Sitting of 20 April 1983

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

    Motor Cycle Training
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the workings of the Transport Act 1981 as it affects motor cycle training for learner riders.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): It is too soon to make a fully considered assessment. I want to see more riders taking training than has been the case so far, but I am encouraged that the pass rate of those who take the part 1 test with an approved training organisation after a course of training is more than double that of those who take the test with the Department, and therefore without training in most cases.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend think that the 1981 Act gives sufficient encouragement to 16-year-old moped riders? Can she see any reason why they should not be able to take part 1 of the test and perhaps then be allowed to ride 125cc motor bikes with L-plates until the age of 17, when they can take the test?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend's question is extremely interesting. I have been aware for some time of concern about the 16-year-old moped rider. That is why I am taking a fresh look at the whole issue, and I hope to be able to tell the House something about it shortly.
    Mr. Booth: Does the Minister appreciate that most motor cyclists consider it grossly inequitable that they should be debarred from riding for a year if they are unable to take or pass two tests within a two-year period, whereas a motorist who has not even attempted the test in that period should be able to go on driving on a provisional licence? Will she reconsider that and possibly lay amending regulations at least to cover the position of motor cyclists who are unable to take the test because there is not a test available to them?
    Mrs. Chalker: There should certainly be a test and both parts 1 and 2 are available to provisional licence-holders in the first year. There is a difference. Learner car drivers must be accompanied, so they have an incentive to take training and pass the test. There is no such incentive for the unaccompanied motor cycle learner. We want, above all, to reduce the awful number of accidents, particularly to young learner riders. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the legislation a chance to work. If it does not work, we can then talk about reviewing it.
    Mr. Parris: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that the legislation needs a chance to work. Might it be sensible to set a period after which there will be a formal review of the legislation, particularly this qualification about which many motor cyclists feel deeply resentful?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly understand what my hon. Friend says, but we must encourage young motor cyclists—indeed, all motor cyclists, to take training and pass the test. If he has any other bright ideas, other than making training mandatory—which I believe would be wrong—I should be happy to receive them. We must encourage young motor cyclists to take training, and they should be encouraged to do so in view of the 85 per cent. pass rate in part 1 after training.

    Drink-Drive Publicity Campaign
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make a statement on the effectiveness of the drink-drive publicity campaign in the light of the control system used over the Christmas and new year period, when such campaigns were confined to certain areas of the United. Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The results of the evaluation of the Christmas and new year drink-drive publicity campaign are not yet available. They are expected shortly.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Secretary of State accept that this whole thing is a statistical control system gone mad? Does he realise that if there is evidence from this inquiry that the drink-drive campaign was successful, the implication is that in areas where it was not shown over the Christmas-new year period there may have been accidents, or even deaths, due to drunken driving?
    Mr. Howell: The campaign took place in all areas. It occurred in some areas at Christmas, while in other areas it was deferred until February. As a lot of expenditure is involved, it is important that such compaigns are cost effective. There are many other competing claims for funds for advertising of this kind, and it is important to make them cost effective. That was the purpose. As soon as we have the results we shall be able to evaluate them and make future campaigns more effective.

    Road Construction and Improvement
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to increase the level of investment in road construction and improvement in the south-west during the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: We expect to start work later this year on major trunk road schemes costing some £7 million in addition to the £75 million worth of schemes already under construction. Our longer-term programme for the region is substantial, and I expect to add to it following the review that is now in progress. Moreover, in the 1983–84 transport supplementary grant settlement we accepted £46 million for capital investment on local transport in the region, 6 per cent. more than last year's settlement.
    Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is she aware that genuine anxiety is being expressed in Devon and Cornwall about the fact that proposals for major road improvements in respect of the

    271
    A38 Saltash bypass and the A30 west of Okehampton are for single rather than dual carriageways? Is that not a shortsighted policy, particularly when we recall that it made sense in the early and mid-1970s to have dual carriageways whereas in the early 1980s we merit single carriageways only?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend must be careful to compare like with like. Wherever it makes sense to build a dual carriageway—for instance, stage I of the north Devon link and appropriate sections of the A30— we shall do so. I appreciate the desire of people in the area to see the highest possible standards provided. However, we must consider that every time we build a dual carriageway we take more farmland than we would if we built a wide single carriageway. We must be able to justify every yard of dual carriageway that we build.

    Bridges (Tolls)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to abolish tolls on bridges under his control.
    Mr. David Howell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous debt outstanding on that great white elephant, the Humber bridge? Does he not think that it is time to wipe out and write off that debt? If he will not abolish tolls, will he use them as levies to pay for the maintenamce of the bridge?
    Mr. Howell: I understand that the reason for building the bridge was to secure a favourable outcome in a by-election in the 1960s. The bridge has now been built and it must be used to the best possible advantage. The Humber Bridge Board is responsible for the debt and for its finances. I have agreed to meet the board when it has prepared some financial projections. It has 60 years in which to repay the loan, so it is early days yet.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Labour Government were in power Conservative Members were clamouring for the abolition of tolls? Is he aware that in Scotland many road hauliers have gone out of business? If he will not discontinue tolls, will he give serious consideration to alleviating the problens that now arise?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the problems caused by tolls. The difficulty is that someone has to pay for the enormous capital charges incurred in building bridges and tunnels on the trunk and motorway system. Free crossing would not make the debts go away. Someone has to pay for them. I believe that it is right to adhere to the principle of the user contributing to the huge capital costs. I recognise the worries expressed by the Freight Transport Association and other bodies.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my right Friend accept that some of us are disappoointed, if not surprised, at his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton)? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the original justification for major estuarial crossings being tolled is no longer valid, as so many of them are not tolled?
    Mr. Howell: I am interested in the small number of large capital investments in major crossings where there
    272
    is a substantial capital debt that someone has to repay. I realise that the charge upon the user is an irritation. I have heard the views of the FTA and other bodies. If those crossings were made free, the debt would not go away. Someone else would have to bear it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Hughes: Sit down. I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should explain to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) that if he pursues his point of order now I shall not be able to call anyone else on this question.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case for almost every toll bridge that the amount collected does not pay the interest? Theoretically, if not practically, the debt is increasing each year. How, therefore, does keeping tolls make any possible sense?
    Mr. Howell: It does not happen in every case. In an example that will arise in a later question—the Dartford tunnel—with the completion of the M25 orbital road and the increase in traffic, there will be increased contributions towards the repayment of the debt.
    Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that at the first opportunity I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    Cycling
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to gather the information necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the effects on energy conservation of encouraging cycling.
    Mrs. Chalker: Any realistic assessment depends upon information about the potential scale of transfer to cycling from private cars rather than from public transport. It is planned to collect such information during the monitoring of certain larger urban cycling projects which the Department is now considering.
    Mr. Holland: Will the Minister clarify which projects and when, as it has been a clear principle of transport economics and cost-benefit analysis for a long time that one should be able to evaluate the difference between travelling by car and by bicycle? If it is Government policy that we should get on our bikes, will the hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment on this matter so that she can get it straight?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall limit my reply to the real question, which is about progress on the larger scale urban projects. I have received proposals from eight local authorities for these larger scale projects where we can assess how the traveller on his or her bicycle used travelling time before. It is essential to know whether they were travelling previously on public transport or by private car and, if by private car, whether with others or singly. We shall be able to do that with the larger scale urban projects.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the danger and discomfort to the cyclist from cycling, particularly in London, where the GLC completely fails to maintain

    273
    roads, so that one hits potholes and kerbstones and everything else that is strewn across the road? Will she bring pressure to bear upon the GLC to maintain roads properly so that cyclists can have a proper run for their money?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the dangers of potholes and certain types of drains, but I assure my hon. Friend that they exist not only in London. The maintenance of the sides of roads is extremely important for cycling. I do not think that local authorities are in any doubt about that now, because regional cycling officers have been making them well aware of their responsibilities to cyclists.
    Mr. Dormand: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) on the subject of energy conservation, but are not there two other equally important matters relating to cycling? First, it does not pollute the atmosphere, and, secondly, it is important for general health and physical fitness. Would it not be a good example if hon. Members were to cycle? Applications should be made to me as the man in charge of the House of Commons bicycle pool.
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have many more people joining the All-party Friends of Cycling, of which I am proud to be a member. I can say that it helps one's health to cycle, particularly because of the unpleasant hours we work here.
    Mr. Porter: Is my hon. Friend aware that tolls are still payable by cyclists on bridges over estuarial crossings? Is she further aware that an all-party group is being established in the House to press for the abolition of tolls for cyclists and others?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is stretching things. This question is about conservation. I know that he missed his question, but we shall try to fit him in on another one.
    Mr. Porter: I cannot be blamed for trying, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Would it not help to gather the necessary information if there were some full-time regional officers? They are all part-time. Will the hon. Lady encourage full-time regional cycling officers?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that I do not restrict interest in cycling to the regional cycling officers. We have made it clear to all our staff, particularly engineers designing roads and so on, that they must think about the needs of the cyclist. The regional cycling officer must have good links with other aspects of the Department's work, which is one reason why I believe that it is better to have an all-rounder who can dive into all circumstances about cycling which need his expert help rather than to restrict someone to full-time work on cycling.

    A19 (Durham and Cleveland)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of repairs to the A19 road in county Durham and county Cleveland, respectively, for each of the years since the opening of the road.
    Mrs. Chalker: The A19 trunk road has been open to traffic for many years and information related specifically to repairs could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    274
    The annual maintenance costs, of which a major element is expenditure on repairs, are more readily available. With permission, I will circulate the information for the last eight years in the Official Report.
    Following is the information:

    A19 Trunk road annual maintenance costs

    Year

    County Durham

    County Cleveland

    £000s

    £000s

    1975–76

    27

    120

    1976–77

    39

    341

    1977–78

    65

    257

    1978–79

    162

    454

    1979–80

    371

    507

    1980–81

    82

    296

    1981–82

    181

    1,341

    1982–83*

    395

    2,086

    TOTAL(8 years)

    1,322

    5,402

    * Estimated cost.

    Mr. Dormand: That was an exceedingly disappointing reply. The Minister knows that the cost of the repairs so far is over £2 million. Does she recall that I first wrote to her about this problem about two years ago? Is she aware of the great inconvenience, not to say danger, that is caused to literally thousands of my constituents by the massive road works that are for ever being carried out on the A19? In view of the concern that has been widely expressed in county Durham and county Cleveland, and the great cost involved in repairing that comparatively new road, will the Minister authorise an independent inquiry as a matter of urgency?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman must have written to my predecessor. However, I accept that he is worried. That is why on 12 March last year I announced the appointment of independent consultants to look into the matter. I, too, was thoroughly dissatisfied with the information that I had received. The report has now come in, but we have not yet had a full chance to assess it. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the figures are in my hands.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, but he must realise that the question is about the A19 in county Durham and county Cleveland.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if she travelled up the A1 and left it at junction 29 for a rest, she would see the A617—on the way to Durham, that is—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone up a side path. He has wandered off the straight and narrow.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister for a brief moment examine that road with a view to getting a bypass for the Glapwell residents, who are up in arms about it?

    Bedford-Sheffield Railway Line
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had discussions with the chairman of the British Railways Board on the electrification of the line between Bedford and Sheffield.
    Mr. David Howell: I meet the British Rail chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, including proposals for main line electrification.
    Mr. Flannery: Is this not a matter of mutual interest to the Minster? If he replied in the affirmative about this route, that would alleviate some of the wilder excesses of the Serpell report, because many of us are wondering whether that report will get rid of British Rail altogether. If we found that there were electrification plans for the Bedford to Sheffield route, that would allay many fears about what will happen to that route and many other routes that may be affected by the Serpell report.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's worries are without foundation, so he can drop them straight away. The midlands main line route is not one for which British Rail has made proposals for electrification. British Rail determines the lines that have priority for electrification. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, high speed train services have been introduced on the midlands main line in the past year or two years.
    Mr. Flannery: There are fewer trains.
    Mr. Howell: I am told that as a result the services have been improved, although the hon. Gentleman may have different views.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before pushing electrification north of Bedford, which would be expensive, although welcome, people want to be sure that the Bedford — St. Pancras line is working properly, that a proper service is being provided for Bedfordshire commuters and that agreements between management and unions are adhered to?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important consideration. He knows that agreement has been reached on the practices and procedures for running the Bedford—St. Pancras electrified line. I understand that partial experiments and developments in running the line have begun and that a full service is likely to be in operation in the autumn. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we should see how that development goes and make sure that the line is working properly.
    Mr. Cowans: Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned at the lack of decision, not only on the Bedford —Sheffield line, but on electrification as a whole? Is he further aware that this is a glorious opportunity for him to take action, in view of the Prime Minister's concern for unemployment, and at a stroke help to solve the problem of unemployment? The right hon. Gentleman could help manufacturing industry to galvanise itself on the electrification programme and thus start to make up for the fact that the Government are virtually destroying manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to glorious opportunities. The most effective way to create employment is through worthwhile investment which produces a proper return, secure jobs and benefits for the future that the country needs. That has always been the criterion upon which the Government have sought information on electrification from British Rail. The Government had accepted in principle the 10-year electrification programme, but I have told the House that I would need to see a satisfactory plan for the
    276
    future of the inter-city business as a whole before reaching a decision on east coast main line electrification. I have now received the board's prospectus for up to 1988 and I am considering it. The board tells me that it is working on longer-term proposals, which will be ready in a few months.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the management and unions of British Rail have managed to reach agreement on the Bedford — St. Pancras part of the midlands line is welcome? Will that significantly alter his attitude and encourage British Rail to believe that funds will be forthcoming for further electrification sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good news that a major investment project, such as the Bedford-St. Pancras line, now looks set to be used effectively. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is not a question of alteration of views. In 1981 the Government set out sensible business conditions upon which investment in electrification of the main line system should be developed. Those conditions remain the same today. I repeat that I am now considering the prospectus that the board has put to me for the inter-city business up to 1988. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the decisions on new electric power units to replace diesel units depends very much on the overall prospects for the inter-city business system. The timing of those decisions also depends on the length of time that the new diesel units now being used on the east coast main line will be in use. It would be pointless to take them away and replace them before they earned their worth.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have shorter questions and answers.
    Mr. Ron. Lewis: Will the Secretary of State publish in the Official Report the electrification proposals that he has received from British Rail?
    Mr. Howell: No, Sir.

    British Rail (Surplus Land)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances the disposal of surplus land by British Rail requires his authority.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): There is no statutory requirement for the British Railways Board to seek my right hon. Friend's authority to dispose of surplus land, although it notifies us before disposing of surplus track formation under a 1974 non-statutory arrangement.
    Mr. Parry: When the Minister or the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him land that is owned by British Rail that could be used for development and result in the creation of jobs, particularly in areas such as Merseyside, where we meet local red tape and bureaucracy? Will he also discuss land in residential areas owned by British Rail which is used for dumping and tipping?
    Mr. Eyre: I note the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am grateful to him for raising this subject. It is important, particularly in large cities such as Liverpool. Some 149 acres of unused or underused land in Liverpool are now registered. That evidence is available, so potential developers can gain from the information.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend encourage British Rail to get rid of surplus land so that it can be used for building, particularly in city areas, rather than have more of the countryside used for housing accommodation? Will he also consider whether the board should examine whether it can build over the top of railways to a greater extent than at present in city areas?
    Mr. Eyre: I have much sympathy with my right hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited one of the London terminals and surveyed the programme for the development of the 15 London terminals. What my right hon. Friend says about development is relevant to those considerations.
    Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency there are several disused railway lines and that British Rail is guilty of failing to fence off that property safely? I fear that children can easily walk on to those disused railway lines and fall into railway cuttings. Is he further aware that I have received several complaints that car thieves take cars to such railway cuttings, using the cuttings as a dumping ground? Will he ask British Rail to do something about that?
    Mr. Eyre: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall raise all of those matters with British Rail. He is right to draw attention to the problems of fencing. They are sometimes an obstacle to the disposal of a site because such fencing obligations must be imposed on the purchaser.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend ask British Rail not to dispose of surplus land in a way that damages the quality of life of those who live nearby? Is he aware that British Rail wants to put a container depot on the site of Feltham marshalling yard, which is on the fringe of my constituency, with the result that heavy lorries would be travelling through residential roads in Whitton?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand the sensitivity of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. They are taken into account in the planning process when the application for development is considered.

    Manchester International Airport (Rail Link)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Rail has yet approached him about funding a rail link to Manchester international airport.
    Mr. Eyre: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister appreciate that there is growing frustration in Greater Manchester because the Government seem unwilling to seize the initiative to get that small railway link built? Is he aware that it would make a great deal of difference to the infrastructure of the Greater Manchester area, yet the Government seem happy to spend vast sums on a public inquiry at Stansted and more extensions at both Heathrow and Gatwick? Is it not time that the north-west had a fair share of resources and a little action from the Government to get the rail link built?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm in support of Manchester airport. He will be aware that the Government supported the Second Reading of the private Bill that was recently introduced by British Rail and that that safeguards the land necessary for a rail
    278
    link to Manchester airport. As for the railway development that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is for British Rail to advance plans, which we shall consider.
    Mr. McNally: Surely the Minister appreciates that this is not simply a British Rail decision. Does he agree that a runway-railway link makes sense for all airports? Does he further agree that, with regard to Manchester, it makes sense in tying up the expansion and investment plans that are under way, and that it will allow the country to make a proper judgment about whether Manchester airport should be expanded as opposed to further investment being made in the south-east of England? Does he agree that the Government should take that overview and not leave the decision to British Rail?
    Mr. Eyre: As I have already said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's support for development in Manchester, but I must emphasise that the airport link is connected with the railway "Windsor link" and the electrification of the Preston-Manchester line. All of these developments are issues that British Rail must consider and prepare plans on. It must use its expertise to bring forward proposals.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that if this link, which is important to the gateway airport which Manchester represents, is to go ahead, there is a great need for a sleeper service to it in both directions? Does he agree that British Rail's proposals to do away with a sleeper service in the north-west would be detrimental to Manchester airport and other parts of the north-west?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to that subject, but he is badly out of date on the difficulty with sleeping cars. Those difficulties have now been dealt with satisfactorily.
    Mr. Eastham: If the link is agreed to, will it not be one of the most cost-effective successes that British Rail has introduced? Why does the Minister continue merely to sit back and wait for British Rail to apply? Why does not he, as the Minister, take the initiative?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but he misunderstands British Rail's role. It must be for British Rail to develop and advance plans for a railway development of that type.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the time allowed to cross roads at pedestrian crossings controlled by traffic lights.
    Mrs. Chalker: I have recently received representations from my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we have just issued revised pelican regulations for consultation. They, and the revised departmental advice that we shall issue, will improve both the timing and the phasing for pedestrians at such crossings.
    Mr. Greenway: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is she aware of the GLC's dangerous incompetence in managing pelican crossings, as with many other things? Is she further aware that I have frequently attempted to cross Greenford and Mandeville roads with old people and young mothers with young children and found it impossible to do so without running? Will she put all the

    279
    steam that she can behind the GLC and her Department to make sure that the crossings are suitably phased to allow people to cross without danger?
    Ms. Chalker: The proposals were issued on 12 April. They recommend a variation in timing according to the width of the road for the benefit of those who find it more difficult to get moving when the lights change. We expect that the suggested two-second increase in the steady green man time will take account of the delays that we have noted and that an overlap of part of the flashing green man signal with part of the red signal to traffic will afford greater safety to the old and vulnerable.
    Mr. Stott: Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)? Is she aware that the GLC used the powers that are available to it to extend the maximum period for the green man and that permission to alter the timing must be given by the Department of Transport? It is the Department of Transport, not the GLC, that makes those regulations. Therefore, will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate her hon. Friend's allegations?
    Mr. Greenway: The GLC has made no effort in the matter.
    Mrs. Chalker: Far be it from me to take responsibility for what my hon. Friends, or any other hon. Members, say in the House. I can confirm that the Department must make a change in the regulations that cover phasing. It is, however, up to each local authority to adjust the timing to improve safety on the roads.

    Dartford Tunnel
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of traffic he estimates will be deterred by continuing toll charges from using the Dartford tunnel when the M25 orbital road is completed.
    Mr. David Howell: Very little. The advantages of using the motorways are so great, while the alternative free crossings at Woolwich ferry and Blackwall tunnel would demand a long and costly detour through east London.
    Mr. Neubert: Although the principle of users paying the cost would ordinarily be acceptable, as there is to be no charge for the rest of the M25 orbital motorway, is it not the sheerest expediency for the Government not to take greater responsibility for the Dartford tunnel when it becomes an integral and essential link in the circuit? Contrary to my right hon. Friend's optimism, will not the increasingly high toll charges necessary to recover the present crippling debt create a distortion of traffic patterns in the area and militate against the benefits that the motorway can bring, especially if the new east London river crossing is to be free?
    Mr. Howell: The Government recognise the interdependence of the Dartford tunnel and the M25. That is why we are grant-aiding improvements to the approach roads and the toll collection plaza. My hon. Friend knows that the Dartford tunnel was built by Essex and Kent councils. It was never contemplated that the tunnel would require Government subsidy and the joint committee of Essex and Kent councils is confident of discharging the debt from toll revenue. The arrival of the M25 will greatly increase traffic flows and provide good business for the
    280
    Dartford tunnel. I think that that is the right way forward, although I recognise what my hon. Friend says, that with the arrival of the M25 circumstances will be different from those that were foreseen when the Dartford tunnel was built.
    Mr. Booth: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the capacity of the existing Dartford tunnel will be capable of meeting traffic flows on the completed M25 to both the north and south of the tunnel? Has he considered a second tunnel, so that there can be one for northbound and one for the southbound traffic? If he has not, to what extent is the additional expenditure on the toll booth plaza justified, as opposed to making provision for an additional tunnel to improve the traffic flow and to reduce the chances of motorists travelling on other, less suitable, roads to avoid a tunnel bottleneck?
    Mr. Howell: An additional tunel was installed in the 1970s. We must watch the position carefully, but our present projections of traffic show that the flows will be maintained. As the huge M25 orbital comes into place, we must think about future developments and the effect that they will have on traffic, but our present projections show that the Dartford tunnel, together with the additional tunnel built in the 1970s, can cope.

    M3, Winchester
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the section of the M3 from north of Winchester to the M27.
    Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend will now be aware, I announced on 6 April that the first of two main contracts for the M3 extension from Popham to Bar End, Winchester had been let. A second contract will be let shortly. Work on both contracts will start very soon. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) on 21 February, I hope that construction of the improvement south of Bar End can start in 1985.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Is my hon. Friend aware that all those who use that busy road are much indebted to her for the energy that she has put into the improvements and extensions of the motorway? Will she press forward, knowing that she has much support, with the revised proposals of the consultants for the road south of Bar End, which many of those who love that area believe make much sense?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. We have received a generally favourable reaction to the consultants' report, which justifies our asking the consultants to consider a difficult area for building. I shall, of course, consider all representations before making further announcements, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am anxious that there should be no unnecessary delay.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Minister confirm that the proposed road east of St. Catherine's hill will now be adopted?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am still considering reactions to the consultants' report, which the right hon. Gentleman has seen, and as soon as I am convinced that we have received all representations we shall make a decision. However, it would be a little premature for me to say anything today.

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he currently applies in determining railway electrification schemes submitted by British Rail.
    Mr. Eyre: On main line services, we require acceptable plans for the commercial operation of the intercity and freight businesses, and a good prospect, on the basis of those plans, that the investment will earn a 7 per cent. return on the capital employed. On other lines, the case for electrification depends on whether this is the most cost-effective way of maintaining a rail passenger service.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Could greater weight be given to the convenience of the travelling public, and will my hon. Friend take pity on commuters on the Cambridge line who use the intermediate stations, who travel in what must be the worse conditions on British Rail?
    Mr. Eyre: I note my hon. Friend's point, and within the context of financial viability, we shall do our best to keep that in mind. As he knows, British Rail has proposed electrification on the Cambridge line from both Royston and Bishops Stortford. It has been asked to consider whether it would be more cost-effective to electrify only one of those lines. We await further information from British Rail before making a decision.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) earlier this afternoon, created the impression that the proposals that he received recently from British Rail for a cost-benefit analysis of electrification of main lines up to 1988 did not include electrification from Bedford to Sheffield? Will he clarify that matter?
    Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend made clear the position about the prospectus that has been received from British Rail. That is now being considered with regard to the development about which the hon. Gentleman asked.
    Mr. Dobson: Whatever criteria have been applied, how many proposals for electrification that have been approved by the Government have been implemented?
    Mr. Eyre: At least one is being implemented.
    Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend give priority to, and move higher up the priority list, the electrification of the western routes, bearing in mind that many of the diesel trains on those routes are becoming very old and are causing difficulty in the western region?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend will know that such proposals must come in the first instance from British Rail, but I shall draw his point to its attention.
    Mr. Booth: Does the prospectus put forward by British Rail to the Government for inter-city rail development, or the total investment programme up to 1988, contain a proposal to electrify the main line to Sheffield?
    Mr. Eyre: The prospectus relates to the entire intercity network. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not include such an electrification proposal.

