and sometimes they used to ask me if that was the case. I told them, " If the streets are paved with gold, it must be borrowed gold ". As I say, we cannot blame the black immigrants for coming here. For a number of years Governments in Britain were caught napping; they should have tried to slow down the inflow when they saw it was becoming so great, especially when jobs were not available here. But it is no good crying over split milk.
Those points are preliminaries. I wish only to speak about the reasons for the disorders, and I speak from practical experience, as I have explained. A number of noble Lords have mentioned housing as a reason, but it is clear from the Scarman Report that housing is not a main cause. We must remember, too, that these people came from far worse housing than one finds in Brixton. The majority of houses in Jamaica, despite, or perhaps because of, the very good climate,
1468
are wooden shacks with no sanitation. I built some brick houses there, but the majority of their housing is extremely poor. Paragraph 2.8 of the report says in this context:
" My visit to Stockwell Park confirms that in spite of the enlightened neighbourhood management approach by the Council, the dreams of modern architects and planners do not necessarily provide any more of a setting for social harmony than do the rundown Victorian terraces in Railton and Mayall Roads ".
As I say, I do not think housing was one of the prime causes.
When we come to education and employment, however, it is another matter. Of course one cannot expect employers to employ people who are illiterate, or virtually so. If money is to be spent, I should like to see it spent on training black teachers to train black people because black teachers understand their culture far better than white teachers. In the average school in Jamaica the teachers were all black and the pupils were very disciplined.
Having said that, I believe that the underlying cause lies in the fact that the family life of the West Indians has been broken up. That aspect is mentioned some-where in the report. Family life is extremely strong in Jamaica. In my time there, it was chiefly a matriarchal society, because the man sometimes disappeared. I do not mean he would fall down a hole or something of that sort; he would just wander off. However, the family was a very extended network of kin—mothers, grandmothers, aunts and so on—who brought the children up very strictly and they attended strict schools.
When the families came over here and the children went to our schools, they found themselves plunged into our permissive society, and they got out of the control of the family. I say that is one of the causes of the riots. After all, if you take such simple people—I do not use the word " simple " in a derogatory way, because we have among them some brilliant lawyers and doctors; I suppose one could call the people who were on my estate simple, having been brought up in the country—and plunge them into the maelstrom of what is called western civilisation, there is bound to be trouble. They are open to all the pornographic filth and all sorts of other filth that the media spills out. In that situation they are bound to go off the rails. Seeing violence on television, I suppose it is natural for young people to think they will try it for themselves. However, as the report points out, for whatever crimes they commit and whatever they do, they must be subject to our legal system and our laws.
I should like for a moment to draw attention to the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Bristol riot trial in withdrawing cases against two of the accused in the interests of racial harmony. That is a very dangerous thing to do. If that custom grew, it would probably have the reverse effect. I also think that such a gesture is insulting to the black people as a whole, and it is very patronising, too.
There is such a lot that I should like to say, but I must end soon. I found that many of the people on my estate were very good with their hands; they had a natural aptitude for carpentry, carving, and all such things. We have sent them to colleges, but I suppose that where there is a language difficulty it is not much

1469
good doing that until they speak the language properly. They were brought up to speak English, but they had a different type of English, much more the abbreviated style, and clipped.
I should like to say a few words about positive discrimination. This term comes from America. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, must have pinched it from America. It was President Johnson who started the idea. The original idea was to relieve social tension in America. The Americans said—and I think that this, too, is extremely patronising—that it was intended to enable the blacks to catch up; in other words, to give a black man a job in preference to a white man, even if the white man had far higher qualifications. That idea has been tried out for quite a few years in America, and it has not been very successful. There is now quite a backlash among the majority white population. We must be careful in this country regarding such matters. Such a thing might be all right in some isolated cases, but we must be careful that we do not get a backlash here, though we are, I believe, a far more tolerant country.
That is all I propose to say, my Lords, though I should have liked to say much more. I am the last Back-Bench speaker, and time is getting on. I shall end by saying that I hope that in Britain, in the United Kingdom, we can get rid of black and white prejudice without at the same time destroying equal opportunity for all.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, today's debate has responded in kind to a report of very great significance and breadth. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was the last of your Lordships to have spoken of both a range of issues arising from the policing of our society and the problems of society itself. But, starting with, I believe, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, we have in this debate reinforced the view expressed in the report that it is wrong to pretend that the maintenance of public order and a lawful society are responsibilities that can be laid at the door of the police alone.