    A564 Stoke-Derby Link
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress on the construction of the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke-Derby link.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, Sir. The main work of constructing this road started in January this year, as planned, and the road should be open to traffic in about two years' time.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley will be pleased with her reply? Does she envisage any hold-ups in this scheme, or does she believe that the road will definitely be open by the end of next year?
    Mrs. Chalker: If the good weather continues, and unless something totally unforeseen happens, I do not expect any hold-up in the building of that road. During the past year many contractors have finished their contracts well ahead of schedule, and I hope that that will be the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Car Brake Lights
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum and minimum number of brake lights a car may have operational; and if there are any maximum and minimum intensities for such lights.
    Mrs. Chalker: Cars are required to have two stop lamps and may have any number of additional ones. Every stop lamp must conform with an international standard that specifies a maximum and minimum light intensity.
    Mr. Shepherd: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the increasing practice of installing additional stop lights on cars? Does she agree that they cause confusion, fatigue and aggravation when there is rain and heavy traffic, and that the practice has a consequential safety effect? Will she take steps to amend the construction and use regulations?
    Mrs. Chalker: I, too, am concerned about additional stop lights and their siting, which is why I have asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to consider improvements in the layout of rear lights. The laboratory will also take into consideration research on additional stop lamps and any confusion that they may cause.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest dangers on motorways is the driver who puts on his fog lamp without a hint of bad weather? It is a dangerous distraction, and I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. We are considering the possibility of improving the tell-tale device on the dashboard to remind drivers that their rear fog lamps are on, because I am sure that half of them forget.

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what investment proposals he has received for electrification of the east coast main line; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eyre: Last year we received proposals from the British Railways Board for electrification from Hitchin to Leeds and Newcastle. We are considering these proposals

    283
    further in the light of the board's revised inter-city prospectus, which has recently been submitted, and which is to be followed by longer-term proposals for the inter-city business which, I understand, are coming within a few months.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that the east coast main line warrants further investigation? It makes good sense to develop the electrification programme on this line, because of the healthy return. Will the Minister give the House details of the number of electrification programmes that the board has suggested to his Department?
    Mr. Eyre: I could not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question immediately, but discussions on electrification involve questions such as timing of the replenishment of rolling stock. That is why we need to study the prospectus that we have received before we can reach a decision on the east coast main line scheme.
    Later—
    Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon the Minister was unable to answer part of my question, when the information is readily available in the Department. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister provides those figures in the Official Report?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's request will have been heard and, no doubt, will be met.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Northern Region
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants there are in the northern region.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The latest figures available, at 1 October 1982, were 33,583 non-industrial and 4,526 industrial civil servants located in the northern region.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that none of those posts have been transferred to the northern region since May 1979 as a result of this Government's deliberate policy? Is he aware that his Government have a continuing policy whereby private firms are being constantly urged to transfer their headquarters and their research and development organisations to the region? Therefore, why do not the Government set an example and transfer their own organisations? Would that not be some proof that the Government are determined to help the region?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I can confirm both the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As to the Government's policy, I can only reaffirm that, in considering the location of new work or the relocation of work for operational reasons, the pressing needs of particular areas are taken into account.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was a Labour Government who proposed the shift of the Government Chemist to my constituency in the northern region, and that it was a Conservative Government who rescinded that decision, preventing the transfer taking place? Is that not clear evidence of the Government's opposition to the transfer of Civil Service jobs and institutions from London and the areas of central population to the outer regions, such as the northern
    284
    region, where we desperately require that work? Can we have some additional Civil Service establishments in the northern region?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government's policy on the dispersal of civil servants was made clear in our early days. I can confirm that the policy then laid down is being followed. Already, in the northern region civil servants amount to about 3·4 per cent. of the working population, and only three other regions have a higher percentage of civil servants in their working populations.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the Minister confirm that an investigation is taking place into the number of civil servants in the northern region? Can he give an undertaking that there will be no redundancies arising out of that review?
    Mr. Hayhoe: A review is taking place on the future manpower needs of the Civil Service generally. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks—that no redundancies will take place—but I can say that the substantial rundown that has occurred in the Civil Service of 80,000 jobs since the Government took office has been accomplished through a process of natural wastage.

    Appointments Policy
    Mr. Cryerasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the criteria used for appointments to committees set up to advise the Government.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Members of advisory committees are selected in the light of the ability, experience and knowledge required by the work of the particular advisory body concerned.
    Mr. Cryer: It was widely thought that, on the Serpell committee, Mr. Alfred Goldstein was chosen because he was a chum of the Prime Minister's economic adviser, Professor Walters. Will the Minister assure the House that chums of the Prime Minister who have a direct financial interest in a subject, who are apparently able to appoint advisers from their firms with impunity to rip off the taxpayer—in this case by a sum of about £600,000—will not be appointed in future, and that there will be no question but that the chief accountant's guidelines will be rigorously enforced, without any exceptions from a Secretary of State?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory, because he should recall that about two or three months ago he raised the same absurd allegations. They were wholly repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, and I do so again today.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say whether the TUC and trade unions are now prepared to nominate people for Government committees when they are asked to do so, as obviously there are times when there is a great deal of advantage in getting the unions' point of view on various matters of policy? I understand that they have been refusing to serve, and this is obviously a mistake. Does this still obtain?
    Mr. Hayhoe: No, I know of no blanket condemnation by the TUC or refusal to co-operate in the way that my hon. Friend has implied. He will know that I have had a

    285
    close concern with various committees recently, notably the Megaw committee, on which there was a distinguished trade unionist.
    Mr. Alan Williams: In the Serpell case, does the Minister recollect that there was a clear risk of a conflict of interests? Was the responsible Minister informed of this conflict of interests before the contract was placed? If not, will the Minister assure us that in future any use by such a committee of a consultancy in which a committee member has a vested interest will be referred to the Minister for approval?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend was fully informed of any possible conflict of interest and he judged that no such conflict was taking place and that he wanted to appoint, as he determined, the best people for the job.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that—with your help and co-operation—I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Unions (Discussions)
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Civil Service unions.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.
    Mr. Parry: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he assure them that civil servants and public service workers whose jobs are affected by privatisation will not suffer any reduction in their pension rights?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Discussions are going on with my right hon. Friends who are concerned with aspects of government where privatisation proposals are under consideration, and these would be matters for them.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do not candidatures for union office show that there are civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence who are openly hostile to the defence policies of the present and the previous Government? Do Her Majesty's Government think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. Hayhoe: One should not envisage circumstances in which all civil servants were necessarily supportive of the views of the Government of the day in their private opinions. We have a long tradition that the private views of civil servants, particularly those in senior positions, must be kept separate from their Government work. I accept that in the Ministry of Defence particular considerations apply, and those who are positively vetted will have these matters taken into account.
    Mr. Alan Williams: As it appears that the Government are about to run for cover before inflation rises, and as inflation is so critically important to those on fixed incomes, when the Minister next meets trade unions, representing as they do over 500,000 Civil Service voters and as many again Civil Service pensioners and their families, will he give them a categoric assurance that, in the unlikely and improbable event of a Conservative
    286
    Government being re-elected, they would not abandon index-linked pensions nor allow any reduction in the pension entitlement of those whose jobs were privatised? Or does the Minister still intend, ominously from the point of view of civil servants, to fudge both these issues this side of a general election?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I made the Government's position clear in the debate last October. I would be happy to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss these matters if they so desired. I see no worry on their part and no desire or request for a meeting. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a political point without being fully aware of the views of the civil servants involved.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that prevaricating and evasive as that reply was intended to be, it will be clearly understood by civil servants throughout the country to mean that an incoming Conservative Administration would end the indexation of public service pensions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Perhaps I see more representatives of Civil Service unions than does the right hon. Gentleman and am better able to judge their awareness of the realities of the situation, which are very different from what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Privilege
    Mr. Speaker: I have received a complaint from the hon. Member for Stroud, (Sir A. Kershaw), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, about a report in The Times newspaper of 18 April which gives an account of the Chairman's draft report which had been circulated to members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee and strictly limited to them. The press report gives information about the Committee's arrangements for considering the report. The subject matter of the draft report is British foreign policy in relation to the Falkland Islands and, in his letter to me, the Chairman expresses his concern at the damage that premature disclosure of these draft proposals may have done. He asks that the matter should be given precedence over the Orders of the Day.
    I am satisfied that the hon. Member's complaint is entitled to precedence, and accordingly, if he tables a motion related to it, it will stand as first business tomorrow.
    I have also received a complaint from the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) of words reported to have been spoken by Miss Ruth Hall at a meeting held at the House in connection with the Marital Rape Bill. Miss Hall is reported to have said that her group would be taking note of any Members who blocked the Bill and would make sure that they lived to regret it. Investigation would be made into the particular circumstances of the Members concerned.
    I have decided that the hon. Member's complaint raises issues that would justify me granting precedence to a motion relating to it. Accordingly, if the hon. Member chooses to table such a motion, that, too, will be taken at the outset of tomorrow's business, after the hon. Member for Stroud has made his case.

Cruise Missiles (Referendum)
3.32 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a referendum on whether cruise missiles should be located within the countries of Great Britain.
No greater isue faces humanity than that of avoiding a nuclear war and securing a stable and permanent peace in which nuclear weapons have been abolished. All parties subscribe to that aim, although there are bitter differences about the means of securing such an objective.
I make it clear from the start that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to cruise missiles, and I seek a referendum on the issue so that the people may be able to veto the declared intention of this Government. The next general election may not take place — who knows?—until May 1984, and by then it will be too late. Later this year, the first of the 160 ground-launched cruise missiles that the United States intends to station in the countries of Britain will be located at Greenham Common, unless the Government can be persuaded to change course. These cruise missiles represent an infinitely more horrific version of the Nazi doodlebug, with a range of at least 1,500 miles and a speed of 0·7 mach. Each warhead will have the strength of 200 kilotonnes—10 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. In peace time, they will be held in the shelters currently being built at Greenham, but at a time of crisis they would be dispersed by road to hidden field locations 150 miles or more away from Greenham. With developing technology, those 150 miles will undoubtedly be stretched, and very soon it will be possible to deploy cruise missiles to virtually any field or forest on the British mainland.
The advantage of cruise missiles, as seen by the strategists, is that they are less vulnerable than fixed missile bases. The enemy would not know where to attack to knock them out. However, that very fact underlines the way in which cruise missiles make much more likely a general nuclear attack on the countries of Britain, rather than a limited attack aimed at knocking out retaliation bases. If an enemy thought there was no way of knowing from where cruise missiles would be fired, the logical response would be to hit Britain with everything at once, as a pre-emptive strike, and by multiple overkill to ensure that everything was knocked out. That is the horrendous nature of the escalation of the nuclear arms race that cruise missiles represent. They are not just a modernisation of existing weapons; they are a quantum jump. That is why there has been such a massive protest against them by the women of Greenham Common, to whom I pay tribute, and by people elsewhere on mainland Europe.
Cruise missiles were originally seen as a means of containing a war to the "European theatre". Some saw them as a means of giving a limited nuclear response to hold back the greater conventional strength of the Warsaw pact forces. That implies, of course, that NATO could be the first user of nuclear weapons in such a limited war—something which I believe is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of thinking people. We should commit ourselves irrevocably to not making the first strike with nuclear weapons, and to do that, we should not start down the road which makes such a declaration more difficult.
In any case, the strategy of a limited theatre war in Europe is utterly abhorrent. If either Soviet Russia or the
288
United States of America thinks that it can have a mini-nuclear punch-up contained in Europe, it can think again. Other strategists have seen the deployment of cruise missiles in several European countries as a sort of "nuclear glue" that helps to cement the countries of Europe into the American strategic camp, ensuring no move towards European strategic independence and, in particular, towards a nuclear weapons-free Europe. That would be to freeze the cold war impasse. Perhaps the countries of Europe — I mean a broader Europe than just the European Community—should get together and tell both the Soviet Union and the United States that we want nothing of their missiles or their war machines. This is a challenge to European statesmen, and the cruise issue, given its European dimension, may be a suitable starting point for such a new strategy.
In recent months, we have heard some people argue that cruise missiles are objectionable on the ground that only President Reagan has his finger on the button. The implication is that the missiles would be acceptable if the Prime Minister also had her finger on a similar button. That I utterly reject, for to give a key to the Prime Minister who ordered the sinking of the Belgrano adds little to any confidence in the proposition that two cowboys are better than one.
I shall now say a word about a referendum to decide issues such as this. In Wales, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we have had some experience of referendums, and many of us have doubts about the methods of ensuring that referendums are fairly conducted. The Bill will spell out the exact form of the question that will be asked, and will draw up tight rules for the conduct of the referendum.
In certain circumstances, I believe that it is right that the people should be able to veto the intentions of a Government, particularly in a case such as this, when the decision was taken — by whichever Government —without reference to Parliament, when the Government of the day had no mandate on the issue, and when public opinion is against the Government's proposal and cuts across party lines.
In its 1979 general election manifesto, the Conservative party did not spell out its policy on cruise missiles. All it referred to was
"the importance of ensuring the continuing effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent".
That could mean anything or nothing. It is not a licence to permit cruise to be located in the countries of Britain.
As for public opinion, successive opinion polls have shown that the public are strongly against cruise missiles coming here. The Gallup poll survey a few months ago showed that 58 per cent. were against cruise missiles, while only 31 per cent. were in favour. Even among Tory voters there is a split down the middle, with four Tories opposed to cruise for every five who are in favour. In those circumstances, even the forthcoming general election can hardly be taken as giving a go-ahead on cruise missiles. In Wales, opinion is particularly strong, as might be expected in a country that last year declared itself to be a nuclear weapons-free area. In a recent house-to-house survey in a town in Gwynedd—in a Conservative-held constituency—78 per cent. of the people were against cruise missiles.
I have had a large volume of correspondence on the Bill and virtually every letter has been in favour of my proposal. The letters range from trade unionists and church

289
denominations to the United Nations Association. The sponsors of the Bill include Labour, Liberal, SNP, SDP and Plaid Cymru members.
If a referendum is deemed to be suitable for issues such as the opening of pubs on Sundays, Welsh and Scottish assemblies, and the EEC, how much more important is it to have one on this infinitely more critical question before rushing to escalate nuclear tension. Many people will be looking to Parliament today to see which way their Member votes on this important issue. But whatever happens to the Bill today there are many hon. Members who are determined to turn every stone to ensure that cruise missiles do not come to Britain. If Parliament is unwilling to provide such a referendum we shall be seeking ways of undertaking a referendum ourselves, and other steps to block cruise missiles.
To my mind, nuclear war is not an acceptable policy option and the only way of being certain of avoiding nuclear war is to do away with nuclear weapons. No conceivable cause could justify the destruction which a nuclear war would bring about. Securing nuclear disarmament is the most vital issue before us today. Disarmament is not achieved by introducting new, expensive and more deadly nuclear weapons. It is obtained by first stopping, and then reversing, the nuclear spiral. By stopping cruise missiles, we shall be taking a first step in that process and I invite the House to show that they trust the people by giving leave for the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Robert Adley rose—
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman seeks to oppose.
Mr. Adley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not know whether the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was going to make a speech about cruise missiles or a referendum or both. I assumed that it would be both. The House will not want to hear, and I shall not be able to make, a long speech. I have encapsulated in a short verse my feelings on this matter:
"'Disarm,'" cried a cleric called Kent.
The same message nice Andropov sent:
'Just lay down your arms,
Embrace Socialist charms,
Then wonder where your freedom went.'"
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments at all. He talks about a quantum jump, but if there is a quantum jump it is provided by the SS20s. I wonder whether, among the letters he has received from trade unionists, he has had one from Mr. Terry Duffy. Freedom is a word which is used often by those who have it but it has a very different meaning to those who do not. Freedom to Monsignor Kent is different from freedom to Archbishop Glemp. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance in a nuclear age, that vigilance is expensive and I for one am prepared to pay the price of that vigilance.
I understand that pacifists will not fund freedom. I understand that one-sided disarmers will not fund freedom. The hon. Gentleman has put himself among them. However, I am willing to pay the price to maintain the freedom for which people have fought and died for this country.
The British people well understand, and they remember. They remember what happened in Hungary in
290
1956. They remember what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1958. More recently, they remember what happened in Afghanistan and what is happening now in Poland.
Mr. James Lamond: Nicaragua.
Mr. Adley: Those countries have no independent deterrent and they have no freedom.
Nobody in his right mind wants war. What we are discussing is whether we are able to prevent war in the first place and the purpose of a deterrent is to deter.
CND and the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout from a sitting position.
Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman makes my next point. CND and those who think like it are very happy to put forward their arguments. However, when the Secretary of State for Defence makes a proper, sensible and relevant point about the Berlin wall they become upset. The fact is that CND and people who think like the hon. Gentleman are the ones who believe in unilateral criticism: they believe that they have the right to criticise the Government's defence policy but they become angry when anyone criticises them. They show an arrogant assumption of a monopoly of morality and virtue when discussing these matters—which, of course, concern us all.
The hon. Gentleman said little about the referendum. He will recall that on 19 April 1978 he and I were in the same Lobby voting against a referendum on the Wales Bill — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah "] On that occasion he, like me, believed that Parliament was the place where such issues should be decided. If we are to have a referendum, why does the hon. Gentleman think that it should be limited to the issue of cruise missiles? Many of my constituents would like a referendum on capital punishment. Who will decide the issues on which we should have a referendum? Perhaps we should have a referendum to decide on which issues we should have referendums.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 12 April 1938 there were two referendums, one in Austria and one in Germany, on the question of the annexation by Germany of Austria. The organiser of that little show was one Adolf Hitler and there was a 99 per cent. "yes" vote. That shows that, if one is not careful, referendums can be the tools of tyrants.
The hon. Gentleman does not only want a referendum: he wants the right to frame the question too. I have jotted down some notes. There are various ways of putting such a question. For example, one question might be: "Do you wish to encourage a nuclear war by the provocation of the peace-loving Soviet Union which would follow the stationing of cruise missiles in Britain?" Perhaps that is the way in which the hon. Gentleman would frame the question. Another way might be to ask: "Do you believe that it is sensible to defend ourselves from the fate that has overtaken Afghanistan by maintaining an effective deterrent against the missiles that the Russians have already installed against Europe? Or should we let the Russians think that we have lost the will to defend ourselves?"
Propaganda is all-important in the activities of CND and those who think like the hon. Gentleman. We have heard a great deal about the 40,000 women who arrived at Greenham common on Easter Saturday. But 46,000

291
turned up at White Hart lane two days later to see Spurs play Arsenal. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who won?"] There was a fairly rough element among that lot, too. The hon. Gentleman says that those women are brave. They travelled all the way from Dorset to Hampshire, braving the Easter traffic. By God, it is a dereliction of our duty to the English language to call such people brave. I shall spend a lot of time here defending the right of such people to march, but do not try to tell me that those common women of Greenham are brave.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Cheap.
Mr. Adley: There is now no need for them to pollute the countryside in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). All they have to do now is to campaign for the Labour party and, presumably, Plaid Cymru, which is supporting CND policy.
The propaganda exercises continue. There is the disgraceful advertisement by CND about the £4,030,000 spent by the Ministry of Defence and the £23,000 spent by the CND. The figure of £4,030,000 which CND implies is spent on nuclear propaganda, is the entire public relations budget of the Ministry of Defence, including such things as displays at the Ideal Home exhibition, the boat show, in Hong Kong and Cyprus, and the cost of every public relations man from Catterick camp to Aldershot. To try to put it over to people that those figures are comparable is a disgraceful lie and nothing else.
I gather that there are only eight people in the Ministry of Defence whose activities are related to public relations on the Government's nuclear policy. There are 26 people working full time for CND on propaganda, but CND would have us believe that its total budget is £23,000. If it can employ 26 people for £23,000 it must be paying slave wages, which would perhaps be suitable for an organisation whose actions will enslave us all in thrall to the Soviet Union.
We are here as Members of Parliament to do what is right, not what is easy, cheap or popular. I finish as I began, with apologies to the House, with a few words of verse that I have penned:
"What's good for Scargill, Kent and Foot,
For Ruddock and for Benn
Is good for Andropov, as well
As Livingstone, our Ken.
They'd vote for young Caernarvon's Bill
If they could frame the question,
But if you value freedom still
Then vote down this suggestion."
Mr. Speaker: The question is—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The House requires me to put the question now. I shall take the point of order afterwards.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 253.

Division No. 121]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Alton, David

Allaun, Frank

Ashton, Joe

292

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

McKelvey, William

Bidwell, Sydney

McNally, Thomas

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

McTaggart, Robert

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

McWilliam, John

Buchan, Norman

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Canavan, Dennis

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Carmichael, Neil

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Coleman, Donald

Morton, George

Cowans, Harry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

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

Park, George

Cryer, Bob

Parker, John

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Parry, Robert

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Dixon, Donald

Penhaligon, David

Dunlop, John

Pitt, William Henry

Eastham, Ken

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

Richardson, Jo

English, Michael

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Flannery, Martin

Sever, John

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Short, Mrs Renée

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Silverman, Julius

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

Skinner, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Haynes, Frank

Spriggs, Leslie

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Stallard, A. W.

Home Robertson, John

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Homewood, William

Stott, Roger

Hoyle, Douglas

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Watkins, David

Kinnock, Neil

White, Frank R.

Lambie, David

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Lamond, James

Winnick, David

Leighton, Ronald

Wright, Sheila

Lestor, Miss Joan

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Litherland, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Mr. Gordon Wilson and

McCartney, Hugh

Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Alexander, Richard

Bulmer, Esmond

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burden, Sir Frederick

Ancram, Michael

Butcher, John

Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

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

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

Cartwright, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Banks, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Beith, A. J.

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

Bendall, Vivian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Cockeram, Eric

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cope, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Corrie, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Costain, Sir Albert

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Crouch, David

Blackburn, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blaker, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dover, Denshore

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Bradley, Tom

Durant, Tony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dykes, Hugh

Bright, Graham

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Brinton, Tim

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Eggar, Tim

Brooke, Hon Peter

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Brotherton, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Eyre, Reginald

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Bryan, Sir Paul

Faith, Mrs Sheila

293

Farr, John

Martin, M (G gow S'burn)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Mather, Carol

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mawby, Ray

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

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Forman, Nigel

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mayhew, Patrick

Fox, Marcus

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Miscampbell, Norman

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Moate, Roger

Freud, Clement

Monro, Sir Hector

Fry, Peter

Montgomery, Fergus

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Gardner, Sir Edward

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mudd, David

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Murphy, Christopher

Goodlad, Alastair

Neale, Gerrard

Gorst, John

Needham, Richard

Gow, Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Gower, Sir Raymond

Neubert, Michael

Grant, Sir Anthony

Newton, Tony

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Osborn, John

Greenway, Harry

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Grieve, Percy

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

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

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Parris, Matthew

Grist, Ian

Pawsey, James

Gummer, John Selwyn

Percival, Sir Ian

Hamilton, Hon A.

Pink, R. Bonner

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pollock, Alexander

Hannam, John

Porter, Barry

Haselhurst, Alan

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

Hastings, Stephen

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Prior, Rt Hon James

Hawksley, Warren

Proctor, K. Harvey

Hayhoe, Barney

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Henderson, Barry

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hicks, Robert

Rathbone, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Hordern, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

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

Rifkind, Malcolm

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rossi, Hugh

Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

Rost, Peter

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Royle, Sir Anthony

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Jessel, Toby

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Sandelson, Neville

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shepherd, Richard

Knox, David

Shersby, Michael

Lamont, Norman

Silvester, Fred

Lang, Ian

Sims, Roger

Lawrence, Ivan

Skeet, T. H. H.

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lee, John

Smith, Sir Dudley

Le Marchant, Spencer

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Speed, Keith

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

Speller, Tony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Loveridge, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Sproat, Iain

Macfarlane, Neil

Squire, Robin

MacGregor, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Stanley, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Steel, Rt Hon David

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

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

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

McQuarrie, Albert

Stokes, John

Madel, David

Stradling Thomas, J.

Major, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marland, Paul

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Temple-Morris, Peter

294

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Wellbeloved, James

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Thompson, Donald

Wheeler, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Whitney, Raymond

Trippier, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Wakeham, John

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Winterton, Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Wolfson, Mark

Waller, Gary

Younger, Rt Hon George

Walters, Dennis

Ward, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Neil Thorne and

Watson, John

Mr. Peter Viggers.

Weetch, Ken

Question accordingly negatived.
4.2 pm
Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that an hon. Member of this House obtained tickets to the Gallery for a party that has just caused a demonstration. I should be grateful if you felt able to inquire into that.
Mr. Speaker: As a matter of form, when there has been trouble from another part of the building I always look to see on whose ticket it was, if a Member brought people in. I think that it is right and proper that that should be known.
Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was somewhat surprised, as you may have been also, at the very large attendance on the Conservative Benches and the large Conservative vote. I raise this on a point of order as I suspect — indeed, I know — that there was a Whip out for 3.30 pm. On a private Member's Bill, it is the tradition if not the rule that there should be no whipping. Do you think that it is in order for the rule, or at least the tradition, to be broken on this occasion?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that there is nothing that I can say about that because any Whips circulating, official or unofficial, are always beyond my knowledge.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will not allow the House to be misled by the suggestion that the surprise was all on one side of the House when so few Labour Members took part in the Division.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you and the House care to speculate on what would happen to the so-called peace women if they attempted a similar demonstration in the Soviet Union or other Communist countries?
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that I am not interested in what you would do if people complained in the Soviet Union. I appreciate that that is outside your jurisdiction.
You will recall that on a previous occasion when some women were evicted from the Gallery there was discussion about the imprisonment of some of them in Westminster hall and the punishment meted out to them during the day. They had to remain here until 10.30 pm, cooped up in a small room upstairs. [Interruption.] I have no intention of

295
appealing to the compassion of Conservative Members. As a number of children are involved on this occasion, I hope that when the trial takes place some time this afternoon that fact will be borne in mind and the ladies released as soon as possible to rejoin their children in the Lobby.
Mr. Speaker: I should say to the House and to anyone who hears us that I take a very serious view indeed of anyone trying to hold up the proceedings of Parliament. This is the heart of our democracy. Whatever demonstrations take place, they should not be such as to try to prevent the House from getting on with its business. I have had a report about ladies being detained. I have not heard any report about children, but I shall look into the matter. I must say, however, that we have one rule for anyone who disturbs this House and it must apply to all.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
  Considered in Committee
  [MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]
  4 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I refer to the grouping of amendments on the selection list — No. 24 and following, the fourth group that you selected.
  First, we have been working on the estimate that inflation will be 4 per cent. in May and 6 per cent. in November. That has certainly been fudged by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Security in recent debates. Should not a Treasury Minister be present for the debate to confirm that those are still the Government's estimates?
  Secondly, in view of he Chancellor's synthetic song of economic improvement, should not he, too, come to the House to confirm that the Government stand by the pledge given by the previous Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), that pensioners will fully share in the general rise in living standards rather than merely being protected against further falls, as is now the case.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I do not think that it is a matter that I can answer from the Chair. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wish to object to the overall lack of time for debate on this. This Bill and social security expenditure account for at least one quarter—probably nearer one third—of total Government expenditure. To dismiss all the clauses, the important issues affecting every pensioner and beneficiary in the country and the remaining stages of the Bill in one afternoon's debate is a bit hollow.
  We know that the Bill is intended to save £210 million. That in itself could be the subject of a whole day's debate. Had the Bill gone into Standing Committee, even with complete co-operation it would have taken a minimum of four Committee sittings and the same in another place. Instead, it is being crashed through. The Government are using their majority in the worst possible way to bulldoze the legislation through and to stifle discussion on one of the most important Bills likely to be passed in the remainder of this unfortunate Parliament.
  The Chairman: I am certainly not responsible for the allocation of time. However, the hon. Gentleman will see from the 10 o'clock business motion on the Order Paper that there is no necessary time limit on the debate.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I understand that you are responsible for the selection of amendments. Important amendments and new clauses relating to the restoration of the link with earnings and a new pensioners' price index

  297
  have not been selected. Can you confirm that the reason for not dealing with those important matters is the very limited time available?
  The Chairman: No, I certainly cannot confirm that. In making my selection of amendments I have no regard to any time arrangements for debate. My selection is affected by whether the amendments are within or outside the scope of the Bill. I was unable to select those to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because they were outside the scope of the Bill.

  Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
    Clause 1

      UP-RATING ORDERS
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out
      'month of June' and insert
      'months of June and December'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 8, after 'June', insert 'and December'.
      No. 27, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'provided that if it appears to the Secretary of State in the December of any year that the percentage rise in the general level of prices in the period of 12 months ending on 30th November of that year is not less than two percentage points more than the percentage rise in the general level of prices in the period of 12 months ending on 31st May of that year, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an up-rating order increasing each of the sums in question in the following May at least by a percentage equal to the difference between those two percentages.'.
      No. 31, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 32, in page 2, line 5, leave out
      'the period of twelve months ending on 31st May'
      and insert
      'in the case of a review carried out in June, the period of six months ending on 31st May, and in the case of a review carried out in December, the period of six months ending on 30th November.'.
      No. 33, in page 2, line 5, leave out
      'twelve months ending on 31st May'
      and insert
      'six months ending on 31st May and the period of six months ending on 30th November'.
      No. 34, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
      No. 36, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
      'and six months ending on 31st December'.
      No. 37, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'month of June' and insert
      `months of June and December'.
      No. 40, in page 2, line 10, after 'June', insert 'and December'.
      New Clause 3—Twice-yearly upratings.
      'The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the date on which this Act comes in force, recommend to Parliament a method to provide for biannual upratings of the retirement pension.'.
      Mr. Rooker: Any danger that our debates relating to the income support of the best part of 20 million people in this country would be reported by the media has diminished because I am aware of only two journalists in the Gallery, others having higher priorities than those 20 million people.
      The Opposition's aim with this group of amendments is to assist the Minister. The Opposition repeat the offer that they made on Second Reading, that if the Government are prepared to make a statement or accept any of these
      298
      amendments, or seek to move any manuscript amendment to ensure that there will be no loss due to the changeover from forecasting to historic systems of uprating for social security benefits, we shall facilitate the passage of the Bill without much further ado. We remain ready at any time to give way to a Minister who wishes to make the Government's position clear.
      Amendment No. 1 is clear in its intent. It calls for a review of social security benefits in view of what will happen to prices, not only once but twice a year. The whole thrust of the first group of amendments is to go for a twice-yearly uprating of benefits. It is not true to say that it cannot be done any more. That view has been put forward by both sides of the House and I imagine it will be today.
      I wish to set out the two main arguments before I develop them in a little detail. Amendment No. 27 would give a trigger mechanism to the Government. It is not actually calling for twice-yearly upratings irrespective of what is happening to inflation. The thrust of amendment No. 27 is that if between May and November in any one year inflation has risen by two percentage points or more the Government would be required to bring in a further uprating to cover the change in the inflation rate. Obviously, that is quite reasonable. It is a reasonable assumption for this year's figures in any event. The Government have already forecast an increase of 50 per cent. in the rate of inflation between May and November rising from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. The Opposition say that if there is an increase any larger than that there should be a second uprating based on a December review for a payment in May of next year. That is quite consistent with the timetable that the Government are allowing between a review in June of this year following May's retail price index for payments in November. Unless amendment No. 27 is accepted in some form and there is a gap of 2 per cent. in the rate of inflation, quite simply the pensioners, the unemployed and the long-term sick and disabled —almost everyone in receipt of social security benefits of one kind or another—will lose during a year at least a week's benefit. That is what the 2 per cent. gap actually amounts to over 12 months. One week's benefit may not seem much to hon. Members compared with the salaries we receive. I submit that one week's benefit to a pensioner, be it a couple or a single person or someone on an invalidity pension, is an enormous amount of money. It will make a tremendous difference on the margin to the standard of living of those persons or pensioners. The Opposition believe that this is a modest amendment that the Government ought to accept. The aim of the Opposition is to assist the Minister. We hope that he can give some answers to the questions posed on Second Reading. He was unable to answer them then due to lack of time.
      The Minister is on record on umpteen occasions as saying how difficult it would be to narrow the gap between the announcement and the actual payment of uprating. I have no need to read the Minister's words. The Minister knows from his own evidence to the Select Committee on 15 December last year and from his own statement in the House on 7 February this year about the difficulties and the problems. In that intervening time, a solution has been found. Were it not for the admission by the Government that they can operate benefits now within five months of an announcement, it would not be reasonable for the Opposition to seek a twice-yearly uprating. Nevertheless, the Government have admitted that it is possible. They

      299
      have explained their previous difficulties. It is quite clear that they no longer exist, and for that reason a twice-yearly uprating ought to be on the cards.
      4.15 pm
      Britain is not alone in having annual upratings, but most of our partners in neighbouring countries have more frequent upratings in their social security provisions, especially in respect of old age pensions.
      I will briefly refer to three or four countries as examples. These are in respect of old age pensions and not other parts of the social security system. In Belgium, there is an automatic 2 per cent. rise in the pension if the retail price index rises by a 2 per cent. average in two months and on 1 January, a revaluation procedure relating to the general standard of living is applied. The general standard of living must mean an input of wages and earnings increases in the calculation in Belgium.
      In Denmark, there is an adjustment on 1 April and 1 October for changes in the retail price index of three percentage points. In France, pensions are adjusted on 1 January and 1 July each year according to coefficients linked to changes in wage levels. Luxembourg has an automatic adjustment of pensions whenever the retail price index varies by 2·5 per cent. Pensions are also adjusted to movements in wage levels in that country. As for the Netherlands, on 1 January and 1 July each year, pensions are increased in accordance with a wage index relating to the 31 October and 30 April previous to those two announcements.
      There is no dispute between what the Community partners are doing. Ireland in the past, if not at present, has had twice-yearly upratings. This is the position in the European Community as related to 1981, as published by the Department of Health and Social Security and given as comparative information. There has been much pressure on the Government from outside bodies, and I intend to refer to only one, to the effect that because of what the Government have admitted is implicit in the Bill—that we shall not know until June what the November uprating will be—it is possible to go for twice-yearly upratings. Age Concern reminded me of some of the comparisons I have given about our neighbouring countries and has been pursuing and pushing both Conservative and Labour Governments about the possibility of more frequent uprating of pensions. It hopes that attempts will be made in Committee to see whether we can carry that on to the statute book. I suspect and hope that there will be more than one political party represented in our Lobby unless the Government accept our amendments.
      I shall not spend much time on the Library brief, because other hon. Members will wish to refer to it. However, it graphically details the reasons that Labour and Conservative Ministers have given in the past for saying that it is impossible to have more frequent upratings. The words are virtually the same every time, and have probably been written for various statements and in reply to parliamentary questions by the same civil servants. However, that is now water under the bridge, because we are in a new ball game, and therefore the Government must be more amenable about considering the possibility of a twice-yearly uprating.
      The detailed report of the Select Committee on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement gives the
      300
      impression that it would be very much in favour of a more frequent uprating of social security benefits. Even in November and December, it did not accept the reasons given by Ministers for the long delay. Two out of three of the arguments were rejected by the Select Committee before it knew that the Government had found a way round the problem. Therefore, the thrust of the argument and the conclusion is that we should go for a more frequent uprating.
      The Labour Opposition have not tabled all the amendments. Indeed, there is clearly cross-party support for the proposition and I hope that that will be demonstrated in the Lobby. I do not intend to steal from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) any of his thunder when he speaks to new clause 3. However, if the Government reject our modest proposals, which are basically wrapped up in amendments Nos. 1 and 27, and which seek a twice-yearly uprating to prevent pensioners and others from losing, I shall ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 3. After all, the new clause implies that the Government must bring forward proposals, and so represents a fall-back position.
      I hope that we shall learn something from the debate about Conservative party policy. Ministers may fall into the trap of saying that they are here to speak on behalf not of the Conservative party, but of the Government. Sometimes, Ministers are inclined to draw a distinction between the two. I mention that because of the exchange that took place in the Select Committee on 15 December. The hon. Member for Macclesfield asked the Minister a very short question, which appears on page 21 of the report as question No. 66. The question and answer leave me — and I suspect Members of other parties— in some confusion as to what Conservative party policy has been, and will be. The question was:
      "If that is the case"—
      the case that the Minister had just made for not having more frequent upratings—
      "why was it that on two occasions the Conservative Party pledged in its Manifesto that we would in fact have biannual increases in old-age pensions? Had we not in fact taken the cost into account?"
      The answer was, "That, of course."
      I am at a loss to know when the Conservative party put that forward twice and whether the Minister agreed that it should be put forward. Had the cost been taken into account? If so, why have not the Government found a way of bringing twice-yearly upratings into force in the very year in which they want to change the system of uprating anyway? Indeed, they intend to change the uprating in a way that is likely to lead, because of inflation, to a loss of more than £30 per week for a single pensioner during the next year if the Government's own inflation forecasts are correct.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be extremely brief in moving new clause 3 which, in your wisdom, Mr. Weatherill, you have selected for debate with the first group of amendments. It states:
      "The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the date on which this Act comes in force, recommend to Parliament a method to provide for biannual upratings of the retirement pension."
      The Chairman: Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman right. He can speak to his new clause, but he cannot move it now.
      Mr. Winterton: I was not moving the new clause; I was merely highlighting it and drawing its wording to the attention of the Committee. I am well aware that I am not permitted to move it, as it is grouped with other amendments.
      I tabled the new clause because, like hon. Members in all parties, I feel deeply about the plight of many retirement pensioners. Many of us receive heart-breaking letters from pensioners, despite the policies that have been followed by successive Governments. All Governments since the war—not least this Government—have done an immense amount for our pensioners. I believe that in the course of the five upratings made by the present Government from November 1979 to November 1983 inclusive, prices are likely to have risen by about 70 per cent. and pensions by about 75 per cent. Therefore, I hope that even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will concede that this Government have improved the lot of pensioners.
      Mr. Foulkes: No.
      Mr. Winterton: I repeat that this Government have improved the lot of pensioners in Britain. Although the new clause is hostile to the Government, it is only right that I should concede that they have done a considerable amount for retirement pensioners. However, I tabled my new clause for the reason that the hon. Member for Perry Barr highlighted.
      On two separate occasions the Conservative party has pledged in its election manifesto that, if elected to power, it would introduce a system of biannual increases or adjustments to the retirement pension. It could well be that since those two manifestos were printed and we contested those elections my party, in its wisdom, has changed its opinion because of the cost involved in a biannual uprating, or other reasons of which I am unaware.
      However, if a respected political party that always drafts its manifestos responsibly included such a pledge, it had clearly given considerable thought to the issue. The new clause is particularly relevant, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decisions in this year's Budget, which are incorporated in this Bill. The Government have had undoubted success in reducing inflation faster than the Treasury expected. It is therefore unfortunate that the unexpected bonus received by pensioners should be taken away from them in the following year. That is unjust and unfair. Irrespective of what my right hon. and hon. Friends tell me, I believe that our pensioners are likely to be 2 per cent. worse off as a result of this Bill for at least a year unless the new clause, or any of the other amendments, are accepted by the Government.
      Perhaps I should draw the Committee's attention to the confusion that clearly exists even within the Government. Yesterday, a question was tabled on this very issue. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) put to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the following:
      "That is unbelievable. Does the Minister seriously believe that he can hide the clawback by the deception of changing the system? Is he aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)"—
      who is in the Chamber now—
      "on 11 April by saying that the clawback from the pensioners would be £210 million?"
      302
      "When will the Government allow the pensioners a real increase in their standard of living, instead of making them eke out a living on the poverty line?"—[Official Report, 19 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 157.]
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Foulkes: I could not have put it better myself.
      Mr. Winterton: I am doing only what the hon. Member for Perry Bar did in a debate last week, during which I was the subject of many quotations by Labour Members. I am trying only to balance what happened on that occasion.
      If there is doubt among Ministers about the clawback, I hope that my Front Bench colleagues will clear it up in this debate. It appears that there is a misunderstanding if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that there is a £210 million clawback and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says that there is not. I must accept, initially—
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Why?
      Mr. Winterton: I think that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk.) will do better to remain silent until he catches the eye of the Chair and is called to participate in the debate. If he continues to interject from a sedentary position, I might not continue in the vein in which he would wish me to pursue my argument.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I must accept the words of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury —
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remember that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is a nice chap and that he is doing his best.
      Mr. Winterton: As I have said, I must accept the words of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who clearly stated that there was a £210 million clawback.
      The Government would be ill-advised to ignore the feelings of ordinary people, not only pensioners, on this issue. They believe that if the Government can achieve a reduction in inflation far greater than that planned by the Treasury, perhaps the most deserving of all—pensioners — should benefit from their success. I emphasise that this stems from the Government's success.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the hon. Gentleman amazed that, having levelled such an enormous charge at his Front Bench colleagues—he implied that one or other of the two Ministers to whom he has referred is lying or is incompetent — the four Ministers sitting mute on the Front Bench have not sought the opportunity to intervene to put the record straight? Does not their silence suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are right and that the Government have robbed the pensioners of over £210 million?
      Mr. Winterton: I am not so unfair to my colleagues as to draw the implication that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I think that I have been reasonable in saying to my Front Bench colleagues that there appears to be some confusion and that I should accept the word of the senior Minister involved, the Chief Secretary, who vindicated the impression that there will be a clawback of about £210 million.
      Mr. Stallard: Where is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?
      Mr. Winterton: I hope that the debate will be taken seriously by the Committee. The hon. Member for Perry Barr opened the debate seriously and advanced a number of valid arguments. It is sad that some of his colleagues below the Gangway and elsewhere are trying to trivialise the debate. Their behaviour will not go down well with the pensioners.
      Mr. Stallard rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I shall give way later.
      I am making a serious point. I want to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is correct, and, if not, whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is correct.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has many commitments in the House, but if he had been present when the Select Committee on Social Services sat yesterday—
      Mr. Winterton: I was.
      Mr. Bennett: —he would have had the opportunity in the early part of the sitting to put questions to officials from the Department. In so doing he would have been able to confirm his argument that there has been an attempt to save £210 million.
      Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Likewise, if he had been present later in the same sitting he would have heard me put questions to officials on biannual increases of retirement pensions. All hon. Members have many commitments and responsibilities and it is not possible always to sit in one place for two and a half hours. We have other jobs to do and they are important. We all seek to do them to the best of our ability.
      Mr. Stallard rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I shall give way later.
      I seek clarification of the apparent conflict to which I have referred. The debate might be brought to a speedier conclusion if it is clarified once and for all.
      Mr. Mike Thomes: Go on, tell him.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, tell him.
      Mr. Winterton: I am coming near to seeking the defence of the Chair. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who represents the simply divine or Socialist defectors party, and the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who at least is consistent in the views that he expresses, are seeking to trivialise the debate and prevent me from having the opportunity to present my case.
      Mr. Foulkes: Get on with it.
      Mr. Winterton: I ask my Front Bench colleagues to answer what I consider to be a valid question. Will my Front Bench colleagues admit that on two occasions in previous Conservative party manifestos it has been stated that, if elected to Government, biannual upratings of the old-age pension would be introduced? That is a straightorward enough question that I believe should merit a straightforward answer.
      I have introduced the new clause because I remain unhappy, despite the discussions that I have had with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for
      304
      Braintree, and the Minister for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). However, I express my appreciation of the courtesy that has been extended to me. No one has done more for the disabled that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. The new clause is before the Committee because I believe that retirement pensioners have been deprived of a 2 per cent. improvement in their pensions and their standard of living.
      Mr. Rooker: It would greatly facilitate hon. Members if, even before one of the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench colleagues answers his question about two pledges, he could assist us by giving the dates of the manifestos in which he thinks the pledges appeared—I do not want to read all the Tory party manifestos since the war —because that information would help us to understand the answer that I hope he will be given by one of the Ministers.
      Mr. Winterton: I think that that information will be forthcoming from one of my Front Bench colleagues. I want to leave the Minister who is to reply with something to say. If the pledges or assurances were given, I, too, should like to know when they were given. If they appeared in Conservative party manifestos, it is clear that the policy had been thought out. Perhaps even the cost of such a policy had also been thought out. I am confident that one of my Front Bench colleagues will provide the information.
      The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to honour their commitment to pensioners and to ensure that, during the next 12 months, they are not deprived of the additional benefit that accrued to them during the past 12 months as a result of the Government's successful policy in fighting inflation. It would enable the Government later this year not only to give the pensioners 4 per cent. but to improve that offer in line with rising inflation. The lot of the pensioners would be improved if a biannual system were introduced. It would ensure that they received an increase that kept pace with inflation. They would not be kept waiting for almost 12 months for the increase that would enable them to maintain and not be subject to a reduction in their standard of living.
      My contribution has gone on longer than I intended because of interventions. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). I shall do so now before I sit down.
      Mr. Stallard: I was beginning to feel victimised, particularly as I have always understood that it is the normal courtesy in any Committee to give way.
      When the hon. Gentleman was making the point about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I wanted to ask him if he would join us in pressing the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) at the beginning of the debate. Why is the Chief Secretary, or someone representing him, not in the Chamber for one of the most important debates of the whole Budget season? As has been said, the Bill is aimed at saving £210 million. Apparently there is controversy about that figure between the two Departments, yet the Chief Secretary is not present. Will the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) reinforce our request — because he might get an answer—and ask his Ministers if they will support our application for the Chief Secretary to be present?
      Mr. Winterton: I do not think it is my duty or responsibility to demand the presence of a Minister. He

      305
      may well be employed on important duties elsewhere. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I want an answer to the question that I have put. If representatives of the Government, or the civil servants in the box who are supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends, have to move quickly between here and the Treasury or to a telephone to communicate with the Treasury or with my right hon. and learned Friend, I am only too happy that they should do so.
      Mr. Clement Freud: In view of what has been forthcoming from the Front Bench, would the hon. Gentleman care to hazard a guess as to whether his Ministers are professional or amateur mutes?
      Mr. Winterton: I have the highest regard for everyone who is on the Government Front Bench at the moment.
      Mr. Foulkes: Is it reciprocated?
      Mr. Winterton: I am not sure that it is. Even if it is not, I still feel that I have a duty and responsibility as a Member elected for a north-western constituency to raise in the House matters which I believe are important and which have been raised with me by individual constituents and by organisations representing the elderly and those who are in need of help, advice and assistance. I will say no more.
      I feel deeply on the issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench know that already. As I said, I have put down what I consider to be an acceptable and reasonably worded new clause to give my Government the opportunity to ensure that retirement pensioners do not lose in any way. If the uprating method were changed next year rather than this year, I do not think there would have been any criticism of the Government. I made this point clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey previously, and I do so again. Unfortunately, no assurance was forthcoming on matters which I raised previously. It is for that reason that I have put down the new clause and other amendments, one of which has been selected.
      Without further ado, I shall conclude by saying that I am here, when I should have been in a Select Committee upstairs, like the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), whose name also appears on the amendment list frequently and whose support I am delighted to have for my new clause, to get clarification from my party on two issues: first, was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury right or was he not; secondly, was it said in two previous manifestos that the Government would introduce a policy of biannual uprating of retirement pensions?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I should like to speak briefly, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), to amendment No. 1, amendment No. 27 and new clause 3. I think the hon. Gentleman was wrong in suggesting that if we pass new clause 3, as I hope we shall, it will make good any clawback which the Government are attempting this year. It is crucial that amendment No. 27 is passed if we are to do that. In my brief contribution I hope to explain why.
      On Second Reading, I welcomed the change which the Government were making. I thought it was a proper change for the House to make, provided two conditions were fulfilled. One was that if we again entered a period of rising prices the Government should consider moving
      306
      towards upratings every six months. That is why amendment No. 1 is important; it gives Parliament a chance of moving towards twice-yearly upratings.
      The second proviso that I attached to moving back to the historic way, as people have described it, of making good any shortfall caused by the rate of inflation was that no claimants should be worse off. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) put it well on Second Reading when he said that if we did not challenge the change that the Governent were making, pensioners and most other beneficiaries would be worse off to the extent of losing a week's pension or benefit.
      I wish to put a simple question to the Minister. Am I right in assuming that had we maintained the old method of reviewing pensions and other benefits, beneficiaries would have got a larger increase this year than under the method proposed by the Government? I am happy to give way now so that the Minister can answer that point.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman now; it will save me answering him later. There would have been, only on the assumption that the Government would not have made an adjustment, but it was implicit that an adjustment would have been made because year in, year out, when forecasting has been wrong, in the past few years, adjustments have followed automatically. Therefore, that would have happened this year. Going to the historic method will avoid that necessity. Therefore, there will be no clawback.
      Mr. Field: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He has done two things. First, he has said clearly that there is a clawback and that by supporting the Government on the measure we will reduce the size of the increase which pensioners and other beneficiaries will get. That is the clearest statement we have had from the Minister on this. The second thing he said is not true. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will take him up point by point on the occasions when Labour Governments have not made adjustments.
      Amendment No. 1 would give an increase every six months. I respect the motives underlying new clause 3; it is important that if parties give commitments those commitments are fulfilled. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield is wrong in assuming that if we pass his new clause we will prevent a clawback. It is important for him to look carefully at amendment No. 27. If we are to prevent the clawback which the Minister today for the first time has admitted will take place, we need to pass amendment No. 27. I hope we shall do so and that we shall also support the hon. Member for Macclesfield on new clause 3. That would lead to a double uprating each financial year for pensioners and other beneficiaries.
      The medley of amendments which we are debating are important. I hope the Committee will prevent the Government from making a clawback by passing either amendment No. 1 or new clause 3, which would allow us to move to a regular uprating of benefits every six months.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendments, but it is important to put the matter in context. Last autumn, the Government announced that, because they believed that they had overpaid pensioners, they would adjust the amount that would be spent on pensions and other benefits this autumn. Then, it amounted to £180