The principal task which the report sets for the police is the application to our developing society of the traditional principles of British policing. The purpose is to enhance police effectiveness in the broadest sense. My noble friend Lord Beloff said that there is an element of sentimentality in assuming that with current levels of violent crime there is a short cut to law and order—I paraphrase my noble friend. I would agree with him, and indeed the report fully acknowledges that the prevention and detection of crime remain fundamental duties of the police. The report emphasises the serious problem of crime, particularly of street robbery. It confirms that there will continue to be circumstances in which the use of what it calls hard methods of policing, including the deployment of the special patrol group, are essential. It concludes that the power of stop and search is necessary to combat street crime.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that the law is the law, and it must extend to all, and it must be applied firmly, fairly, and sensitively. The report emphasised that in order to achieve that, consultation is an essential part of police effectiveness. Unless the police know well the different communities
1470
in which they work, and unless those communities grasp fully what the police are trying to do, and how they are going to try to do it, then there will be distrust and inevitable damage to police effectiveness. That is the reason for the recommendations for formal consultation arrangements, which the Home Secretary is already acting upon. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, I think that we must complete the consultations which we are very actively pursuing before we can finally decide on whether or not they should be put into statutory provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, quite rightly, that exactly how the liaison committees are to be composed is not yet clear; and this is a considerable difficulty. That is why we are proceeding as swiftly as we can with consultations, though at the end of the day surely it must be for local communities to have some flexibility to decide.
I am very happy to be able to add a word or two to what I attempted to say to your Lordships at the beginning of the debate. There took place this afternoon the meeting, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary chaired, of those representing different interests in the borough of Lambeth. The meeting was able to reach agreement on a firm framework for future consultation between the police and the community in Lambeth, and there was expressed a a firm resolve that the new group should meet again, in Lambeth, before the end of the month to begin its necessary work. My right honourable friend and his officials will be ready to give any help that is needed to the new group as its work develops.
Before turning to the specific questions that I have been asked, I should like to refer to another point. Some noble Lords have implied—I quite understand why—that the only proper response from the Government to such a report is to implement it in full. In another place the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Hattersley, chided my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on just that point, but then himself rather surprisingly went on specifically to reject the recommendation that the Home Secretary should continue to be the police authority for London. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to whom I always listen carefully, and with practically the whole of whose speech I agreed, will not mind my saying that he made very much the same point about accepting the report in full, and then expressed obvious reservations—I thought quite rightly—about dismissal being the normal penalty for any offence of racial prejudice.
In all friendliness, I challenge your Lordships to find a major and wide-ranging report in the last many years which has been published and which has had such a warm and specific welcome from the Government of the day. It is common practice for the reports of Royal Commissions to be published with only a request for comments from interested parties. On consultation, on training—but I will come to that in a moment more specifically—and on the complaints procedure, my right honourable friend said on publication that he accepted the direction of the recommendations and wanted to make progress quickly and firmly. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and indeed to many of my noble friends who made speeches this afternoon, and to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, for saying in

1471
essence that they understood that the Government are intending to get on with implementing as much of the report as we possibly can. We are doing so, and work is continuing with all the energy and drive which my right honourable friend can impart.
If I may refer specifically to training, which so many of your Lordships have talked about, the Police Training Council will pursue its tasks as quickly as possible; but do not let us lose sight of the fact that much excellent training is already being given at all levels, and that in some of the important areas identified in the report improvements have recently been made or are under way. For instance, there are the improvements in the Metropolitan Police to which I referred earlier in my speech. So far as their initial training courses are concerned, in April Metropolitan Police training courses are to be extended from 15 to 16 weeks.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, all referred to the desirability of accepting the exact wording of the report—the six-month training period for initial training. It is the fact, of course, that Lord Scarman recommended this training period, and indicated one or two subjects that should be given prominence in extending the period from the present 10 weeks. But the noble and learned Lord did not offer a blueprint for the training period, and, really—and this is quite genuine—we must consider, and we must be advised by the Police Training Council, what should be the substance of extended initial training (and by that I mean what the balance should be between initial courses at police training centres and the job training which takes place in individual forces) before determining the exactly right period of time for this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if I may ask the noble Lord a question on that, I take his point completely, of course, and I am most grateful to him, with his customary courtesy, for giving way. But the fact is that the noble and learned Lord indicated that he wanted a 12-month training period and was prepared, because of the resource implications, to accept six months. Is the noble Lord aware that all the police organisations have indicated that they want a six-month training period run within Home Office training establishments? Are the Government prepared to accept that recommendation if it is indeed the position of all the police organisations, as, of course, I am aware that it is?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I will answer the noble Lord as honestly as I know. The Police Training Council last met on 28th January. I said in opening that it had looked at how best to try to tackle the recommendations of the report. In fact, my information is that the Police Training Council decided that it would set up working parties on certain specific subjects, and surveys on other certain specific subjects, and would come back in the autumn to decide then what it ought to do.
What I would add to that—and I speak advisedly—is that we look forward to receiving the Police Training
1472
Council's detailed recommendations on what changes are required and on how best they can be achieved, but until we get that, the exact increase in police training, with the resources which it will imply according to what the balance of training is going to be, is something on which my right honourable friend simply cannot make a definitive statement.
So far as complaints are concerned, if I may turn to that matter, I was reminded by the discussion which again took place this afternoon on police complaints, of Lord Scarman's comment that the objective of a complaints procedure which is fair both to the complainant and to the accused police officer is as easy to state as it is difficult to achieve. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for putting forward (which is not an easy thing to do) their own ideas as to how the complaints procedure could be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, really wanted what is in effect a post hoc procedure, which has certain drawbacks which were brought out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden; and my noble friend Lord Campbell's concept was of a board which he would see as being wholly independent.