      307
      million. Everyone else knew that that was a clawback. Put another way, it meant that pensioners would receive a week's benefit a year less.
      The Government were therefore talking about depriving pensioners of £180 million this autumn. There was outroar from their own Back Benchers, who said that that adjustment was totally unacceptable. As a result, the Chancellor looked for a new method of saving that money and has now come to the House with the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill in which he is asking pensioners and others on benefit to face a sacrifice of £210 million — £30 million more. By changing the system, he is trying to mislead pensioners, the House and the country into believing that there will not be a public expenditure saving. But that £210 million works out at about a week's pension for each individual.
      On another occasion, the Government said that pensioners would have to make a sacrifice. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), said that, as soon as the economy started to improve — [Interruption.] Is the Minister saying that I am wrong? At yesterday's Select Committee hearing, his officials confirmed that the Government are now making an extra £30 million saving compared with what they asked for last autumn.
      In 1980, the then Secretary of State said that, as soon as the economy improved, the Government would ensure that pensioners shared in that improvement. We hear from almost every Minister that things are supposed to be getting better. Perhaps they do not believe it—perhaps they are part of the cut and run school that wants a June election because things will not get better in the autumn—but if they genuinely believe that things will get better, why is this measure necessary? Why cannot the pensioners enjoy some more money in the autumn? If the Government are uncertain about things getting better, surely the way to deal with the problem is to have two upratings—one now and another in the autumn so that pensioners can share in any increased prosperity that may occur.
      That would be a reasonable approach, and the Government ought to support these amendments, especially if they stick by what the former Secretary of State said about pensioners sharing in any general improvement in prosperity. Otherwise, pensioners will not share in any such improvement until November 1984, the date of the next uprating, unless the amendments are carried.
      Mr. Field: I very much support my hon. Friend's argument that there should be twice-yearly uprating. Does he agree that even if there were a twice-yearly uprating from now on, that would still not make good the clawback which, for the first time, the Minister has admitted will occur this year?
      Mr. Bennett: It would depend on whether the remainder of the Bill was carried in its present form or whether it was further amended. If it is carried in its present form, there will be a clawback of £210 million.
      The Minister will no doubt argue that it is technically too difficult to have more than one annual uprating. My pensioner constituents simply do not believe that, especially when they know that price increases can be carried through in a matter of days, if not instantaneously.
      308
      It seems easy to put up telephone, gas and electricity bills almost at the stroke of a pen. Even with complicated things such as income tax, it is possible to make rapid adjustments, particularly if the Government think that they are bribing people for an election.
      If it is possible for such things to be changed quickly, why is it not possible for pensions to go up? It seems that the only excuse for not uprating pensions regularly is that the Treasury does not want to provide the extra money.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is perhaps wrong of me to seek to come to the defence of my Front Bench, but I raised this matter yesterday in the Select Committee with officials from the DHSS. They said that biannual upratings of the retirement pension were more complicated than many people thought. First, it means that new pension books would have to be printed, and that is not as easy as many people believe. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well from his close attention to these matters, many pensioners are also in receipt of social security. At present, social security cases are dealt with not by computer but by individuals on a one-to-one basis as each case arises. Therefore, there would be problems with biannual pension upratings.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should be possible, and I believe that we promised it in our election manifesto. However, my hon. Friend may argue that we promised a biannual review. Nevertheless, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are additional complications that he may not have envisaged?
      Mr. Bennett: I was about to comment on those complications. It must be remembered that from 1973 to 1975, upratings were more frequent than once a year. Therefore, it has been proved to be possible. At that time it was argued that it was much more complicated because housing costs were included in supplementary benefit. One of the arguments for the new system of housing benefit was that it would simplify supplementary benefit and the problems facing pensioners who receive both a pension and supplementary benefit. The housing benefit element has now been taken out, and the matter should now be much simpler.
      Many benefit offices have in the past uprated the books, usually in April, to take account of local authority rate increases. They have often done so later in the same year to take account of rent increases. Further adjustments have been made where local authorities have imposed supplementary rates or a second rent increase. All this has now been simplfied, and that should provide departments with enough staff to carry out more regular upratings.
      The Government could simplify this even further if they increased the pension, thereby reducing the number of people who need their money topped up with supplementary benefit. Therefore, it ought to be possible to uprate pensions at least twice a year. It seems crazy that we can do so only once a year, when many other European countries often manage to do so three or four times a year —each time the cost of living increases by a percentage point.
      If it is so difficult, the Government would increase the pension twice a year and then work out the calculations. If they have to give a crude increase initially, any supplement can be paid in the Christmas bonus. I shall withdraw my amendments here and now if the Government say, "If the pensioners do not get the right

      309
      money in November, we shall make it good in the Christmas bonus." The Government could always use the Christmas bonus to make the necessary adjustment so as to give pensioners that money. It happens with income tax when, for example, the codings have to be altered and money is returned to people.
      Pensioners see no reason why their pensions should not be uprated at least twice a year. It should happen and the Government should do it as soon as possible. They are opposed to the Government asking them to make another sacrifice of £210 million—roughly one week's pension for everyone — at a time when the Government are claiming that we are starting to see an upturn in the economy.
      5 pm
      Mr. Reg Prentice: I have been listening to the debate with some nostalgia because when I was Minister for Social Security I listened to the same hon. Gentlemen opposite using the same arguments over two years ago. I had not intended to intervene—I promise to be brief—but I feel somewhat provoked.
      In considering whether there should be one or two upratings a year, it is crucial that everyone's income—be they wage or salary earners, pensioners or in receipt of any other type of income—should not be adjusted more than once a year.
      Mr. Foulkes: Why?
      Mr. Prentice: I though that aspect of incomes policy had stuck. In the attempts that have been made in the last 20 years under successive Governments to have voluntary or statutory incomes policies, or no incomes policy at all, most efforts at containing increases in incomes have failed, but the one that has basically succeeded for most people has been the 12-month rule. Let us stick to that.
      Mr. Foulkes: Why?
      Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why — because a six-monthly increase for wage earners, pensioners or anyone else means the circulation of more cash and thus more inflation. That is a fact. The most important benefit Parliament can confer on pensioners is to bring inflation under control. When we talk of inflation in relation to pensions we are talking not only about the value of state pensions but of private pensions—many of which are not index-linked—and savings, often of a modest character. Therefore, the battle against inflation is central to the well-being of pensioners.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Assuming that there has been an uprating of pensions in November and in the intervening six months there has been a massive increase in inflation —of, say, between 30 and 50 per cent.—which is not impossible considering the past, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in those circumstances, pensioners having experienced that reduction in their standard of living, with many of them perhaps dying from hypothermia, to retain the inviolability of his 12-month principle there should not be an uprating of pensions at the end of such a period?
      Mr. Prentice: I will not be led down the road of dealing with hypothetical questions. The biggest threat on record of a rate of inflation of 50 per cent. is contained in the Labour party's recent policy document. There is no other imminent threat.
      Mr. Stallard rose—
      Mr. Prentice: No, I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman must take his turn.
      There has been a great deal of hypocrisy on the Labour Benches about some alleged cut from some alleged possible level of pensions that might have occurred in certain circumstances. Let us consider exactly what hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be seeking. The estimate is that the likely increase in pensions by November will be 75 per cent.—that is, 75 per cent. higher in cash terms than it was when the present Government took office—and that the cost of living will be up by about 70 per cent.
      If hon. Gentlemen opposite do the simple sum of putting 75 over 70 and multiplying by 100, they will find that that amounts to a 7 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of pensions — at a time of severe world recession in which most wage and salary earners have not had an improved income in real terms, and many people have had to take a cut.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Prentice: No, I will not give way. I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen for once instead of simply repeating their slogans and never being prepared to listen to counter-arguments. One of the many things that has gone wrong with the Labour party in recent years is its growing intolerance and unwillingness ever to listen to a counter-argument.
      A 7 per cent. increase in real terms will have occurred and hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing for an increase of about 9 per cent. Let them argue their case, but they must argue why this year there should be a 9 per cent. instead of a 7 per cent. increase. When they do that, they must bear in mind that they are talking about all pensioners, over 9 million people of all states of income, ranging from the very poor to the very rich. The extra £210 million or so would have to be found by wage and salary earners, also of all incomes. How would hon. Gentlemen opposite justify to their constituents earning less than average wages, trying to bring up a large family of children in some cases, that they should pay extra national insurance contributions and taxes to pay for that additional 2 per cent. for pensioners, including pensioners who are well off?
      The Opposition have not made a case in terms of the social consequences of what they are arguing. They are playing their favourite game of pensioneering. One of the most cynical forms of electioneering is pensioneering, which pretends that pensions can go up without someone else finding the necessary money.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Prentice: No, I will not give way. What the Opposition are really proposing are cuts in people's wages, including low earners, so that there shall be an additional pension for people, be they well-off or not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken up a great deal of time today without adducing one constructive argument for that transfer of resources. Unless they can do better than that they should keep quiet on the subject.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) will forgive me if I do not deal with the issues he raised.
      I can understand the desire of the Government to avoid the biannual uprating of pensions and other benefits. Hon.

      311
      Members on this side of the Committee— particularly those, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who during a period of Labour Government advanced the case for biannual upratings—should step back for a moment and appreciate that a Labour Government had difficulty in contemplating such an event, and did not do so. Let us be clear at the outset that this is not a matter on which it is easy to achieve what we all ideally wish — I give the hon. Member for Daventry credit for so wishing — which is to see pensioners fairly treated.
      The assurance the pensioner needs, particularly if we are moving back to the historic system, is that inflation over a reasonable period ahead will be low and stable. That is the condition for making the argument both for a return to the historic system—to which I do not object in principle, and I understand that the official Opposition do not object to it in principle—and for the avoidance of a biannual uprating.
      We do not have that assurance from the Government. If they were to say, "We assure pensioners that inflation will remain at a low level and be stable for a substantial period," we could then say that the disadvantages of a biannual uprating—the administrative costs and so on—should not be contemplated. But that is not what the Government are saying. They are saying that they are expecting between May and November that the rate of inflation will rise by 50 per cent., from 4 to 6 per cent. Most realistic estimates, even those of the Government, are that within a relatively short period it will be back to the 7 to 8 per cent. level—that is, a 100 per cent. increase on the May figure.
      Mr. Rossi: No.
      Mr. Thomas: As usual, we are facing sedentary, not straightforward, interventions from the Treasury Bench. It is a brave man or woman, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) prompts me— I note that the Government are not doing it — who would give the commitment that they are sure that inflation will not rise above 6 per cent. to double what it will be in May when the uprating takes place.
      I understand that amendment No. 1 — the hon. Member for Perry Barr will confirm this — is not intended to operate on its own but is a paving amendment for amendment No. 27. I believe that the official Opposition have found a sensible way of operating a trigger mechanism which would avoid the need for biannual upratings when inflation was stable and, hopefully, still low. If inflation was increasing rapidly, the trigger mechanism would come into operation. The biannual uprating would operate and pensioners would not suffer. I hope that the Minister will at least accord me the compliment of saying that I am not known as a universal admirer of the activities of the Labour Front Bench in these matters, but it seems an entirely sensible and reasonable proposition to put to the Government.
      The Government know perfectly well that the one major snag of reverting to the historic assessment of upratings is high and growing inflation. They know that there is an 18-month delay in putting right any error, which may result in serious consequences for pensioners. I
      312
      cannot see how the Government can argue that the formula put forward in amendment No. 1, leading to amendment No. 27, is unreasonable in any way.
      I can give the clear commitment that my party and the Liberal party would wish to implement such a commitment if we were in government. The trigger mechanism for biannual uprating seems to be a good arrangement.
      One point was raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I feel I should not let pass. I believe that I know more about the manifesto on which I stood than he seems to know about the manifestos on which he stood. I believe that the dates for which he is looking are the two 1974 elections or one of those in 1974 and the one in 1979.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The two 1974s.
      Mr. Thomas: We have established the answer to that question. Clearly, I know his manifestos rather better than the hon. Gentleman does.
      My adherence to the manifesto on which I stood seems to be more consistent than that of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) or other Labour Members, who seem to have departed from it in may respects since it was drawn up in 1979. I am sure, Mr. Armstrong, that you would rule that is a matter into which we cannot go any further.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why does not the hon. Gentleman seek re-election if he has these wonderful policies?
      Mr. Thomas: What the Labour Party is asking for in its amendment is entirely reasonable. My party supports it and we look forward to answers from the Minister not just to those questions but to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
      Mr. Foulkes: Like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), I am not going to follow much of what the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said because much of it was bombast. We have to listen carefully to his accusations of hypocrisy because we know that, through his experience, he is an expert in hypocrisy.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member must not make a direct accusation of that kind. He should withdraw it.
      Mr. Foulkes: Even if someone crosses the Floor?
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member understands what I am saying. He must withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Foulkes: I shall say no more than that the right hon. Member for Daventry accused us of hypocrisy and therefore I accuse him equally.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should withdraw his remark.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Just withdraw it.
      Mr. Foulkes: If you say so, Mr. Armstrong, I will withdraw it. All hon. Members know the position.
      5.15 pm
      I should like to be helpful, not to the right hon. Member for Daventry but to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and take up the point about the Conservative party manifestos which were referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. There were two manifestos—one in February 1974 and the

      313
      other in October 1974. I believe that the hon. Member for Macclesfield stood as a candidate on both occasions, although his wife did not. The manifesto upon which he stood in February 1974 clearly said:
      "We will now move to a six monthly up-rating of pensions and other long-term benefits."
      It was clear and unequivocal. It was not a review, not an analysis or examination, but "We will now move". Nothing could be clearer than that.
      One might suggest that the Conservatives were saying that because they did not understand the facts, the details, the implications, the cost and so on. But of course they did, because, before writing the manifesto, they were in government. They knew all the implications, exactly what cost was involved, and whether their proposal was practical.
      In October 1974 the manifesto stated:
      "A Conservative government will therefore increase retirement pensions … every six months."
      Again, that is a clear, unequivocal statement. It is not just the manifesto — I know that some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield, pay scant attention to the manifesto—but the present Secretary of State for Social Services on 22 May 1975, attacking Labour Members, said:
      "why does the right hon. Lady still resist six-monthly reviews of pensions, for which we have pressed? Is it really only because the proposal comes from the Opposition side?" — [Official Report, 22 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1626.]
      Why are the Government resisting on this occasion? Is it really because the proposal comes from the Opposition side?
      Mr. Rooker: I have listened to my hon. Friend's interesting quotation and I believe that I have worked out why the Government have not done it. First, one of those manifestos contained a commitment to abolish rates. The Prime Minister, who made that commitment, has always said, "We lost that election and therefore that commitment is lost." They lost both the 1974 elections. The Secretary of State's remarks, which have just been quoted, were made just before the present Prime Minister sacked him as shadow Secretary of State for Social Services—probably for supporting biannual increases.
      Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his startling revelations. That may well have been one of the reasons why the present Secretary of State was not too popular.
      Let us examine the two main possible arguments against what the Opposition are proposing. I am sure that the Secretary of State, if no one else, would not oppose it for opposition's sake because the Opposition are putting it forward. He said the same when he was in opposition. Is it the cost? If it is the cost, let him come clean. We know that this is not the first clawback of pensions. The first was the removal of the link with earnings—£500 million. The second was the two weeks delay in uprating when the Government invented the 54-week year, when the clawback from pensions amounted to £100 million. In 1981 there was a further 1 per cent. clawback—another £164 million. We are accused of "pensioneering" but all we are doing is pointing out the facts that the Under-Secretary is trying to hide, as I said yesterday, by deception.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the Government would face a revolt if they had a simple clawback that even the most blockheaded
      314
      Conservative Back Bencher could understand. The Government drew up the serried ranks of people at the Elephant and Castle to devise some way of covering up the clawback. It is our duty to expose the facts. We are exposing this trick.
      Mr. Field: They have admitted it.
      Mr. Foulkes: The Government have not denied it. As my hon. Friend said, they have admitted it. This is a device to cover up the clawback. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has revealed the fact that the purpose is to save £210 million, assuming a 2 per cent. change in inflation.
      If the cost and the money that could be saved concern the Government, they should come clean and say so. They should be honest, open and manly and say, "We need the money." They should tell us what they would use the money for. They would use it to maintain the fortress Falklands policy and to give tax concessions to those who are already well off. They should come clean and tell the people that. Alternatively, if it is not the cost or the money that you want, Mr. Armstrong, it might be that it is just impossible to implement it.
      The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of using all that money.
      Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry, Mr. Armstrong. You are the last person whom I would accuse. I got carried away there.
      I was about to say that it might be impractical to implement the scheme. Some of us with less good intentions than others might accuse the Government of using the alleged impossibility or impracticability as a device, a reason and an excuse for not implementing it when the real reason is that they want to save money.
      After four years' experience in government the Conservatives put in the 1974 manifesto that the scheme was practicable. How much more practicable is it nine years hence, when we have the microchip revolution and our tax changes are easily administered? I receive huge folders from the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. If the money that was spent on those folders was spent on the pensioners, it would probably pay for the clawback. Those huge folders are about the advantages of information technology and how soon we shall be able to speak in microcomputers, which will be activated by voice command. We can do those amazing things, yet apparently we cannot uprate pensions twice a year for poor pensioners.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I much admire the hon. Gentleman's vibrancy and resolution. Has he not noticed that the Minister has already come clean and confessed that the Government needed the clawback of £210 million? Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that what the Government wanted the money for, was to raise the mortgage interest tax relief from £25,000 to £30,000, benefiting a few people in the south-east who are very well off?
      Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. He has chosen yet another example of what the money clawed back from the pensioners is to be used for. However, with respect, Ministers responsible for social security have not come clean.
      Mr. Thomas: Yes.
      Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is shaking his head.
      Mr. Rooker: It is on the record.
      Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a well-educated man, let the cat out of the bag, and shamefaced Conservative Members are now trying to bluff their way through it. They may admit the clawback here, but the Secretary of State denies to voluntary organisations that there is a clawback. Therefore, even if they admit it here, outside in the country they deny it.
      Why is it that other countries, such as Italy, which is not as advanced as the United Kingdom, can increase pensions more often? Many other countries do it, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned. It is important that we make that change now. When inflation is high, it is needed, but Governments find it difficult to introduce. However, when inflation is relatively low, that is the best time to introduce it. It is technically possible now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, the Government have conceded that there is a five-month implementation period.
      The truth is out. The Government, mean-minded as ever, and having saved £2 billion in social security benefits, find that that is not enough. They have to claw back another £210 million from the pensioners. The pensioners should have their pensions uprated every six months because some of them are eking out a living and are on or just above the poverty line, not like the right hon. Member for Daventry and other hon. Members who can afford to wait a year. The pensioners are desperately poor. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I will take him to see some of the people in my constituency. That is why we are vigorously opposing the Bill and supporting the amendment.
      Mr. Stallard: I know that we want to make progress, so I shall try to be brief. Most of the points that I would have made have been covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not intend to begin by accusing the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) of hypocrisy, much as I would like to, because I should be ruled out of order, as was my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).
      However, I might make an accusation of intolerance. The right hon. Gentleman is the second Back-Bench Member of the Conservative party who has refused to give way, which is unusual in Committee. I was not surprised by that intolerance from the right hon. Member. He showed exactly the same quality when he was on the Front Bench, when the Government were pushing through previous legislation. I was not surprised at his lack of tolerance or the spleen and bile that he constantly pours out against those whom he was once proud at one time to call his colleagues.
      Mr. Field: The right hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment.
      Mr. Stallard: I was speaking about the right hon. Gentleman, whose contribution provoked me. He said that some hon. Members' contributions provoked him. I remember the long debates that we had. I accept that, as he was not feeling too well, he had to disappear early in the evening in those days when the rest of us carried on through the night. He said then that the pensioners would be the first to benefit from any improvement in the
      316
      country's economy and from a fall in inflation. Why is he now supporting the £210 million clawback? If the pensioners were going to benefit, that would not happen. It would be of benefit not to take something away. I hesitate to repeat the adjectives that he used, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know what I mean.
      Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Stallard: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]
      The Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Stallard: I shall think about that as I go along. I am usually a tolerant member of the Labour party.
      The right hon. Gentleman challenged us to justify having a 9 per cent. increase this year. I wish I had time to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has mentioned some of the robberies from the pensioners that have taken place in the past few years. I could give a long list. I have never accepted that the pension was properly based in 1948–49. It has never been properly based. Therefore, when one is increasing something that starts from a low base, by any percentage, one never really catches up. Under the Labour Government there was a huge increase of between £10 and £16, which was the largest increase ever. However, there has been no attempt to bring up the base rate to where it should be. I am constantly arguing, and will continue to argue, about the base rate of the pension. It is not correct.
      I should have liked to add to the catalogue of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire of shortfalls, percentage increases that were not high enough under all Governments and increases related to a retail price index that does not adequately reflect the cost of living of pensioners, whose main expenditure is on fuel, housing and food.
      Mr. Field: The right hon. Member for Daventry reminded us of what the Prime Minister likes to tell us —that during this Parliament, pensions have risen by 75 per cent. and are 7 per cent. higher in real terms. Is he aware that the low pay unit has constructed an index which shows how inflation rises for people on low incomes? It shows that prices have risen by four percentage points more for those on low incomes than has the official retail price index. If the low pay unit is right, the gap between the rise in pensions and the rise in prices is only 1 per cent. That suggests that today's debate and opposing the clawback are important.
      The right hon. Member for Daventry, to whom I know my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will not give way, might say that the pensioner price index has risen even less slowly than the retail price index. The Minister might like to explain why it has risen so much more slowly than the index constructed by the low pay unit.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as he has said exactly what I was trying to say. The right hon. Member for Daventry was not present when we had a short debate on an alternative retail price index. A case for one was made out by Age Concern in literature that was sent to all Members of Parliament. The case for a new retail price index is unanswerable. I am sorry that new clause 2 has not been selected as it would probably give rise to a crucial debate on the subject. It is time that we reviewed the system by which we link

      317
      pensions, benefits and the rest. Although I did not have much hope of it, I thought that the right hon. Member for Daventry, who has experience of office, might have accepted that case.
      I am equally sorry that the Minister withdrew the confession that he made only half an hour before. He confessed in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that the Government needed the £210 million. He withdrew that confession when he received further instructions and probably a message from beyond. The right hon. Member for Daventry could have slanted his speech at his own Front Bench. He could have directed there some of the words that he used against us.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: If it turns out that the Minister has withdrawn the full confession that he made earlier, I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will observe that he was given a clear sedentary wigging by the Secretary of State, who waved his finger and shouted at him.
      Mr. Stallard: We all saw that, but I was not sure that I did not see someone behind the Secretary of State give him a wigging as well. I did not want to say where it came from.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is the Secretary of State who has got it wrong and the Minister who got it clear and right when he spoke from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Stallard: The case rests. It has been aired adequately and every hon. Member will have noticed what happened.
      Neither the organisations nor the Opposition have objected to the return to the historic forecasting method.
      Age Concern says:
      "the argument is not for the principle of the return to the historic method of calculating inflation for upratings."
      The British Association of Retired Persons said:
      "We certainly agree that the change of method of calculation of the pension rate has been unfortunate at this time, and many of our members consider that the change now is a method of enforcing the 'clawback' in concealed form."
      All these organisations are well known to Conservative Members. Pensioners' Voice, the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, said:
      "The Federation welcomes the change to the historic cost method of calculating inflation.
      The Chancellor's proposals are merely a shabby masquerade attempting to disguise what is in effect, a 'clawback' of the 2 per cent. alleged overpayment in 1982."
      I have sent most of the Front Bench off to check my quotations. I shall give them another one. The British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association does not complain about the restoration of the old method either but has said:
      "Senior Citizens have been robbed of millions of pounds since 1980, and therefore any Goverment has a duty to at least pay a pension in line with the Retail Price Index, which Economists state will be a minimum of 6 per cent. come November 1983."
      I do not know whether the Minister would like me to give way so that he can correct something that I have said.
      Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps he will make another confession.
      Mr. Stallard: I have demonstrated adequately that the entire pensioners' movement and those who are involved with pensions and benefits have objected not to a return to the historic forecasting method but to the reasoning and motives behind the change. Without exception everyone
      318
      has said that the change is a shabby device to claw back what the Chancellor said he intended to take back in his Autumn statement.
      The twice-yearly increase has been mentioned frequently since I have been a Member of Parliament. We are not making any new demands. We have always known that the announcement of an increase in pensions in the April Budget statement is the only slightly constructive thing that the Chancellor has to say. Budgets are often a tale of increases in the price of cigarettes, beer and everything else. There must be something that sounds as though it could be constructive. Pensions have been put in that slot. The Minister can check that. I have, and it has happened for years. We also know that within weeks of the increase in pensions being announced, rents have also increased, because April is the favourite month for them. Rates increase for the same reason. bus fares and everything else that is associated with the Budget also increase. Long before the pensioners receive the increase that is announced in April, it is taken away from them and they are out of pocket by November. The demand is not new, nor is the reply. Successive Governments have always said that it cannot be met.
      We now have the computer. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said, we now have the most marvellous gadgets that can do wonderful things in seconds.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: They cannot give answers to Ministers.
      Mr. Stallard: That is different. Some Departments still use old-fashioned telephones with handles on. However, there are places where such new technology exists. I understood from a previous Secretary of State that all the information would go on computers. I shall not name him. He promised me that, when all the information was on computers, the process would be simple and there would be six-monthly upratings. He said that in the context of the two quotations that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) read from the Conservative manifestos of February and October 1974, which gave a clear commitment. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should have been here to listen to those quotations.
      It emerges that, so far, the computer has not been able to cope and we have had to put up with the annual increase. But this year, the Government have suddenly discovered, for whatever reason, that they can announce a pension increase in June and pay it in November. They have overcome the problems. If I said nothing else, I would say that the case has now been made for considering pensions at four or five-month intervals and increasing them in line with what has happened during the months before. It now seems to be possible to increase pensions biannually, so it must be possible to review them in view of what has happened and to keep tabs on the increases in the cost of fuel, food, housing and heating. I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State or the Minister of State making yet another lame and unacceptable excuse about why they cannot increase pensions biannually.
      I do not have time to go through all the manifesto commitments that have not been carried out. The earnings rule was a clear commitment that has now been completely abandoned, so it is nothing new for the Government not to carry out its manifesto commitments. On 10 April 1974,

      319
      the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking to an amendment to the National Insurance Bill that urged consideration of more frequent uprating, said:
      "It is worth pointing out that even the most economic purist from the Chicago school, and I have in mind Milton Friedman for one, actually argues now that if we are to obtain acceptance by a community of all that is necessary to overcome inflation —and that will not be easy—it is legitimate often to index benefits of this kind while the inflation persists."
      That is an interesting statement.
      The Chancellor continued:
      "I hope that no one on either side of the Committee thinks that the provision for a periodic review of benefits—although it is part of what we must do to deal with inflation—represents, for me anyway, an acceptance of any form of institutionalising inflation. Far from it. While inflation is with us we have to be prepared to make this kind of change in our machinery."—[Official Report, 10 April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 575.]
      I thought that the House might be interested to hear those remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      In July 1979, 50 Conservative Back-Bench Members, including some who are now Whips, signed an early-day motion calling on the Conservative Government to change to twice-yearly upratings. There has been enough pressure, and we now have proof from the Government that it can be done. I hope that we shall accept no excuses from the Government about why it cannot be done.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have never known an occasion in the Chamber — nor do I suppose have you, Mr. Armstrong — when so many serious accusations of misleading the Committee, of incompetence and of making mistakes have been levelled at Ministers by hon. Members on both sides, and when those Ministers, who were sitting at one time in a huddle on the Treasury Bench, have not tried to catch your eye to intervene in the debate to defend their actions and policies, or to correct what they are clearly saying from a sedentary position are the mistakes of my hon. Friends. The four Ministers have been in a constant huddle. Pieces of paper have gone backwards and forwards from them to the civil servants, who have also been in huddles and who have constantly gone in and out of the Chamber. It has been a pantomime, but the four Ministers have sat mute, unable or unwilling to defend themselves and their policies or to respond to the many serious accusations about stealing money from pensioners and other vulnerable beneficiaries that have been levelled at them by my hon. Friends as well as by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
      5.45 pm
      The motive of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in moving, and of my other hon. Friends in supporting this amendment is clear. They wish only to ensure that pensioners are given more money and that their standard of living keeps pace at least with the increase in the cost of living. The Government, and the one hon. Member who spoke in support of them, wish to prevent pensioners from having an increase in their pensions. They wish to give less money to pensioners; they want their standard of living to decline, not to increase.
      I support the amendment, which provides for the uprating of pensions on a twice-yearly basis in June and December. As many of my hon. Friends have said, pensioners must already wait for what seems to them a
      320
      long and unnecessary time to receive the pension increases that they believe are their right and that are necessary if pensions are to keep pace with inflation.
      Those of us who saw television pictures of the Prime Minister being hackled by pensioners—[Interruption.] "Hackled" is a good new word. It is a combination of harrassed and heckled. We have already had the word "outroar" from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), which is no doubt a combination of outrage and uproar.
      The resentment of the pensioners was displayed for all to see on television. The question to which they sought an answer from the Prime Minister was, "Why must we wait until November for an inrease in our pensions?" Although their pensions will be increased in November 1983, they must wait a full 12 months for another increase, but as my hon. Friends — most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North—said, gas and electricity prices, and rent and rates will all increase in the meantime. Pensioners cannot understand why it is impossible for their pensions to be increased quickly when it is clearly possible for gas and electricity prices and rent and rates to increase, and while it is also possible for deductions in income tax or in the mortgage interest rate to go through the pipeline quickly.
      It is no good saying, as the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) tried to say, that many pensioners are well off and that we should not give them such increases—certainly not on a six-monthly basis. They may be rich in Daventry, Eastbourne, Hastings, Brighton and all other havens of Tory majorities, but there are no rich pensioners in Kirkby in my constituency. Some pensioners there live in dire poverty, which is made worse by the unnecessary period that they must wait before their pensions are increased in line with the price increases that have occurred in the meantime.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said, if we have all this amazing technology at our disposal in microprocessors and computers, and if we can—to use the cliché—at a moment's notice send a task force to the south Atlantic, surely it is possible to provide a proper administrative procedure so that the nine million people, some of whom are our most vulnerable, disadvantaged and poor citizens, can receive increases in their pensions when they need them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said that it is already done in other countries. In Belgium there is an automatic 2 per cent. increase in pensions if the retail price index increases by an average of 2 per cent. in two months. In Denmark there is an adjustment on 1 April and 1 October if the retail price index changes by three percentage points. France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands all have such a procedure. Surely Britain has the expertise, the resources and the administrative procedure to do it if it wishes. The question is whether we wish to do it. The Government clearly do not have the will. If they did, they would find the means. They do not want pensioners to share in whatever increase in prosperity there is, or at least not be subjected to a dramatic cut in their living standards because of the increase in inflation.
      The evidence of the Government's lack of will and their desire to ensure that pensioners do not receive the increase to which they are entitled was partially given in the rather bizarre speech of the right hon. Member for Daventry and by the Minister's unwillingness to explain why they found it necessary to steal £210 million from pensioners and

      321
      other state beneficiaries. The right hon. Member for Daventry had only one argument against the twice-yearly uprating of pensions—that we had the 12-month rule. We know that we have a 12-month rule, but the point of the amendment is to change that rule to a six-month rule so that we can uprate pensions every six months.
      The right hon. Member for Daventry said that we should keep the principle intact. Never mind what is happening to inflation and pensioners' living standards, never mind that the pensioners may be sinking ever deeper into poverty, destitution and distress, there is this wonderful 12-month principle that is so sacrosanct that it must override all other considerations. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that. However, that was the whole basis of the one argument that we have heard in the past two hours from the Government Benches. I do not accept the argument, and presumably neither does anybody else on either side of the House.
      Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is being unfair to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). Although the right hon. Gentleman argued for a 12-month rule for wage earners and those dependent on benefits, he did not mention those on unearned incomes who, under his system, would still get their dividends every six months. We suggest that what happens for those on unearned incomes should happen for those on pensions.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a pertinent and valid point, which demonstrates the usual hypocrisy of Members on the Conservative Benches. We are used to that hypocrisy, particularly in these debates. It has been compounded today by the fact that not one right hon. or hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches has been prepared to stand up and defend the shoddy tactics and disgraceful policies of the Government.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: To avoid the difficult word "hypocrisy", which might get my hon. Friend into trouble with the Chair, would it not be better to say that there is morality in extending to the old age pensioners of Newham and East Ham in particular, the advantages of those on unearned income in Daventry?
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will return to the point of the amendment.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: You know me, Mr. Armstrong. I shall do so. I hope that you have every confidence in the fact that I shall steer the Committee back to the appropriate point of the amendment, whatever that is. I am not quite sure. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made an important point, which demonstrates the clear divide of the attitudes in the House between the Labour party and those who speak for, or on this occasion fail to speak for, the Government.
      There are two arguments against the amendment. One is the nonsensical one about keeping the 12-month rule intact, to which I do not subscribe. Apparently, neither did any Conservative right hon. or hon. Members when they were in Opposition because, as my hon. Friends have demonstrated, the Tory commitment to the biannual uprating of pensions in the manifesto was clear and unequivocal. However, the real reason why the Tories are opposed to six-monthly uprating is not the practicalities or the difficulties, but the fact that it will mean that pensioners will receive more money. The Secretary of
      322
      State and his junior Ministers have the unenviable task of having to defend a situation that is geared to taking more money from pensioners.
      The Government are not content with the £210 million that they have already stolen from pensioners and other state beneficiaries. They have not disputed that, but they have tried to disguise it by changing the system. They are cheating the pensioners and state beneficiaries out of a week's benefit a year, and Ministers are not prepared to defend that. The policies and colours of the Tory Government and their response to the real needs of the pensioners and social security beneficiaries have been clearly demonstrated by their actions, policies and response, or lack of it, to the substantial arguments of my hon. Friends today. I hope that hon. Members from other parties will support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby not only to ensure that we have a system that is fair to pensioners and all state beneficiaries, but to ensure that their benefits rise in line with inflation when it is up, and not six, nine or 12 months later.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that he would return to the point of the amendment, but he was not quite sure what it was. Most of his attitude as he spoke demonstrated that he was trying to have a good parliamentary row and not concentrating on the point.
      Mr. George Foulkes: Johnny come lately.
      Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will keep quiet for a moment, I shall admit that I was not here throughout the debate, but I have heard enough to make two points.
      First, if the Labour party felt so strongly about bringing in increases every six months, it had five years out of the past nine to do so. Secondly, the greatest benefit to pensioners is getting the rate of inflation down. If the rate of inflation were 16 per cent. or more, one might be able to see the point of the amendment. However, inflation is down to a range of 4 per cent. to 6 per cent., which is a much greater advantage to pensioners, and one that should be increased.
      If I were trying to provoke Labour Members I should ask them what rate of inflation they would expect during the first and second years of their being in government and putting into effect their programme. The Labour party is making a fuss about this because it knows that its future actions, if it is given a chance to put its policies into effect, would lead to a massive increase in inflation, and it is trying to pre-empt the interest of pensioners in keeping inflation down.
      Mr. Stallard: Had the hon. Gentleman been here—I accept that there are probably good reasons why he was not here at the beginning of the debate—he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) give two quotations from two different Conservative manifestos, one of October 1974 and the other of February 1974. In both those manifestos the Tory party gave a clear commitment:
      "We will now move to a six-monthly up-rating of pensions and other long-term benefits."
      Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he also wishes to opt out of those commitments and throw them back on to Opposition Members, or is he saying that he accepted those commitments then, stands by them now, and will support the amendment in the Lobby?
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has made an intervention that was longer than the speech that I intended to make. First, I make the obvious point that not only did my party not win that election, but I did not succeed in my seat. I saw many commitments made by the Labour party in that election that it did not carry out, such as most of its arguments about statutory incomes policies and strict control of wages. We also saw, during five years of Labour Government—[Interruption]. Labour Members may make as much noise as they like, but the fact is that the average rate of inflation during their time in office was substantially higher than under the present Government, and that is the answer for which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was searching during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Show us the figures.
      Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman is challenging the fact that the rate of inflation was higher under the Labour Government than it has been under the present one, he can produce the figures. I have made the assertion and he can challenge it.
      The only reason for making a fuss about six-monthly increases for pensioners during the next year or two is the prospect of inflation increasing dramatically and staying high, and the only party that appears to offer that to the electorate is the Labour party. I have much in common with many individual members of that party, but I should like Labour Members to join me in producing an economic policy that will keep down inflation and help pensioners as much as possible in that way.
      6 pm
      Mr. Rossi: This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I shall try to deal with the main points that have been raised. I hope that the Committee will bear with me, because there is much other business to deal with. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) for his personal endorsement.
      In themselves, the 10 amendments and one new clause are confined to a narrow point—whether the uprating of pension should take place once a year or twice a year. They suggest different methods, different dates, and different reasons for doing so. However, I must advise the Committee not to accept any of the amendments.
      The prime reason is administrative. It takes the best part of six months to carry out the logistical process of uprating pensions, and, in particular, supplementary pensions. The reason is twofold. People in this country ask to be paid weekly. They like to have an order book containing about 26 weekly vouchers which they can take along to the post office, cash, and then go round the shopping centre, meeting their friends and spending their money. As long as we have that system, a long period must elapse between the announcement of the uprating and the date on which those pieces of paper can be presented and become valid.
      The second complication relates to supplementary benefits which, as we know from our discussions of this matter on previous occasions, are tailor-made to individual needs. It is a labour-intensive process to work out the individual needs of about 3 million people. The best part of six months is needed to prepare the paper that it is necessary for people to present at the post office counter. This problem has faced not only the present
      324
      Administration but past Administrations as well. We have all tried to find ways of overcoming the logistical problems.
      Hon. Members have put forward two propositions. First, they asked, "What about new technology? Why cannot new technology overcome these problems?" We are moving in that direction. At present, the DHSS has the largest computer complex in western Europe, and a number of benefits are processed by that method. We are continually developing and seeking to develop payments of benefits through new technology. Supplementary pensions and benefits are the most difficult of all, because each payment is tailored to individual needs, and it would be at least 1987 before any Government would be in a position to process those payments through a computer, bearing in mind the hardware that would have to be installed, the software that would have to be prepared, and the programming. Those all require a great deal of time, and cannot be achieved simply by waving a magic wand, as everyone would like to do.
      The other question that has been put to me in answer to this logistical problem is, "How is it that certain other countries can do it?" The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned a number of countries which uprate biannually, and even more frequently than biannually. However, those countries have a completely different system of payment. First, the payments are invariably monthly, or even quarterly. Secondly, people there accept direct payment into bank accounts. If people in this country were prepared to have their benefits paid direct into bank accounts or post office accounts on a monthly basis, it would be possible for us to proceed very rapidly, by the use of new technology, to a system in which it would be possible to have more frequent upratings than the present annual upratings.
      Difficulties have arisen, for instance, when the Government suggested that child benefit might be paid, not by book, but by direct payment into accounts on a monthly basis. What happened? All the sub-postmasters, for their own good reasons, mounted an effective campaign throughout the country to persuade people to insist on weekly order books, and people insisted on that. As long as people in this country wish to be paid by a particular method, they must accept the disadvantages as well as the advantages of that method. The disadvantages are that logistically it is not possible to have more frequent upratings of benefits as long as we have a system of payment by weekly vouchers in 26-weekly order books.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister interrupt his tortuous apologia and tell us why he and his party, having been in government, were able in 1974 to put an unequivocal pledge into their manifesto that they would introduce six-monthly payments? The excuses that he now parades before us must have been known then. Nine years have passed since then, with all the advances in automation, microelectronics and systems that could be used. Why was that in the Tory manifesto? If it was promised then, why cannot it be done now?
      Mr. Rossi: If that is the kind of intervention that I am to face, I shall be most reluctant to give way. I said at the outset of my remarks that I hoped to deal with the major points that were raised in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman will compose himself in patience, he will find that I shall come to that matter in a moment. At the moment, I am

      325
      dealing with two questions that were put to me —the first: "Why is it administratively difficult to move into biannual payments?"; the second: "Why cannot we use new technology?" I have tried to answer those two specific questions.
      Mr. Field: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he not being unfair to the Government's record when he says that it takes almost six months to revise the claim books for supplementary benefits? Have not the Government made three important changes in the administration of supplementary benefits, which must simplify uprating? First, they have moved housing payments to local authorities. Secondly, they have simplified the number of people claiming diet additions. Thirdly, to the Government's credit, they have automatically given more people the heating additions. Those are three big changes that the Government have made to the supplementary benefit scheme. Surely, with those changes, it should take a much shorter time to make the uprating than before.
      Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising what has not been previously recognised by Labour Members—that the simplifications that we have been seeking to achieve during this Administration are to the advantage of people generally. We are moving forward and the simplifications that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have helped us to shorten the period of uprating from seven or eight months to about five or six months. That is as far as we can go and that is why we are able to uprate in November based upon May figures. That is a great advance but it has been achieved as a result of some of the administrative simplifications that we have brought about. But those simplifications do not enable us to narrowthe gap to the extent that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. With the advantages of the simplifications that we have brought about we can now deal with the upratings on a five or six months basis, but we cannot do better than that at the moment.
      Mr. Stallard: I have followed the Minister's arguments closely and I assume from his remarks that he has conceded the case when he says that we can now shorten the period to within five or six months. Twice five is 10 and twice six is 12. Either way, it means that the Government can uprate twice a year. Has the Minister conceded the amendments and will he be supporting us in the Lobby?
      Mr. Rossi: I am saying that it is now possible, for the reasons that I have given, to shorten the uprating gap to between five or six months. To have biannual upratings would continually occupy a staff doing nothing else but upratings, and that is an impossible task. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it simply cannot be done under the present circumstances.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the Minister allow me to speak for a moment in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Newcastle upon Tyne, East where the central office that undertakes this work is located? The Minister knows perfectly well that the argument about the time delay on uprating is completely bogus. If we wish to uprate faster than the five months that he now claims to be able to achieve, we can do so, at a cost. Why does he not say that there is a trade-off here? Why do we not look at some more imaginative scheme, such as the allocation
      326
      of coded coupons that tell the post office how much to pay? That could be changed by one letter to every post office.
      Mr. Rossi: Obviously, there is a cost element in this. If we were to uprate twice a year instead of once a year it would immediately double the administrative costs because the same exercise would be done twice. If the uprating were brought forward it would mean an increase in benefit costs in a particular financial year. But those are all matters that could be weighed up and on which a judgment could be made if it were administratively possible.
      Mr. Thomas: What would it cost?
      Mr. Rossi: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figure. for each 1 per cent. uprating brought forward the cost would be £150 million.
      Mr. Thomas: We know how much it would cost to increase the level of benefit. But how much would it cost to employ all the extra staff that would be necessary to uprate twice a year? I should welcome an increase in employment in a constituency which has 50 per cent. unemployment.
      Mr. Rossi: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure. I shall try to find it and write to him about it.
      Mr. Thomas: The Minister should know that figure before he comes to the House.
      Mr. Rooker: I have the answer that the Minister does not know. It appears at c. 383–386 of the Official Report of 22 March, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The figure given for the six-monthly uprating was an additional annual cost of £250 million on public expenditure. That was one of the proposals at the National Pensioners Convention.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Rossi: I think that that figure includes benefit costs as well, so we must be cautious about it. I was being asked specifically for the administrative costs. I gave a formula for calculating the benefit cost but I do not have the administrative costs at the top of my head.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: The Minister undermines his argument. If he does not know what the administrative cost is how, can he say that it is so great that we cannot contemplate it?
      Mr. Rossi: I did not say that at all. The hon. Gentleman did not follow what I was saying. In answer to questions that were put to me I said that there would obviously be an administrative cost and a benefit cost were we to have more frequent upratings than the present annual one. I went on to say that those matters would have to be taken into account were it administratively feasible and desirable to do so.
      Mr. Thomas: Why will not the Minister come clean with the Committee? The cost that he is worried about is the £250 million that paying people their benefits earlier would cost the Government. We accept that that is a real cost that would have to go on public expenditure. But clearly the administrative cost is not the most significant; it must be minuscule compared to £250 million.
      Mr. Rossi: I shall find the figure and give it to the hon. Gentleman. Even the figure of £250 million is based on an

      327
      assumption of what the rate of inflation might be that would trigger off the uprating. Those are assumptions and would obviously have to be taken into account at the right time if we decided in mid-year to have a special uprating. However, as I have tried to explain to the Committee—if the Committee will not accept it it will not—biannual upratings are so administratively difficult that they are presently beyond contemplation.
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Mr. Rossi: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Mr. Rossi: I made it perfectly plain that I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to the position that prevailed in 1974–75 when six-monthly upratings were very much in vogue because inflation was running at a high rate. Indeed, on one occasion when the Labour Government had a midyear uprating, the rate of inflation was running at 30 per cent. and they were faced with the position that the value of benefits was being eroded almost as fast as the new rates could be fixed. That is why the special administrative effort was made and it caused a great deal of administrative dislocation within the DHSS. The redeployment of staff caused problems in other areas that took a long time to overcome. That is why the Labour Government did not repeat that experiment of uprating more than once a year. They tried it once when they had to because of the hyperinflation that they created, but having experienced the administrative consequences they never tried it again. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. The situation is now totally different.
      Mr. Field: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rossi: No. I must make progress. I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Inflation is now running not at 30 per cent. but at around 5 per cent. Therefore, fortunately, there is no longer an urgent need for biannual upratings. As the Government's policy becomes more and more successful—as the economy is stabilised and inflation brought down to a low figure—such questions become academic. In this context, there is no need for us to go down the road that my hon. Friend urges us to take.
      Mr. Field: The Minister has presented a fairly complicated argument. I shall try to keep it simple. He said that there are administrative problems in connection with twice-yearly uprating and, that major costs are involved. Then, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), he took a trip down memory lane, recalling the circumstances in which the Conservative Opposition gave promises about a twice-yearly uprating. He said that that was a time when prices were rising rapidly—in other words, a period when a twice-yearly increase would have massively increased the public expenditure costs of the measure. If his major argument is one of cost, how can the Minister say that at a time of rapidly rising prices—when it would have been very costly to make the change—it was right to
      328
      give those promises, but that now, when it would not be costly to make the change, it would not be right to give that promise?
      Mr. Rossi: At times of rapidly rising prices, it behoves a Government to do what they can to protect the vulnerable sections of the community. That is why, having created inflation of 30 per cent.—faced with hyperinflation—the Labour Government found it necessary to increase pensions twice in one year. That was the scenario in which there was the debate between the parties as to whether there should be a commitment to biannual increases in pensions. The scene has changed totally and dramatically since then, and those considerations no longer apply.
      Mr. Field: Will the Minister give way on this point?
      Mr. Rossi: I cannot give way. I must deal with another important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield also referred to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 11 April. I did not have the text of the question at that time. The hon. Gentleman had asked, assuming that inflation over one period of time was 4 per cent. and over another period of time was 6 per cent., what that difference would amount to in terms of public expenditure. The answer was £210 million, and it was correct. The arithmetical difference in 1983–84 between an assumption of 4 per cent. inflation and an assumption of 6 per cent. inflation is £210 million.
      However, the question was based on a misapprehension. The uprating would not necessarily have been 6 per cent. under the forecasting method just because there was a 6 per cent. forecast for the November in question. The Government made it perfectly clear that we would have adjusted that uprating to have regard to the overshoot at the November 1982 uprating. [Hon. Members: "Clawback."]. Thus, that uprating would have been only 3·3 per cent. on the forecast method, assuming 6 per cent. inflation in November and a full adjustment.
      We have departed from that entirely. That is no longer relevant to today's debate, because we have gone over to an entirely different method whereby pensions will be uprated on the actual increase in prices from May to May. That will be made good, and any shortfall will be made good from year to year. If upratings are based on what has happened in the past, what may have been lost in the year before is automatically made good in the next year. That is in absolute contrast to the methods used by the Labour party when it cheated the pensioners of £500 million—£1 billion at present-day prices — and never made it good. Under our method, shortfalls will automatically be made good.
      However, I must ask my hon. Friend to be careful when he considers these figures because they are based on assumptions. An assumption is only a guess. It is the best-informed guess that one can make. At this time last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed an inflation rate of 9 per cent. in the following November. Opposition Members said at that time that the figure of 9 per cent. was too low, just as some of them are saying today that the figure of 6 per cent. is too low and that we should be looking higher. However, the figure of 9 per cent. was not too low; it was too high. Again, in the year when we posited 16·5 per cent., some Labour Members said that we should be thinking of 20 per cent. They were