At this hour, all I would say on this subject is that of course Lord Scarman, after putting forward his own preference for an independent investigation system, then recognised that there were a number of difficulties, largely though not exclusively of a practical nature—difficulties which were explained to the House in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who of course speaks with such great experience of this and, indeed, of other aspects of police matters. It is in the light of that that the evidence which the Home Office has put in to the Select Committee of another place in fact goes for the concept of the non-police supervisor and a conciliation procedure, which of course is favoured by Lord Scarman and which in fact is taken from the report of the working party which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, after the triennial report of the Police Complaints Board.
I think that what we must strive to achieve from all this is a fair, effective and workable system that commands public confidence and thereby contributes to the general purpose of strengthening relationships between the police and the public they serve; and in order to do this we simply have got to wait for the report, which we hope will come out at Easter, of the Select Committee of another place.
Perhaps I could go now specifically to just one or two points before I end. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made the point that the black community should realise how important the police are to them; and the noble Lord went on to say that, therefore, recruitment from the ethnic minorities to the police is very important. The Government most certainly agree; and without repeating the measures which we are taking, to which I referred at the start of this debate, I assure the noble Lord that active encouragement is being given to improvement of recruitment.
On recruitment, my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve suggested that, while it might not bring agreement from the Home Office, she would recommend an increase of the special constabulary and particularly more mature specials from the ethnic minorities.

1473
On the contrary, the Government agree strongly with my noble friend. I would say to her that in recent months in London and in the Midlands I have met West Indian and Asian special constables who have confirmed to me the correctness of the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve.
Finally, my Lords, there are four quick points. If the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will forgive me, I will not follow him down the avenues (which are very much in the report) of housing, education and employment. I listened with great interest to what he said on those. I would generally say to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that the proposals which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made on the rate support grant settlement for next year will provide half a billion pounds more in grant than for this year. It is easy to talk as though authorities are being cut to the bone. It is a huge cash increase; but, maybe, as the noble Lord would say to me—and he is always fair—not enough. As I explained in my opening remarks, the Government have already responded to the Select Committee on Racial Disadvantage and we believe that the document which the Government have put out is a positive one. It shows that the Government accept a number of recommendations made by the Select Committee and in particular that relating to ethnic monitoring in the Civil Service and to the considerable reforms being made now in the administration of the Section 11 grants.
I will reply specifically to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson who was critical of the reporting of news by the media in the context of the Scarman Report and the disorders of the summer. The broadcasters have a duty to report news accurately and with due impartiality and not to include anything in their programmes which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder. My noble and learned friend felt that reporting and commenting at times became confused; but under our broadcasting arrangements, as trustees of the public interest in broadcasting, the BBC and the IBA are bound to take a view of the effect that news coverage and news gathering can have on what is being reported and recorded. I would say that the BBC and the IBA maintain and keep under review guidelines from which I will not quote but which are down to earth and practical about the portrayal of violence in a whole range of programmes, including news programmes. It is for them—and I know that they have much taken this to heart—to decide whether any review of the guidelines is needed in the light of the Scarman Report.
Meanwhile, my noble friend asked what the Home Secretary had done. During the passage of the Broadcasting Act 18 months ago, on behalf of my right honourable friend I told the House that the BBC and the IBA, in response to an approach from my right honourable friend, would include in their annual reports an account of complaints made to them about programme content. I believe that this is the right way to deal with a matter like this. My noble friend may be interested to know that the BBC and the IBA are now jointly involved in research into the difficult matter of the copycat aspects of television reporting which have given cause for concern.
1474
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about Rastafarians. As far as Circular 10 of 1976 is concerned, instructions have already been issued to wardens of detention centres, where the general practice is to require all inmates to have their hair cut short, to give Rastafarian inmates the opportunity to retain their long hair.
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. It has directed attention to specific areas of the Scarman Report which your Lordships find to be of great concern and the Government attach great significance to the report. I think that it is important and fair to recognise how quickly my right honourable friend has responded to many of the report recommendations. The report points the way forward for the support of the community to enable the police to be able to deal more effectively with crime and to protect the communities which they serve, and of which they are themselves a part. The same path leads to continuing the attack on the problems of the inner cities and the disadvantages of some in our society. I believe that this debate represents a further step in taking us forward on that course.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, one of the reasons why there is this attitude to the police from some immigrants is that they brought that over from the countries they came from, where their police are far tougher than ours. It will probably take them some time to realise that our police are far better.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  MENTAL PATIENTS IN PRISON
  MENTAL PATIENTS IN PRISON
  NORTHERN IRELAND CIVIL SERVICE: TRAINING PROJECT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND CIVIL SERVICE: TRAINING PROJECT STATISTICS
  PEERS' ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES
  PEERS' ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES
  CHARITIES AND VAT
  CHARITIES AND VAT
  STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TALKS
  STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TALKS
  STATE PENSION SCHEME REVIEW: CONTRACTING-OUT
  STATE PENSION SCHEME REVIEW: CONTRACTING-OUT