      329
      working on assumptions—on guesswork made by well-informed commentators outside the House. One can make assumptions, but they will not necessarily be proved right. It was the confusion caused by such methods that persuaded us to scrap them entirely. They were introduced by the Labour Government for very bad reasons. Nakedly, brazenly and clearly they did it in order to save themselves money. With the new method there will be no guesswork in the way in which pensions are uprated. There will be absolute certainty. On top of that, we shall make sure that if there is any inflation, the pensioners' money will eventually—year in, year out, on a 12-month basis—be made good. That is better than the Labour Government's record, with their £500 million cheat. That is our pledge.
      Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Rossi: In general terms, we have maintained the pledge upon which we were elected for this Parliament, irrespective of what might have been said for other reasons in 1974. We have maintained, and have improved upon, the level of pensions as against the rate of inflation. We can go to the country on that. We shall do so, and we shall win.
      Mr. Rooker: I wish to respond briefly to a couple of points made by the Minister. He correctly reminded the House that the assumption for November 1980 was 16·5 per cent., but that in the early summer of that year the Opposition disputed that figure, believing that by November inflation would be 21 per cent. In fact, pensions were raised by 16·5 per cent. on the Government's assumption, but the outturn was 15·5 per cent. So what did the Government do? They produced a special, one-off Act of Parliament to claw back 1p in the pound from pensioners. There was no statutory obligation to do that. That is why they had to introduce special legislation. In those circumstances, I do not know how the Minister can have the brass face to remind us of what happened in 1980. He knows full well, as he admitted in an intervention earlier today, that the Bill is nothing but a substitute for the type of legislation that the Government introduced in 1981.
      6.30 pm
      In 1980, the Government cut 5 per cent. from most benefits, including unemployment benefit, industrial injury benefit, maternity allowances and invalidity pension. They said that the cut was in lieu of taxation. The Bill is in lieu of a clawback, as the Minister has made clear. That is the logical conclusion of his statements. He said that it was not fair to assume that if the Bill had not made the change to a historical system, pensions would have increased by 6 per cent. in November. He is therefore saying that the Government would have taken legislative powers in another Bill to ensure that the pension did not rise by 6 per cent.
      As I said on Second Reading—no one contradicted me then — pensions in November would be higher without the Bill than with it. If any Minister wishes to contradict that, I shall be happy to give way. I see that there are no takers, because my assertion is absolutely correct.
      The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He certainly deserves the thanks of the Opposition for reminding us of the clear, firm and detailed Tory commitments reinforced by the
      330
      Secretary of State for Social Service when he was shadow Secretary of State. That should certainly be put on record today.
      The defence of the Goverment's actions offered by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) is understandable in the light of his own record as a Minister. He was the Minister who did not even move to an annual uprating—there are 52 weeks in a year, but he had 54—so he would naturally oppose a twice-yearly uprating system.
      The Minister's comments lead me to worry whether the Government will meet their commitment to those on the receiving end of the social security system. He clearly stated, just after 6 o'clock, that the problems were administrative and logistical. He said that the uprating process took the best part of six months, so it was beyond contemplation to have twice-yearly increases. My hon. Friend the member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) pointed out that that would not prevent a twice-yearly uprating. As no one will know before 17 June what the increase will be and uprating day is 21 November, the interval is five months, or just over. If, as the Minister constantly says, the process takes the best part of six months, which is nearer six months than five, does that mean that there is no guarantee that all the necessary calculations will be completed by 21 November for the means-tested part of the welfare state — that is, supplementary pensions and supplementary benefit? According to the Government's announcements about dates, the target period for all 20 million people is five months and one week. The Minister should give some reassurance on that.
      Mr. Rossi: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. A great deal of extra effort will be required on the part of the Department. It means that some beneficiaries will receive two order books instead of one. I have written fully to the Chairman of the Select Committee about this. The full explanation is in the Library if the hon. Gentleman cares to read it.
      To save writing a letter on the subject, I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the administrative cost of one yearly uprating is £10 million.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for that response from the Minister.
      The Minister has not told us, however, what the staff do in the other six months of the year, when they are not occupied with uprating procedures, which would make a twice-yearly uprating impossible if there were the will to achieve it.
      The Government intend to reject the amendments. That is why we shall press amendment No. 1. Given the Government's forecast of inflation at 4 per cent. in May and 6 per cent. in November, if our amendment is defeated, 90 per cent. or more of those who rely on the social security system—not only old age pensioners, but invalidity pensioners, the long-term sick or disabled, and also the unemployed, despite the restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement—will suffer as a result. Millions of families will lose a week's benefit in the next 12 months. That is not good enough.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 274.

      Division No. 122]

      [6.36pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Hardy, Peter

      Allaun, Frank

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Alton, David

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Haynes, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hicks, Robert

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

      Beith, A. J.

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      Homewood, William

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hooley, Frank

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Horam, John

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hoyle, Douglas

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      John, Brynmor

      Buchan, Norman

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Campbell, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Kerr, Russell

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Cant, R. B.

      Lambie, David

      Carmichael, Neil

      Lamond, James

      Cartwright, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Coleman, Donald

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Cowans, Harry

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

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

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Cryer, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      McNally, Thomas

      Davidson, Arthur

      McTaggart, Robert

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McWilliam, John

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

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Deakins, Eric

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dixon, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dobson, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dormand, Jack

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dubs, Alfred

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Dunlop, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Eadie, Alex

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Eastham, Ken

      Morton, George

      Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

      English, Michael

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Field, Frank

      Park, George

      Flannery, Martin

      Parker, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Parry, Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Forrester, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Foster, Derek

      Penhaligon, David

      Foulkes, George

      Pitt, William Henry

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

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Freud, Clement

      Prescott, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Radice, Giles

      Golding, John

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Graham, Ted

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

      Robertson, George

      332

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tinn, James

      Roper, John

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wainwright, B.(Colne V)

      Sever, John

      Watkins, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Weetch, Ken

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wellbeloved, James

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Welsh, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      White, Frank R.

      Silverman, Julius

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Whitlock, William

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Snape, Peter

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Soley, Clive

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

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

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

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Winnick, David

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Woodall, Alec

      Stott, Roger

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Strang, Gavin

      Wright, Sheila

      Straw, Jack

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Tilley, John

      Mr. Allen McKay

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Ancram, Michael

      Corrie, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Critchley, Julian

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

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Kenneth(Sf.M'bone)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dover, Denshore

      Bendall, Vivian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Durant, Tony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Best, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Farr, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bright, Graham

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

      Brinton, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fox, Marcus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Buck, Antony

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Budgen, Nick

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Butcher, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

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

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Gorst, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gow, Ian

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gower, Sir Raymond

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

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Greenway, Harry

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Grieve, Percy

      333

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

      Murphy, Christopher

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Grist, Ian

      Needham, Richard

      Grylls, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Neubert, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Newton, Tony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hannam,John

      Osborn, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Parris, Matthew

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Pawsey, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Heddle, John

      Pollock, Alexander

      Henderson, Barry

      Porter, Barry

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Hordern, Peter

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Tim

      Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rossi, Hugh

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rost, Peter

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Knox, David

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lee, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Silvester, Fred

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Smith, Sir Dudley

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'Ioo)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Loveridge, John

      Speller, Tony

      Luce, Richard

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sproat, Iain

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Squire, Robin

      MacGregor, John

      Stainton, Keith

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Stanley, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Stevens, Martin

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

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Madel, David

      Stokes, John

      Major, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Mawby, Ray

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thompson, Donald

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Trippier, David

      Moate, Roger

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Waddington, David

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Wakeham, John

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Mudd, David

      Waller, Gary

      334

      Walters, Dennis

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wilkinson, John

      Watson, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wells, Bowen

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wheeler, John

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Wickenden, Keith

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'June' and insert 'May'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1 line 8, leave out 'June' and insert 'July'.
      No. 35, in page 2, line 5, leave out '31st May' and insert '30th April'.
      No. 38, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'June' and insert 'May'.
      No. 39, in page 2 line 10, leave out 'June' and insert 'July'.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Foster: The effect of this amendment and this group of amendments is to change the month in which the uprating is announced. There may be those who regard this debate as academic and irrelevant. Indeed, that was the word that the Minister of State used in his concluding speech on the previous debate. I remind those hon. Members that the income next year of 20 million people in this country—
      Mr. Rossi: When I used the word "academic" I was using the phrase that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) had used. He said that he hoped that would be an academic debate, or that he was quite prepared to have an academic debate on the difference between the historic and forecast methods. I picked that up in replying.
      Mr. Foster: I accept what the Minister has said, but I certainly gained the distinct impression that he was trying to say that such matters were academic. However, I stress that the incomes of 20 million people and the year-to-year inflation rate on which their benefits are rated are dependent on the outcome of this debate. The Government would rather not have this debate. They seek to muddy the waters so that the electorate is unaware of the savings made at the expense of the poorest in the land. But they cannot and must not complain. It is the Government who have created an immoral and uncivilised society during the past four years. They have produced 4 million unemployed and 7 million people who depend on supplementary benefit. It is this Government who have reduced inflation on the backs of the poorest, whom we seek to defend with this amendment.
      Why does the May to May inflation rate have to be used and why does the announcement have to be made in June? On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
      "Under the Bill the uprating will be based upon the actual inflation rate between May 1982 and May 1983. The reason we have chosen that 12 month figure, which will become available in mid-June, is that mid-June is the last date that will enable the Department to carry out the work of uprating and ensure that all the new benefits are paid on time. It is also the case that it is only following 17 June that the uprating order itself can be presented to the House and debated before the summer recess. Let me say

      335
      at once that no one would be more pleased than I if we could reduce further the time between the making of the annual uprating statement and the uprating itself. No one wants that time gap to be wide, least of all pensioners who often understandably complain about the time between the statement and the date when the increased pensions are paid."—[Official Report, 13 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 820.]
      That is what the Secretary of State said then. However, as recently as 15 December 1982 the Minister told the Social Services Committee:
      "It does take six months, from the time the uprating decision is made up to its being physically possible to start making the payments."
      A DHSS memorandum submitted to the Social Services Committee—annex 5—stated:
      "The timetable reflects the operational need"—
      this was in December—
      for a period of 6 to 7 months from the time the new rates are decided and announced to the time they take effect. The main factors leading to this requirement are:

      (i) the need for clerical re-assessment of some 3 to 4 million cases receiving supplementary benefit to take account of the changes in other income, changes in relevant expenditure such as rent or rates, and changes in family circumstances

      (ii) benefit order books which, in the main cover periods of 4 to 6 months and which need to provide for the new rates to apply from the uprating date months in advance as they come up for renewal. To issue duplicate order books would add considerably to encashment and other administrative costs and would also increase the risks of error and confusion

      (iii) in the case of mobility allowance and family income supplement, where order books cover a 12 month period, it is desirable to keep to a minimum the numbers issued which take no account of the November increases. For this reason specific ministerial approval is given to anticipate the relevant legislation almost immediately the statutory statement of intent has been made, and within days of that statement guidance is being issued to local offices and others concerned with the process of implementing the increases. From April onward order books are being prepared which include the new rates applicable from November."

      The Minister said six months and the Department, in its evidence to the Social Services Committee, said six to seven months. What miracles has the Secretary of State been able to work since December to change that? The Committee deserves an answer to that question tonight. The Minister said at least six months and the Department said six to seven months, yet today we miraculously hear from the Minister that the time involved is the best part of six months or five to six months. As the Secretary of State will know, under this Government the time between the announcement and the implementation has been considerably longer than under a Labour Government. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pointed that out on Second Reading, when he said:
      "In the four upratings under this Government the average delay between announcement and uprating has been seven and a half months. The six upratings in the four and a half years of the Labour Government saw an average delay of 5·7 months. That is almost two months less in terms of average delay between announcement and payment. So despite the use of computers in the national insurance part of the system, the delay has increased in recent years … Nevertheless, the Government suddenly say 'We do not need to do anything until 17 June, and we can make all payments by the date in November.' We need some assurances on that matter, if only because between May 1979 and the end of last year there has been a 22 per cent. increase in the ratio of means-tested
      336
      supplementary benefit claimants, compared with the local staff in the DHSS offices who have to make the calculations.—[Official Report, 13 April 1983; Vol. 94, c. 885.]"
      We need some assurances from the Minister tonight. The increased work load on DHSS staff offices is the direct result of the Government's economic policies. Can the Department cope with that extra work load? If so, how? How much, for example, extra overtime will have to be worked, and at what cost? What consultations have been held with the trade unions? An even more worrying aspect of the problem was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr on Second Reading. What if the House is prorogued on 17 June? What if the Prime Minister has cut and run and we find ourselves in the middle of an election? Can we cope with all the necessary procedures if the House is prorogued and if the announcement cannot be made on 17 June? The Government must ensure that the administrative machinery is set in motion so that those who are dependent on social security payments do not suffer as a result of such action.
      As has been pointed out, the period between 17 June and 21 November amounts to only just over five months. The Minister has referred to the best part of six months or between five and six months. We are getting dangerously close. If the House is prorogued, and that statement cannot be made on 17 June and those arrangements cannot be put in hand, the Government must reassure at least 9 million pensioners and all the other beneficiaries that their payments will not be delayed. If that were to happen, there would be considerable suffering.
      We need that assurance tonight, because the Secretary of State failed to give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr on Second Reading. He said that there would be further time to explore the matter in Committee. We are now in Committee and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will give us the assurances that I have sought.
      The amendment substitutes May for June. The April to April figure would allow time to complete the procedures, and that would remove the danger of delay in paying the increased benefit. I think that we know why it is June that appears in the Bill. That is because the Government expect that period to embrace the lowest inflation rate during the year and—this is my guess—for many years to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said on Second Reading, that is why June appears in the Bill. He said:
      "The Government must explain why we have the Bill at this juncture. The answer is to be found in the Budget and in the surrounding figures. According to the Government, they over-provided by 2·7 per cent. and they were, therefore—this was announced to the House—considering having to claw it back. The reception that that might receive in the House and in the country generally in a possible election year deterred them from that course. Instead of abandoning that suggestion, the Government turned their ever fertile minds to how they could get it back without appearing to claw it back. The inspiration for the fraud came from the Chancellor's forecast for inflation figures. They stated for the month of May that inflation was likely to be 4 per cent., the lowest this year, and probably for many other years both past and future. The Chancellor by his Budget speech candidly conceded that inflation was likely to be running at 6 per cent. That is the figure which will be prevalent when the uprating figures are paid. Using the forecast method, the Government would have had to uprate the pension by 6 per cent. next November, because that is the forecast for inflation then. However, they found that if they could somehow use the month of lowest inflation—May—"—
      that by all the forecasts is likely to be May—

      337
      "they could save themselves £500 million. In effect, they could carry out a disguised and, they hoped, unobserved clawback of 2 percentage points, of the 2·7 per cent. that they say was overpaid last year."—[Official Report, 13 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 830.]
      7 pm
      That is the real reason why June appears in the Bill. It is because the Government want to get away with the disguised clawback. They realise that an open clawback would be extremely damaging in a possible election year. That is why they have found this "fertile" way of moving back to the historic method. In the amendment we are asking why an earlier month or later month could not be used. Will the Government now come clean and tell us exactly why it is that they have decided that the May-May uprating figure must apply? Why have they not chosen an earlier month or a later month? They have sought to explain why it is impossible now to move to a later date. If that is so, why cannot we have an earlier month—for example, April-April—than May-May?
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The last remarks of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—that great savings are being made in the social security programme—would have had more validity if we had not added to the programme, compared with the contents of the public expenditure White Paper, by £220 million in 1983–84. Instead of cutting we have made that increase. That is a figure that we may need to return to in our later discussions.
      Mr. Field: To what extent is the increase to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred due to an increase in unemployment and to what extent is it due to real increases in benefit?
      Mr. Fowler: It is not due to an increase in unemployment. I could give the hon. Gentleman a complete breakdown of the extra £2 billion of expenditure on social security over the coming year. However, the majority of that—about £1 billion—goes on retirement pensions. About £0·2 billion will go in incapacity and unemployment benefits. I hope that I can establish, without going through the entire list of benefits, that the increased expenditure is not because of the increase in unemployment benefit payments.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman go through the list?
      Mr. Fowler: First, I shall seek to reply to the debate. There will be other opportunities to return to this issue.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked fairly why the Government have chosen the May-May measure of inflation, which means that we shall have that available on I7 June following an announcement during the course of June. We have fixed the review date in June because that is basically the last month by which uprating decisions can be taken if the work associated with the uprating is to be completed in time for payment in November.
      These provisions are being introduced as primary legislation. We are not introducing the May-May measure for one year—it is something that we want to last. It seems that no one will wish to go back on the change to the historic method. I cannot believe that any Government will change to the forecast method now that we have reverted to the historic method. We have come as near as we conceivably can to the time when benefits are paid
      338
      because there was widespread dissatisfaction about the time that lapsed between the announcement of upratings and the upratings taking effect. As I said on Second Reading, no one would be more pleased than myself if we could reduce the gap even further.
      One of the problems, even with the historic method, is the gap between the announcement of the measure and the time when the benefits are paid. The shorter that we can make that gap the better it will be for everyone involved. We have decided that May is the latest month that can be chosen to do that.
      The proposal in the amendment to go back to April would be a retrograde step because it would interfere with what I think both sides of the House of Commons would want to achieve if we were to revert to the historic or actual method. To go even further than that would be impracticable at this stage. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security deployed when replying to the previous debate. However, there are difficulties that stand in the way of further improvement.
      The majority of the 8 million pensioners are paid weekly by means of an order book. That covers their weekly entitlement for up to 20 weeks, or 26 weeks for those on supplementary benefit or invalidity benefit. Order books that cover the week of the uprating will be in use several months before the uprating date.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said, it would be possible, as suggested by the Rayner scrutiny, to switch to another system of payment, such as monthly or quarterly payments by credit transfer to a bank. That would undoubtedly quicken the process. We are in the process of giving pensioners the choice of having their pensions paid in that way. However, only a small percentage so far have opted for payment made through a bank in that way. Clearly it is no part of the Government's policy — I doubt very much if it is the policy of Opposition Members — to move against their wishes. The inevitable consequence is that there is no chance of shortening significantly the uprating time scale, at least for some time.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that if he was moving to monthly payments in advance, that would have more attractions than the proposed system, which is monthly in arrears? For people on these income levels it is a considerable disincentive to have to wait four weeks for money.
      Mr. Fowler: I see that point. There would also be a benefit cost, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I want to make much the same point. I should have thought that the Government could at least pay in the middle of the month, which would mean a shorter gap for those who transferred. Why is it that the Government cannot print order books which simply have a code, with the local post office being instructed to pay the amount which corresponds to the code?
      Mr. Fowler: We have talked about this, as the hon. Gentleman would have expected. The Post Office would not want that. It prefers the present system. I see a great deal of attraction in what the hon. Gentleman has said. Discussions have taken place and the Post Office has replied that it would prefer to continue with the present system rather than have the kind of system the hon. Gentleman has put forward.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I fail to see the difficulty. If a difficulty is raised by the trade unions within the Post Office because their members are reluctant to operate such a system, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a simple system. Could it not be pointed out to those involved that they are employed for the benefit of the community and not vice versa?
      Mr. Fowler: I am happy to take that argument further. One of the legimate concerns is the prevention of fraud. That is important for us, for the Post Office and for pensioners to take into account. I point out the difficulties simply to give to the hon. Gentleman the truth that the Department has not been sitting back seeking to accept the situation. We have tried to explore ways forward.
      Mr. Rooker: When the Secretary of State referred to the Post Office, do we take that to mean that it was a Post Office board or management decision?
      Mr. Fowler: Yes.
      Mr. Rooker: If the answer is yes, I do not need to pursue it on the grounds on which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) asked his question.
      Mr. Fowler: It is a management decision. There has not been negotiation with postmasters or trade unions.
      The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked how we could get an improvement even to the May to May system. As it is, we shall have to produce extra books for some pensioners and for some who are on supplementary benefit. Those will be in the nature of extra topping-up payments. We can handle that but I would not advise the Committee that for this uprating we could go any faster.
      In future it may be possible to make improvements. For example, by computerisation we may be able to reduce the period for supplementary benefit increases to 12 weeks or thereabouts, but it is unlikely that we would be able to reach that much before 1987. If we can, that will open further doors to closing the gap between the time of the announcement and the time of payment.
      As for the questions about the timing of upratings and uprating statements under different Governments, the fairest reply is that the differences relate most of all to the decision on when to make the announcement rather than the efficiency of the DHSS machine under either Government. For example, in 1979, under this Government, there was a 22-week gap. In the previous year there was a 31-week gap. I do not claim that suddenly we galvanised the DHSS into even higher peaks of efficiency; of course, it is an incomparably efficient Department. The point is that the announcements were made at different times.
      The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) reminded the House on Second Reading that in 1974 the Labour Government carried out an uprating over a period of only 17 weeks. He skated over the problems that that created, and he did not add that no Government after that ever tried to repeat that exercise. After the 1974 uprating, the time taken by the Labour Government from the announcement of new rates to their implementation was 21 weeks, 26 weeks, 32 weeks, 25 weeks and 31 weeks.
      340
      7.15 pm
      Why have no Government tried to repeat the 1974 timetable? Again, the reasons were fairly set on the record by Mrs. Barbara Castle when she announced the 1974 uprating plans when she said:
      "The 17-week timetable can only be met at a risk that some beneficiaries may not receive their increase until shortly after the operative date."
      In the same debate she said:
      "these proposals will mean putting the staff of my Department under considerable strain." — [Official Report, 27 March, 1974; Vol. 871, cc. 451, 457.]
      The uprating in 1974 was timed for the week beginning 22 July and on 18 July Mrs. Castle, in reply to a parliamentary question, made it clear that 550,000 beneficiaries would not be paid on time.
      There is another factor to be taken into account: once we have made the decision and put the uprating process into being, the payments themselves should be made on time to the beneficiaries.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Problems existed then, but we have greatly simplified the whole system, particularly by taking out housing benefit. That means that benefit offices do not have to do upratings every time rates or rents go up. That simplifies it also. In the calculations for supplementary benefit, housing benefit does not have to be taken into account. With all the simplifications, surely we ought to be able to do the uprating in at least the same time as it was done in 1974.
      Mr. Fowler: Improvements have been made but they are not sufficient to allow us to quicken the pace substantially, first because of the processing of the books in Newcastle, and secondly, because of the way that supplementary benefit is handled at local office level. I have been over the ground and no one would be more pleased than I if we could make further improvements. The hon. Gentleman is pressing at an open door. It is difficult to find a way forward that will reconcile the need for speed with the fact that we also want beneficiaries to be paid in full and on time.
      Mr. Field: Can the Secretary of State reconcile the statement he has just made with the statement made earlier in the debate by the Minister of State? Is he giving the House an assurance that beneficiaries will be paid on time this year? How does that square with the statement that some may need two order books?
      Mr. Fowler: It is because the extra order book is precisely the method by which they will all be paid on time. That is the short answer. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. Clearly there comes a time when we cannot produce more and more order books because then the timetable would go, but I can give the assurance the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way—after all, we are in Committee?
      Mr. Fowler: Yes we are, but the hon. Gentleman tends to bob up and down like a jack-in-the-box. I shall, however, give way.
      Mr. Mike Thomas: I always understood that the purpose of being a Member of Parliament was to ask questions on behalf of one's constituents and to get answers from Ministers. Unfortunately, we do not seem to be successful with the second half of that equation.

      341
      As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I represent those who work in the central office in Newcastle. They tell me that there is no great difficulty in speeding up the uprating, but I shall not go into that again. If he chose to speed up the benefit by increasing the number of staff at Newcastle, which I accept is a trade-off, it would be perfectly possible to do so. I should like some information on the cost of the trade-off. I do not accept for a minute that six-monthly upratings would cost £10 million.
      Was not the 1974 uprating done so quickly because the then minority Labour Government were desperate to introduce it before an autumn election? Is it not also a fact that Governments since then have paid little attention to it because they do not wish to speed up the uprating beyond November?
      Since then, the uprating has been put into the Budget. It was probably the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who did so initially because on one occasion he found himself bereft of any goodies to put in the Budget and seized on the pension uprating that had not previously been included. Has not the announcement in the Budget taken all the pressure off looking at this important matter?
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has made a mini-speech. I make no complaint about that. If it saves him from making a longer one later, we shall all benefit.
      It is not only cost that is preventing us from narrowing the gap between the announcement and the time of payment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest, but there is the process of producing the books faster and the uprating of supplementary benefit in local offices. I believe that we shall be able to adjust that period, but at present we are unable to go further than we have gone. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland seemed to suggest the opposite—that we were going too fast rather than too slow. It is because of the speed that we have chosen May, and I would not advise the Committee to go further.
      As to the prospect of a June election, it is almost impossible to debate anything at present without that being raised. It is a material point.
      Mr. Rooker: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "the" June election?
      Mr. Fowler: I think that I said "a" June election, and if I did not, I should have done. The hon. Gentleman is a near neighbour of mine in Birmingham, and we shall no doubt continue this debate in the west midlands.
      There are three processes — the review of the benefits, the announcement of the uprating, and the parliamentary approval of the uprating orders. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State must carry out the review of the level of benefits in June each year. He must decide whether benefits have maintained their real value in the preceding year up to 31 May. It makes no difference to that review whether Parliament is in session, in recess or dissolved. As I said last week, our intention is to carry out the review in mid-June when the May RPI figures become available. Obviously, I shall have to decide on those matters if such an eventuality exists.
      There is then the announcement of the uprating. That can be made at any time after the review. It does not strictly depend on Parliament being in session, although I would make such an announcement to Parliament first if
      342
      it were in session. Under successive Governments, the custom in the Department has been that the announcement can trigger off the beginning of the work process.
      The third process is the approval of the uprating orders. That is fundamentally a question for Parliament itself. That can be done only when Parliament is in session.
      I am satisfied that we shall be able to manage those three processes, even if there were a June election. That should not get in the way of either the uprating process or of beneficiaries and pensioners getting their benefits on time.
      Mr. Foster: I welcome the assurances given by the Secretary of State that all these procedures and calculations can be carried out in the event of a June election. However, we still believe that he is coasting close to not being able to pay the upratings in the way that they ought to be paid. We welcome the assurances that he has given, and we shall keep him to them at the appropriate time.
      The right hon. Gentleman has not yet explained in great detail how the Department has managed to shave almost a month off the interval between the announcement and implementation, as revealed in a statement by his Department to the Select Committee. We shall probably press him on those points on another occasion. Neither has he said whether overtime in his Department will be required to achieve the formidable task of paying all beneficiaries by November. If overtime is involved, there will be a cost, and we shall press the right hon. Gentleman further on that.
      There is also the important question of consultation and whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken his staff with him in the formidable burden that he may well be placing on them. We shall use the opportunities of another occasion to press him on that point.
      Will the right hon. Gentleman consider mounting a seminar on the technicalities and problems of uprating for interested Members? These are extremely difficult matters, and many of us would welcome a departmental initiation into those complexities.
      Mr. Fowler: Let me respond directly to that request. I shall gladly seek to arrange such a seminar.
      Mr. Foster: This is basically a probing amendment and we do not wish to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
      'and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the words "provided that in 1983, in the case of benefits abated by section 1 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, the basis for his review shall be the sums that would have applied but for the passing of that Act".'.
      The subject of this brief debate is the abatement. It is well known to hon. Members and others that in 1980, the Government cut 5p in the pound off the increase in five separate benefits — unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, invalidity benefit, sickness benefit and industrial injury benefit. I omit from my remarks sickness and industrial injury benefits as they are now dealt with under a totally different system that has just come into operation.

      343
      The fact that invalidity benefit has not been brought into taxation after all this time means that people who receive it are still suffering from that cut of 5p in the pound, because the cut was made only in lieu of proper taxation.
      7.30 pm
      As is well known, benefits that year increased by 16·5 per cent. in the round, but the five benefits I have mentioned were increased by only 11·5 per cent. Thus, they suffered what in affect was a cut of 30 per cent. in the increase of November 1980, which was equivalent to income tax at about 30p in the pound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit would be restored this year, 1983. It is now three years since the cut was made. After three major debates in this House last year, when all parties combined to vote against the Government, it was restored, and we accept that.
      It is grossly unfair, however, that the uprating situation for invalidity benefit — that is the main benefit in contention here; it goes only to the long-term sick and disabled — means that 700,000 people are receiving £1·40 a week less than they should be getting, in addition to what they lost because of the break with the earnings link. The amendment seeks to ensure that the review that the Secretary of State will conduct in June will include a review of the benefits that were cut under the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 and will restore them to the sums that would have applied had it not been for the passing of that Act.
      I have no idea what the Minister will say in reply because we have received several apparently firm commitments from Ministers that, when invalidity benefit is brought into taxation, the 5 per cent. will be restored. We accept that and we do not question it. However, there is no sign on the horizon of the Government introducing a system to tax invalidity benefit. If there were, there would be no need for this debate. Obviously the issue would have to be raised, however, because three years is a long time to maintain that cut of 5 per cent. After all, each year's benefit increase is less than it should be because the base to which it is added has been cut.
      It is clear that the Government do not plan to tax invalidity benefit in the 1983–84 tax year; we are in that year now and, had they intended to do that, they would by now have made an announcement. They have made no announcement giving an inkling that they will be ready to introduce such a system of taxation in 1984–85. The result is that it has become a cruel joke on the 700,000 people on long-term invalidity benefit that the Government should continue to leave them with 5p in the pound less than they should be receiving. That is a substantial sum. For a single person it represents about £1·40 a week and, for a couple, about £2·25. That is not the only loss they have suffered, as I said, because of the break in the earnings link with pensions and long-term benefits, of which this is one.
      It means that we are talking about 700,000 long-term sick and disabled people who have lost in total the best part of £3 for a single person and £4·50 for a couple. Half of that is represented by the cruel deception of abatement in lieu of proper taxation. It has become immoral that the
      344
      Government should continue this cut in the benefit when they are showing no sign of bringing the benefit into taxation.
      The other benefit that is still on the receiving end of this cut is the maternity allowance. About 130,000 women a year receive that allowance. As the nature of the benefit implies, it is not a long-term one. Nevertheless, since 1980, women drawing maternity allowance have been receiving about £1·10 a week less than they would otherwise have received.
      It is no good the Minister arguing, as has been done before, that my hon. Friends, when in power—I do not have the statements with me — said that all benefits should be taxable. To believe that all income should be added up for tax purposes—allowing for a high enough threshold so as not to catch those on basic benefit—is one thing. To cut an increase in benefit because of an inability to find a way of taxing it is another. For the Government to do that knowing that they will be pressed to restore the amount, and then not to do anything about reversing the cut is wrong. I am not aware of the Government or the Inland Revenue having put any work in hand to bring those benefits into tax. I consider that to be immoral, it being three years since the Government made those cuts.
      The Government made them in an off-hand way in that the matter was never properly debated in Parliament. The enabling measure was quickly guillotined in Standing Committee and because most of the results of the 1980 Act did not come into effect that year, the people on the receiving end of the cuts were not aware of what was going on. The proceedings on that measure were not adequately reported by the media, who did not understand what was going on because of the way it was introduced—a quick announcement soon after the Pudget with the enabling measure coming forward quickly. Frankly, the Government stand charged with an immoral and unfair act committed against 700,000 sick and disabled people. They now have an opportunity, by accepting the amendment, to put right that cruel deception.
      Mr. David Ennals: I strongly support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the attitude of Ministers in the last Labour Government. I was one of the Ministers who said I thought the principle of bringing short-term benefits into taxation was right, but that the Budget did not provide an occasion on which to do anything administrative at that stage. Many of my hon. Friends when we were in government may have felt that was wrong. I feel now, as I felt then, that the principle is right that short-term as well as long-term benefits should be brought into taxation.
      The decision taken in lieu of taxation—to have a 5 per cent. abatement covering the unemployed and sick, the maternity allowance and invalidity benefit — was, however, absolutely wrong. The Government were forced by their supporters—who are not very evident today—to replace the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit. It took them some time to do it. With an election approaching and threats from behind that there would be votes in the Lobby if they did not do it, they were forced to do it.
      I want to know why the feelings expressed on behalf of the unemployed—that the 5 per cent. abatement should be restored — have not been heeded for the other

      345
      beneficiaries. That is immoral, heartless, careless, thoughtless and cruel to 750,000 people—taking alone the sickness beneficiaries and those on invalidity benefit —who are among the least able to assist themselves. They are suffering this penalty and apparently the Government have no intention—unless the amendment is accepted—of replacing the 5 per cent. That is totally unjustifiable, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is not clearly understood.
      I hope that the debate will make it clear that the Government — unless they accept the amendment —intend to carry out a policy which is to the detriment of those who receive invalidity benefit and maternity allowances. I believe that is a disgraceful action by the Government. The Minister has a soft heart, and I suppose that if he has to say that he cannot accept the amendment it will be against his better judgment. If it were not so, I should not have the respect for the hon. Gentleman that I have. I believe that the policy should be put right by the amendment. Of course the amendment cannot completely replace what has been lost over the years but it can put right, as from the next uprating, a cruel act by a cruel Government.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful for some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). However soft-hearted I may be taken to be, I cannot give the Opposition the immediate assurance about restoration that they are seeking.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I served—I in a silent capacity as a Whip — on the Committee that dealt with the 1980 Act. While I regret what was contained in the Act, I do not feel any sense of shame about it. The Act was brought in against the background of a Government who had decided that tackling inflation was the major single need, not least in the interests of the poor, and that that entailed some reduction in public expenditure. With social security occupying over one quarter of public expenditure, it was inevitable that some savings were found in the social security budget. The Government attempted to collect some limited savings from the social security budget which they thought would cause less hardship than some of the alternatives that might have been selected.
      We were, are, and have shown ourselves to be, determined to protect the value of the retirement pension and the basic supplementary benefit safety net. We have more than succeeded in doing so.
      Mr. Ennals: Bearing in mind the benefits that have been received by those at the upper end of the taxation limits earning £30,000 and more, how can the Minister justify savings which hit people who he knows are living on a very small income, many of them in great hardship? How can he say that the decision was justifiable? If there were savings to be made, surely other groups should have taken the rap.
      Mr. Newton: The Committee will probably understand that I do not wish to embark upon a debate about the whole of the Government's economic policy which the right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do. Everyone in the Committee would recognise, if we were not simply swapping shots in a propaganda war, that these have been years during which all sections of the community, in one way or another, have experienced some difficulty.
      Mr. Field: No.
      Mr. Newton: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Birkenhead, (Mr. Field), the right hon. Member for Norwich, North and others to shake their heads, but many people—in the mythology of those who would occupy the Opposition Benches if they were here—who are the beneficiaries of the policies that they have been describing, have in many cases seen businesses in which they had their money invested go bankrupt. Whatever the partisan arguments, it is not: sensible to ignore the fact that people in all sections of the community have shared some of the difficulties that the country has experienced over the past year.
      Mr. Field rose—
      Mr. Newton: The usual channels have told me that the Committee is anxious to make progress. In those circumstances it is not sensible for me to engage in a wide-ranging debate of the kind that would be more appropriate to an election platform. I wish to concentrate—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to make it clear that I wish to concentrate on the specific and legitimate points that have been raised about invalidity benefit rather than to swap political yah-booing with Opposition Members for the next half an hour.
      Mr. Bennett: The Minister started the yah-booing by saying that it was necessary to make the cuts. We accept his arguments on the rest of the 1980 Act, but we were gold that these cuts were in lieu of taxation. As a silent Whip, was he party to misleading the Committee, because the Government had no intention of ever bringing invalidity benefit into taxation and restoring the 5 per cent. abatement?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Newton: I hardly need answer that question. I did not, either silently or had had a voice, lend myself to misleading the Committee, either intentionally or unintentionally, about the Government's intentions which were as stated then. I reaffirm tonight, if I need to, that it remains the Government's firm intention to restore the abatement when the benefit is brought into taxation. The question when it may be brought into tax is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me.
      It is clear that we shall not agree on this matter. The Opposition may feel that they wish to press it to a vote. However, it should be recognised that this proposal—against a background of a need to reduce, as we saw it, the overall size of the social security budget—was partly influenced by the fact that in our view, and I believe that as a general proposition it is shared, invalidity benefit and certain other benefits which had not hitherto been taxable should be taxable.
      One of the matters that influenced us to choose this way of making some contribution to the required reduction in public expenditure was recognising the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement that would have occurred had the benefit been taxable. That is a rough and ready method as it is not related to individual circumstances in the way in which taxation would be, but it is not as rough and ready as some of the Opposition speeches have suggested.

      347
      I must reiterate a point that was made in more general terms by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security during Question Time yesterday. During the fiscal year wich has just ended, the amount of invalidity benefit payable, had the benefit not been abated, regardless of any other income, to both single people and married couples was higher than the single or married personal allowance. The single person's allowance in 1982–83 was £1,565. The unabated rate of invalidity benefit last year would have been just less than £2 short of £1,600—above the single person's tax threshold.
      Mr. John: The Minister will recognise that that was an exceptional period, because in the Budget before last the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to raise personal allowances. If he had had a decent threshold policy, that position would never have arisen.
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman had no need to interrupt me, because it was a point that I was about to acknowledge. We estimate that about 90 per cent. of those in receipt of invalidity benefit last year—it can only be a rough and ready estimate because we do not have all the details about people's personal circumstances and their other possible sources of income and tax allowances—had the rate been unabated, would have paid some tax.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about this year?
      Mr. Newton: I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made—that, because of the recent increase in tax thresholds as a result of the Budget, the picture will be modified to some extent this year. It is difficult to know to what extent it will be modified. We still think that well over half—possibly up to 70 per cent. or 80 per cent.—would continue to be in the tax bracket, because this is another angle of the problem that has not been touched on at all—over 70 per cent. of invalidity beneficiaries also receive invalidity allowances ranging up to £7 a week, which is another £300 to £400 a year for the younger beneficiaries. The abatement of the invalidity allowances that were originally abated in 1980 was restored in 1981.
      I do not make those points to disguise the fact that the 5 per cent. abatement in lieu of tax remains a rough and ready measure. However, the impression has been created that in some way hundreds of thousands of people are bearing a burden that they would not bear if we had managed to make benefit unabated and taxed. That is an exaggeration.
      Mr. Rooker: In that case, will the Minister explain what has happened between 1980 and the present to alter the Government's figure, which they gave at the time of the passing of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, that over 400,000 invalidity beneficiaries were going to have their benefits cut, and it was known and estimated that they would not pay tax even if the benefit was taxed? What has happened in the meantime to alter that figure?
      Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt off the cuff at the Dispatch Box—
      Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister write to me?
      Mr. Newton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the estimates that I have given. I emphasise that inevitably they are broad.
      Mr. Ennals: This is not a matter on which the Minister can just write to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker); it is a matter for the House of Commons and the nation. If the figure was 400,000, the level of taxation must be such that more and more people have been caught by it during that period. Even if that is not so and the Minister has an explanation and even if, according to the Minister's figures, the figure is 200,000, there must be 200,000 people who are sick or getting a disability pension and who are suffering. The Minister says that the measure is rough and ready. It is certainly rough. One assumed when it was introduced that the Government were ready to introduce a system of taxation. It is rough on the poor, and the Government have been unready in introducing the system.
      Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman is making too much of a meal of this. A number of factors may be involved. One is the relative movement of tax thresholds and the levels of benefit. The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to the year in which there were no increases in tax thresholds. Another factor may be that at the time the estimates were given for the 1980 Act, the invalidity allowance was also being abated, which would have affected the issue to some extent. Yet another factor is that much would depend upon whether one made any allowance for the fact that large numbers of invalidity beneficiaries are, for various reasons, likely to have other forms of income as well, including, for example, occupational pensions or other benefits. That would contribute to bringing their total income into tax and would affect the extent to which tax could be seen to be falling on their invalidity benefit. Any estimates that we swap, that have been given in the past or that I have given this evening inevitably verge on the speculative. The most that one can attempt to do is to build up a reasonably broad picture.
      The point that I want to register, in the interests of sensible discussion and not just for the sake of point scoring, is that many people who are currently subjected to abated invalidity benefit in lieu of taxation would be paying tax if the abatement were restored and taxation introduced.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister said that when the benefit would be brought in was a matter for the Treasury. Are discussions taking place between his Department and the Treasury so that there is some prospect of it being done in the next five years?
      Mr. Newton: It is a matter on which we keep in touch with the Treasury. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of the pace of progress or developments in that area. That is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      I should like to make two other points. First—this will not entirely ease the anxieties of Opposition Members —it should be recognised that the least well off in this case, as in the case of unemployment benefit abatement which we debated in the House not so long ago, will be protected because supplementary benefit is not and never has been abated. We estimate that about 60,000 or 70,000 of those who would otherwise be affected by the abatement are protected by the availability of supplementary benefit. That will offset any loss of invalidity benefit or maternity allowance and the other benefits that have been affected at various times.

      349
      Secondly, Opposition Members, not unreasonably, could make a come-back on the fact that the merits of the protection of the supplementary benefit system have been considerably weakened, to put it no higher, by the existence of the invalidity trap, which has prevented those on invalidity benefit from moving on to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit, which would give my argument about the protection of supplementary benefit its greatest strength. In circumstances where it remains difficult for us to find as much additional money as we would like to do all the things that I, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend would like to do in social security, and where we therefore have to consider and choose our priorities carefully, I view with pride the end of the invalidity trap. For many years under successive Governments, with or without abatement, about 60,000 or 70,000 of our fellow citizens caught in the invalidity trap have been unable to qualify for long-term supplementary benefit. I view with pride the fact that we have been able to end that trap—for the over-60s by the end of next month and for the other 30,000 who are also caught in the trap by the time of the uprating in November 1983. At one fell swoop that will prevent about 70,000 people from being affected by the abatement and remove a longstanding injustice.
      Although there are many things that I would like to do in social security, including some that have been pressed on me tonight, we must take them step by step and choose our priorities. By choosing the priority at this time of ending the invalidity trap, we have made a useful contribution to social justice and taken a partial step in dealing with the problem to which Opposition Members have referred.
      Mr. Rooker: I think that the Minister is rejecting my amendment. He has not said so, but I have got the general gist of what he said.
      The Opposition wish to divide on this matter as it is not unimportant. The Minister talked with pride about what the Government have been able to cobble together in the Budget. However, he cannot escape the fact that when he was a silent Whip in Committee when the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 was being rushed through the House, each of that Bill's six clauses cut or abolished some sort of social security benefit. On the Minister's own admission, in answer to my parliamentary question of 18 November 1982, that saved the Government £500 million to last year. In other words, all the cuts that were made in 1980 have had a knock-on effect on the social security budget to 1982–83 of £500 million. When that is added to the £1 billion that the Government cut from last year's social security budget, one sees that there is little to be proud of.
      Just in case any hon. Member thinks that it would be a good idea to know what has been cut from the social security budget for 1983–84 because of what the Government have done since they came into office, I should tell them that the Minister has blocked any questions on the subject. He has refused to give the reasonable figures for which I asked so that I can update the information that he gave previously about the value of the cuts that were imposed by the legislation to which I have referred, including the abatement that we are discussing today. The Minister will not give that information, but one way or another we shall get it out of the Government.
      8 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister how much this amendment would cost? That would at least start to give us a little of that information.
      Mr. Rooker: That was my final point. Whatever else the Minister said, he did not tell us the cost of our amendment. Later this year, the Government will make their boasts, irrespective of whether the increase is 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. We are led to believe that everyone will get 4 per cent., but for the 700,000 long-term sick and disabled on invalidity benefits, that 4 per cent. will be on 95 per cent. of the benefit. The increase will not be 4 per cent. of 100 per cent. Therefore, they will be short-changed again this year. For that reason I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in support of the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 247.

      Division No. 123]

      [8.1 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

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

      Allaun, Frank

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh re)

      Alton, David

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      English, Michael

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Field, Frank

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Flannery, Martin

      Beith, A. J.

      Ford, Ben

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Forrester, John

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

      Foster, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foulkes, George

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Freud, Clement

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bradley, Tom

      Golding, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Graham, Ted

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

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

      Campbell, Ian

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Canavan, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Home Robertson, John

      Cartwright, John

      Homewood, William

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hooley, Frank

      Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

      Horam, John

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

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cowans, Harry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cryer, Bob

      John, Brynmor

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

      Lambie, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamond, James

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Litherland, Robert

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Dewar, Donald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dixon, Donald

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Dobson, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dormand, Jack

      McKelvey, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      351

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Meacher, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Mikardo, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Snape, Peter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

      Stott, Roger

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Strang, Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tilley, John

      Park, George

      Tinn, James

      Parker, John

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Parry, Robert

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Watkins, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Weetch, Ken

      Penhaligon, David

      Welsh, Michael

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      White, Frank R.

      Prescott, John

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Whitlock, William

      Radice, Giles

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

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

      Richardson, Jo

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George

      Woodall, Alec

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Roper, John

      Wright, Sheila

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ryman, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sever, John

      Mr. Norman Hogg and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Mr. George Morton

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Churchill, W. S.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Ancram, Michael

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Arnold, Tom

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Corrie, John

      Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bendall, Vivian

      Critchley, Julian

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Dover, Denshore

      Best, Keith

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Durant, Tony

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Blaker, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Andrew

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bright, Graham

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Brinton, Tim

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Farr, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Brotherton, Michael

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

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Budgen, Nick

      Fox, Marcus

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fry, Peter

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      352

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Gorst, John

      Mudd, David

      Gow, Ian

      Murphy, Christopher

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Neale, Gerrard

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Needham, Richard

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grieve, Percy

      Newton, Tony

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

      Onslow, Cranley

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Grist, Ian

      Osborn, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Parris, Matthew

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pawsey, James

      Hannam, John

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pollock, Alexander

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Porter, Barry

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hawksley, Warren

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Henderson, Barry

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Renton, Tim

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Hordern, Peter

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

      Rost, Peter

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lamont, Norman

      Silvester, Fred

      Lang, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Latham, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Lee, John

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sproat, Iain

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Stanley, John

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stevens, Martin

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'Ioo)

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Loveridge, John

      Stokes, John

      Luce, Richard

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Tapsell, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Thompson, Donald

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Thornton, Malcolm

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

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Madel, David

      Trippier, David

      Major, John

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Marland, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Waddington, David

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Wakeham, John

      Mather, Carol

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Mawby, Ray

      Waller, Gary

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walters, Dennis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Watson, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Wells, Bowen

      353

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Whitney, Raymond

      Wickenden, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mr. John Cope and

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Archie Hamilton.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'provided that any increase made in those sums in 1983 shall not be less than the increase that would have been made but for the passing of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1983.".'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'provided that in 1983 those sums shall be increased by not less than 6 per cent.".'.
      No. 50, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert
      'This Act comes into force on 21st May 1984.'.
      No. 47, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 48, in clause 3. page 3, line 8, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 9 and insert
      'come into force on 1st January 1984'.
      No. 49, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out from
      'shall' to end of line 9 and insert
      'come into force on 16th March 1984'.
      No. 51, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out 'March' and insert 'July'.
      No. 52, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out '1983' and insert '1984'.
      Mr. John: This group of amendments is the technical key to the Bill and, if passed, they will have the greatest practical effect upon the categories caught by the Bill. The reason why I demurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) mentioned amendment No. 27 during an earlier debate was that if amendment No. 24 is passed it will have the effect of uprating in November by a sum equivalent to what would have happened had the Bill not been enacted. That means the relevant rate of inflation in November.
      The Government have said that the Bill introduces only a technical change. When the Secretary of State was selling it to the House—or prescribing it, in view of what I called him on Second Reading—he advanced it as a measure of uprating that replaces guesswork with uncertainty. The Minister of State, who is not present now, suffered considerable embarrassment in his reply to that debate when he tried to square that statement with the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee in December, and to the House in January and February, when he said that both methods were equally erratic.
      8.15 pm
      However, we must concede—I do that so that the Minister who will reply need not make the point—that a week ago the House accepted the principle of historic uprating. Therefore, my amendments will tackle the other part of the equation, which is the effect of the uprating and whether people should be hurt unintentionally by a technical change.
      May 1983 has been chosen as the date for the change. We must remind the Department that the Chancellor's estimate of inflation in May is about 4 per cent. He said
      354
      that in the Budget statement, and has never denied the fact that that will not only be the lowest figure for some time past but may well be the lowest for some time to come. On 16 June, when the Department will calculate the inflation rate from May to May and decide by how much to uprate pensions from the following November, it is likely that the material at its disposal will be the lowest rate of inflation for some time.
      In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said—these are Government estimates and the best available, and I hope that the Secretary of State does not pour scorn on them, because the Chancellor may be a poor thing but he does his best with figures—that the best estimate of inflation for November is 6 per cent. That means that during the six months from May to November the rate of inflation will have increased by about 50 per cent. it may be a small figure, but it is a large percentage increase. There will be a 2 per cent. shortfall between the increase in prices for which the pensioner is compensated and the increase in prices that he must pay in the shops when he receives his larger pension. He must pay for goods in November with a pension that was calculated on shop prices in May, and the shortfall must last at least until the following November.
      Ministers have tried to give several answers to that point. The first is that an increase next November will compensate people for the loss that they have suffered. However, one can never compensate people for what they have lost because the category is not static. By November 1984 some people may no longer receive the benefit that they will enjoy this November and will miss out on that 2 per cent. for ever. Even under this Government, some of them may get a job and no longer be entitled to unemployment benefit. They will not be compensated. Some pensioners, and some of those who receive invalidity benefit, will be dead by then, and they can never be compensated.
      Mr. Field: Is not my hon. Friend being too kind to the Government? The Government cannot argue that one compensates people for the year that is lost. They may compensate in year two for price increases that occurred before year one, but the loss of the price increases in year one is never made up.
      Mr. John: I was going from the category argument to the conceptual argument, as to whether one can ever compensate in arrears for hardships undergone day by day and month by month. For year one, one cannot compensate. In any event, some of the categories of beneficiaries will be retrospectively compensated in some measure but will never collect that compensation because they have ceased to be in the category.
      We must ask ourselves who is involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke of this, and I have no hesitation in reminding hon. Members of it because of an important mistake that is sometimes made, but which should be corrected. We talk of the pensioner, and any category of 9 million people—the retirement pensioners—is bound to loom large in our considerations. However, the retirement pensioners are not the only category affected. I should like to go through the categories affected and show how a 2 per cent. gap between the actual rate of inflation and the rate of inflation for which they are compensated will affect their weekly income.

      355
      First, there are the retirement pensioners and with them those in receipt of invalidity pension. In both those cases a married couple, on the historic basis—calculating the expected inflation rate—will lose £1·05 a week, and a single person will lose 65p a week. In addition, the unemployed and those on sickness benefit will lose 80p a week from the income of a married couple and 50p from that of a single person. Widows, on pensions and the widowed mothers' allowance, will lose on average 60p a week. Those on widows' allowance will lose 90p a week.
      The non-contributory invalidity pension was hard fought for and was a major step forward in the treatment of invalids in this country, because so many had failed to qualify under the contributory rules. Married couples will lose 65p, and single persons 40p of that pension. Invalid care allowance also decreases by respectively 65p and 40p. At the higher rate of attendance allowance, married couples will lose 55p a week and at the lower rate 35p a week.
      In addition to these categories, there are war pensioners, industrial injury benefit beneficiaries, supplementary benefit beneficiaries, housing benefit beneficiaries and public service pensioners. We are talking about an enormous number of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr spoke of a figure near to 20 million people, and he was not exaggerating. That is 20 million people in our society who are affected by the measures going through the House tonight. Like my hon. Friend, I only wish that the importance and the relevance of the subject were reflected in the amount of interest shown by the media.
      So often, these matters of great moment—I think that the Treasury Bench will not disagree—which have a direct and vital connection with many millions in our community are lost in the pursuit of the trivial and the sensational. I know what I think will be the headlines tomorrow. They will not be about the Bill but about something that occurred before the Bill and outside the Chamber. It is a shame that people who are among the poorest in the country are allowed to suffer these cuts without any great outcry or publicity in the press.
      In addition to the argument about compensating for a year in November, another argument has been made. It is wearing a bit thin now, and the Minister for Social Security has worn out and gone. However, he was using the argument that, by giving the 4 per cent. in November the Government are actually giving more than if they had uprated by 6 per cent. on the forecast method. The argument goes that, if they had uprated on the forecast rate, they would have been bound to claw back the 2·7 per cent. overshoot last year. If they had clawed back the overshoot, the recipients would have got only a 3·3 per cent. increase. They are saying, "Generous old us: we have changed the system and are thus giving 0·7 per cent. more than we would have done, because of the historic method."
      Let me repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, because repetition in this matter is not a fault. We must get the facts of this case across. There is no statutory obligation on the Government to claw back any overshoot that they make under the forecast system. When the Minister suggested that all Governments had done so, I was guilty of a sotto voce unparliamentary expression, which, fortunately, the Chair did not hear. I
      356
      did so because in 1976 and 1977 there was a similar overestimate, but that was not clawed back in 1977 or 1978. It is nonsense for the Minister to say that the Government would have had to claw back any overshoot and would have had to have taken away 2·7 per cent.
      The lie to the Minister's argument—I use that in non-pejorative sense — was given by the Chancellor when he made the initial announcement. He said that he did not yet know whether they would take away 2·7 per cent., 2 per cent. or 1·7 per cent. That shows that there was no necessity to take back the full 2·7 per cent., and that was already recognised by the Chancellor.
      That announcement had quite a reception. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others on the Conservative Benches joined us in their outrage at it — whether because of the election or because of the principle, one can only speculate. Let us be generous. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead accused me a little while ago of being over-generous, so I shall be under-generous now. However, there was a cry of outrage from both sides of the House, which meant that the Government would have faced real difficulty in securing the full clawback even had they pressed ahead and done it by means of their so-called in-built majority. They have had enough narrow squeaks on unemployment benefit without a further challenge. The swiftness and hostility of the reaction is another reason why I do not believe that the Government would have clawed back the 2·7 per cent.
      So because of the lack of a requirement to do so, and because of the public reaction to the suggestion that the Government might possibly do so, I believe that the full 6 per cent. uprating would have been made next November, had we stuck to the forecast system. Therefore, a 4 per cent. uprating on the historic basis and a 2 per cent. shortfall between the inflation rate in May and next November would go a long way to compensate the Government. I shall not use the word "clawback", because the Government dislike it, although it was the Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who invented that noun. The non-payment of 2 per cent., saving £210 million in this tax year, but £580 million in a full tax year, will compensate the Government for what they consider was an overpayment last year.
      Let me put another point to the Government to explain why I believe that no clawback would have been effected, had the Government stuck to the forecast method. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proclaimed loudly that living standards had gone up by 5·5 per cent. under this Government. He said that everyone was better off. We had a Budget designed to better the standard of living of some people. That was the sole purpose of the giveaway part of the Budget. Therefore, it would have been inconceivable, at a time when the Government were encouraging and inducing people to feel that they were better off, that they should have clawed back the full amount from 9 million pensioners, of whom the majority are not among the richest in the country.
      8.30 pm
      I come back to the answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). He asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would revise the figure of £180 million estimated savings in the social security budget, assuming a rate of 4 per cent. May on May and 6 per cent. November on November. It is

      357
      interesting that that information was not first elicited on 11 April. The Chancellor had already estimated that he would save £180 million. All that was elicited on 11 April was that a further £30 million had to be added to that sum in the first year of operation, so as to make it £210 million.
      The Minister of State said that that was full of assumptions. We had to assume that the Government would have uprated by 6 per cent. As I said, I think it is highly likely that they would have done so. Had they not done so, they would have faced a tremendous electoral outcry, because at the time when the clawback was suggested the reaction of organisations involved in this sphere was fierce. Moreover, for many reasons, I believe that the Government would have had to obey their own inclinations. Thus, the £210 million in the first tax year, and the £580 million in a full year, represent a saving to the Government and a loss in cuts in the weekly income of all the categories that I have mentioned.
      My hon. Friend reiterated that at the margins at which most of these beneficiaries operate, to deprive them of £1 a week is an enormous penalty. That may not be a penalty to many categories in society, but £1 a week to a married couple on invalidity pension, £1 to people on retirement pension, and 80p a week to people on unemployment pension are tremendous penalties. It is quite unfair that they should be the victims of what is presented by the Government as a choice made by the Government so as to give them a fairer uprating. They say, "The historic method is much fairer, so let us do it in a way that actually causes a loss to those whom we seek to protect."
      The Government can avoid doing that by the alternative that we have proposed. Amendment No. 24 would insert at the end of line 17:
      "provided that any increase made in those sums in 1983 shall not be less than the increase that would have been made but for the passing of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1983."
      We are suggesting that when, part way through a year, a change is made which is ostensibly technical, those dependent upon that uprating for their standard of living shall not be taken by surprise. At least for that year, they should be protected against the consequences of that technical adjustment. I see no good reason why the Government should not do that.
      The alternative is that set out in amendment No. 50 and those consequential upon it. That is a less satisfactory way of doing it, but—
      Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government really were trying to make a fairer uprating, the Christmas bonus, which is a misnomer in any case, could be used as a genuine bonus to compensate pensioners for the loss in real pension that they suffer during the year?
      Mr. John: Yes, that is true. The hon. Gentleman may know that I put forward three alternatives for this year, any one of which, or one of their own choosing, the Government could have produced had they been able to tear themselves away from the memoirs of my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) long enough to be able to get down to the nitty-gritty of social security.
      I allowed the Government a choice of three, one of which was that described by the hon. Gentleman. Another was roughly what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked—if 2 per cent. Is
      358
      one week's income during the course of a year, why not give an extra week's payment in order to secure that compensation? There are several ways of doing it.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield suggested that, if we are to change the rule, we should do so with due notice and postpone the coming into operation of the Act until everybody will know about it, will have expected it, and, what is more important, will have budgeted accordingly. However, one of the problems of changing the rules midway through a year is the lack of preparation for budgeting by people on fairly small incomes.
      If the Government are serious in saying that they want a change of method which will more adequately protect the beneficiaries, they will ensure that no one suffers. If the Government do not ensure that no one suffers, the suspicion will be that the real motive behind the change is the saving of £210 million in this tax year and £580 million in a full tax year. There was a 20 per cent. real increase in pensioners' incomes over the last Labour Government's period of office. That is a record that the Government will not even remotely approach. The £580 million in a full year must be added to the £1·5 billion that the Government have already pared away by changing rules, regulations, dates of uprating, and so on.
      Mr. Fowler: Does what the hon. Gentleman is saving mean that he defends the decision of the last Labour Government to change the method of uprating?
      Mr. John: I defend the record of the last Labour Government in their overall dealing with pensioners. They received a 20 per cent. real increase. The right hon. Gentleman said that the cost of living had risen by 70 per cent. and that the Government had increased pensions by 75 per cent., but that is over a base of 100 which they do not admit. Therefore, they arrive at a crude figure of 5 per cent. whereas, in fact, the real increase is 2.6 per cent., of which 1·8 per cent. was an inherited commitment to restore the undershoot of 1979.
      Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that some Labour Members do not think that what the last Labour Government did was acceptable? Does he care to go on record as saying that if he were the Secretary of State for Social Services—
      Mr. Foulkes: He will be.
      Mr. Field: My hon. Friend may have another task to fulfil in the next Government. If he were the Secretary of State and the Cabinet asked him to bring forward such a measure, would he not welcome his supporters voting against such a proposal?
      Mr. John: I should never welcome supporters voting against me, because they would not then be fulfilling their role as supporters. However, let me give the categoric assurance that, if I were to be Secretary of State for Social Services, I should never introduce a change in the method of calculating pensions without, at the same time, ensuring that no one lost in that year as a result.
      In case right hon. and hon. Members wish to quote that back to me in future years, I am quite categorical about it. It is a matter of honour and I would be prepared to follow the consequences of it. Any Secretary of State for Social Services who — like this Secretary of State —allows the poorest in the land to suffer for the sums that I have mentioned under the guise of a technical change and at a time when the Chancellor is giving money away to

      359
      other categories of people, is practising a cruel deception on the people. He ought to have the courage to take the action that I have outlined.
      Mr. Field: I shall be brief, Mr. Weatherill. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is present. In the Wirral, Members of different parties work closely together in trying to protect the interests of those whom we represent. The hon. Member was not present earlier when the Minister for Social Security made it plain that, although it is not described as such, the Bill is a clawback measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said very effectively the other day, the effect of the measure is to deny a whole week's benefit to large numbers of beneficiaries.
      The Wirral and Birkenhead are neighbouring seats. Every pensioner there will lose a week's pension. Every national insurance widow will lose a week's pension. Everyone with a public service pension will lose a week's pension, and every widow of a public service pensioner will lose a week's benefit. Almost every beneficiary in our two areas — leaving out those who claim only child benefit — will lose a week's benefit through this measure. I hope that the spirit that prevails in the Wirral on other issues—the spirit of putting the interests of our constituents first—will be applied to this measure as well. I hope that I and the hon. Gentleman—I might well call him my hon. Friend, because we work closely together on so many issues—will be in the same Lobby tonight to protect the people in both the Wirral and Birkenhead from suffering those cuts in benefit.
      The Minister for Social Security today made the important admission that the Bill is a clawback measure. I therefore hope that the spirit of fellowship and brotherhood that always operates in the Wirral will operate when we vote on the clause.
      Secondly, I should like to take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and to refer to the moment when I accused him—fairly, I hope—of being too soft on the Government in reviewing the measure as he did.
      We know that everyone will suffer a cut in benefit as a result of the Bill and that if the inflation forecasts are wrong the loss will be even greater. We are told by the Government that the shortfall will be made good at some future date, but in fact shortfalls are never made good. Let us take the example of a very simple economy, existing for only three years and with a 1 per cent. increase in inflation per year. Under the Bill, in the first year people would lose the compensation for one year's inflation at 1 per cent. At the end of the second year, again assuming an increase in inflation of 1 per cent., they would receive an increase of 1 per cent. for that year and 1 per cent. for the first year. Prices, however, would have risen by 3 per cent. in all. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) suggested that we should not be talking about making compensation in future years by adjusting the rates of benefit because we never do it properly. In that context, achieving the same end by means, for example, of a Christmas bonus is extremely effective.
      We have tabled a number of amendments that would protect everyone in Birkenhead and Wirral. Amendment No. 24 would ensure that nobody in my constituency or
      360
      in that of the hon. Member for Wirral would be worse off because the shortfall would be made good. Amendment No. 25 refers to an increase of 6 per cent. this year. If that amendment is passed none of our constituents will be made worse off. Amendment No. 50 would postpone implementation of the legislation until 1984, again ensuring that none of our constituents would be made worse off. I hope that if those amendments are pressed to Divisions they will not only be supported by Opposition Members.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) gave an assurance about how he would deal with the problems of uprating next year. I hope that he will be in a position to carry that out this time next year. Today, however, we should seek assurances from all parties, not least an assurance from the Minister, as to what the Conservatives will do if they are still in office this time next year.
      The Government have deliberately chosen a month that will allow them to make the minimum uprating this year. That being so, in the very nature of things they will have to make a bigger uprating in 12 months' time than if they had chosen a different month. We want a clear assurance that they will not try to fiddle the system again. They might say, for instance, that the Opposition pressed hard for the uprating to be a month later this year to narrow the gap between announcement and implementation and thus slip onwards to the month of June. Alternatively, they might try to say that there were more difficulties this year than they had expected and slip back to April. Having chosen an especially favourable month this year to give away as little money as possible, their track record suggests that they will twist and turn to spend as little as possible next year as well. We therefore require a clear assurance that if they are still in office they will not attempt to twist the system again. We must have a clear assurance at this stage that, whatever happens, pensioners will be treated better next year than they have been treated this year.
      The Government say that they have devised a system to raise pensions by 2 per cent. less this autumn than would have been the case without the legislation, and that they are saving £210 million as a result. That means the Government are saving £210 million to spend on something else, such as fortress Falklands or a series of other Government measures. I can produce a long list of cuts that would save £210 million and avoid affecting pensioners and other people on low incomes. What would it mean if that sum of money were raised by extra taxation? For the person on average earnings or above an extra lop a week would be asked for. Most people in this country can afford to pay an extra 10p per week, thereby producing £210 million. Most people in the country would agree that to pay that money to help pensioners and those on low incomes would be worthwhile.
      The Government are saying that it is easier not to bother and to let the pensioner and others on low incomes to be worse off by 65p or £1·05.
      Very often the House talks in percentage terms. It does not spend long enough assessing how much money pensioners have in their pockets. How would the Minister start to spend that money if he were trying to live for a week on the old age pension? The basic pension, if it goes

      361
      up under this measure, will be only £34·15. What does the Minister consider should be spent out of that income on food? Does he expect to get away with spending much less than £3 a day on food——£21 a week? It is not possible to get much change out of £21 a week when shopping. Try buying a joint of meat. That may not be an item that is bought more than once or twice a week, but it makes a hole in £3 a day.
      Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) accept that, while I follow exactly what he says, an old age pensioner suffers additional expense because he often has to cater only for himself and the figure of £3 a head, which might be a general figure, is really much higher for a person living on his own?
      Mr. Bennett: I fully accept that point. I am sure the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will realise that many people spend much more than £3 on a meal. Many hon. Members often spend £3 on one item in a meal. In many instances larger amounts of food are bought than are immediately required, and it is necessary to eat the same food day after day or waste it—all because it is not possible to purchase small portions. The Minister should tell the House how much money he thinks the pensioner has to spend on food and try to budget for the pensioner. It is not easy.
      A pensioner will be lucky if he is able to heat most of his accommodation for under £4 or £5 a week. Many pensioners who attend my advice bureau have bills for heating and lighting considerably in excess of that. Will the Minister tell the Committee how much he considers should be allocated out of that £34·15 to heating and lighting? How much needs to be put way each week for clothing, replacing bedding and curtains and items of that type? The Minister would be lucky, when he did his budget, if he could put more than £2 or £3 aside. Then there are expenses such as dry cleaning, cleaning windows and the house. Again, the Minister would be lucky if he could allocate more than £1 a week for that in that budget. Then there is insurance, house repairs and bus fares. If the Minister is allocating reasonable amounts of money, he will begin to find he has not sufficient money to make ends meet. All hon. Members will agree that pensioners and those on supplementary benefit ought to be entitled to some pleasures, such as a television and a television licence. More than £1 a week must be spent on that. The Minister would quickly discover that £34·15 is not enough to get by on. If a pensioner is to get by he needs children who can contribute cash or who can invite him out for meals and so on. A person on benefit will need someone to subsidise him in some way to enable him to get by.
      The Minister should tell the Committee how he would allocate the money and try to convince us that he should not give that extra 65p a week. He should try to persuade us that it is unreasonable to give pensioners that money or to ask the taxpayer to pay the extra 10p a week that would be necessary. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to that argument. How can today's pensioners or those on supplementary benefit get by on such sums of money?
      I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I could mention the problems faced by a married couple. The chance of getting by on their incomes is virtually nil. Most of us would have to struggle to do it. The Government should be prepared to say that they will increase benefits by at least 6 per cent. this autumn, rather than by the 4 per cent. that they intend.
      Mr. Foulkes: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this amendment, because I have been doing a little detective work. I notice that the Minister has slunk away and—to use, I believe, a cricketing expression—retired hurt. He was certainly under tremendous attack and did not seem well able to defend himself during our previous important debate. You were not here, Mr. Weatherill, but you would have found it unbelievable if you had been.
      The Minister said that, thanks to increased efficiency, he could now get the uprating through in just over five months. He was congratulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—a saint if ever I saw one—on his great efficiency. However, although the Minister can get the uprating through in just over five months, he somehow cannot do it twice a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) pointed out, there are 12 months in a year, and, if one uprating takes just over five months, it is possible to do it twice a year. The Minister could not give us any reason earlier, so now we have the big guns in the Chamber who are possibly better able to answer. Perhaps the Minister has left because he has a record—
      Mr. Field: As long as your ann.
      Mr. Foulkes: Indeed, as long as anyone's arm.
      Let us trace the genesis of the savings that are necessary. We have a little clue if we look at the minutes of the Social Services Committee for 15 December 1982. The Minister said:
      "we will have to achieve a saving of £180 million in our anticipated expenditure plans for next year."
      Therefore, the genesis can be traced to a saving that is required of the Department by the Treasury. The Secretary of State may shake his head, but he will have an opportunity to reply. As far as I can see, that is the genesis. Later, the Minister said:
      "I hope to avoid legislatior, if at all possible"—
      after the last time, I do not blame him—
      "because legislation leads to other problems, as the hon. Gentleman well knows."
      Let us consider the evidence when the clawback was introduced in 1981. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden), were furious and up in arms. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) looks round. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton is normally here for such debates, but he is not here today. He pressed and pushed hard against the clawback. He tried to obtain an assurance from the Minister that such a dreadful clawback would not be introduced again. The Minister said:
      "The operation is for this year alone. If we had wished to reserve the power to take such action annually, we could have drafted the clause accordingly. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will take this limitation as an earnest of our good intent not to go through the operation again."
      Picture the dilemma at the DHSS at the Elephant and Castle, Mr. Weatherill—that marvellous building on the other side of the river. The Department is required to make a saving. That is probably the requirement not only of the Treasury but of the great leader, who is the First Lord of the Treasury. However, the Minister for Social Security, as an earnest of his good intent, has said that no clawback will ever take place again.
      9 pm
      The great minds of those at the Elephant and Castle were set to finding a way of disguising a clawback. They were asked to produce some clever device which, when

      363
      implemented, would amount to a clawback but would not be apparent as one. Of course, the device has been rumbled. The cover-up did not last long. It was thought to be too much of a coincidence that the Government found it convenient to revert from the forecast method to the historic system at this stage. With our suspicious minds, and the alacrity of response of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others, it became clear quickly that the clawback would be rumbled. However much bluster may be exhibited on the Government Benches, the pensioners know that a clawback is taking place.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, I have received letters galore on this issue. They have been passed to me from various organisations. Individual pensioners in my constituency have spoken to me about it. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North quoted the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association and Pensioners' Voice. George Dunn of Pensioners' Voice, who is well known to many hon. Members, stated that the
      "Chancellor's proposals are merely a shabby masquerade attempting to discguise what in effect, is a 'clawback'."
      That comment was extremely well put. The British Association of Retired Persons has a distinguished list of honorary vice-presidents, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), myself and one or two others. The members of the association are not all radicals and militants.
      Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is not.
      Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is not here to defend himself. I shall have to defend him. The hon. Gentleman has been a great man today. Ian Mackenzie, the founder and chairman of the British Association of Retired Persons, said:
      "We certainly agree that the change of method of calculation of pension the rate has been unfortunate at this time, many of our members"—
      they are retired middle-class people—
      "consider that the change is a method of enforcing the 'clawback' in a concealed form."
      The pensioners and their organisations realise what is happening. They have rumbled what the Government are doing.
      I am worried that some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members accept that it is adequate for pensions merely to keep up with the retail price index. That should never be our acceptance. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North said, pensions started from a low base. Apart from the 20 per cent. increase that pensioners received under the Labour Government, it can be fairly asked, "Are they never going to receive any real increase? Are they never going to get near one third of average earnings for single people or half average earnings for a married couple?" Those are the fractions for which the pensioners' organisations are asking.
      Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that pensioners do especially badly on the retail price index argument? One of the causes for the reduction of inflation is that mortgage rates have decreased, but only one pensioner in 50 has a mortgage.
      Mr. Foulkes: There are three main elements in a pensioners' budget, and the pensioners' price index, which
      364
      the Government have devised, is a fraud. It has been exposed in the book "Inflation and Elderly People" by William Smith, a discussion document by Age Concern.
      There are three main elements in a pensioner's budget. The first is food. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that food costs are not going up rapidly on the retail price index. A family unit, such as mine—I have a wife and three children—can buy family packs. The vast majority of people are part of family units. Ironically, it is cheaper to buy products in family packs than to buy small packs. When pensioners can get small packs, they have to pay more per pound, per kilogramme or per litre. Therefore, their costs go up more than the retail price index. Sometines they cannot get small packs. Has anyone seen half pints of milk recently? When I was young I used to see them, but we cannot get them now. Pensioners have to buy larger packs than they need, with the result that the food goes off before they can use it all.
      Another major element in the pensioner's budget is fuel. Fuel costs have gone up rapidly—much more than inflation. Fuel takes a larger percentage of an old person's budget because he is at home most of the time. The same applies to the disabled and the unemployed. If a family man is out working, his children at school and his wife out shopping, the heat is not on all the time, but the pensioner's heating is on all the time and has to be at a higher level because he feels the cold more.
      As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, mortgage relief—the item which has depressed the RPI more than anything else—applies only to one in 50 pensioners. If a proper scientific analysis is made of the pensioners' price index, it will be found that it has gone up more than the retail price index. I understand that Age Concern reckons that it has gone up 4 per cent. more.
      The point I was making earlier was that I was worried about the seeming acceptance that pensions should just keep up with the cost of living. The advantage of the link with earnings or prices, whichever was the higher—the system adopted by the Labour Government—was not fully appreciated at the time. It had a ratchet effect. It meant that all pensioners got a real increase, which it is very difficult to get any Government to agree to otherwise.
      I hope the Government, or some members of it, will give some consideration to the amendment. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) has taken the place of the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). Galloway is full of old age pensioners, many of whom will lose money because of the Government's proposals.
      As pensioners have told me on a number of occasions, the postponement of any increase effectively means that about 500,000 pensioners each year will die before it comes into effect. They will never get the benefit of any increase.
      It has also been pointed out to me that many pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to supplementary benefits, and that results in a leeway of about £150 million. Pensioners would not have to apply for extra benefit if the basic pension were increased, and that is what we are suggesting.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: The Government appear to be saying that pensions are now pitched at the right level and that the percentage is almost immutable. Does that not mean that, as earnings increase, pensions in

      365
      real terms will continue to diminish on a progressive scale? Unless something is done, many people will be buried before the increased benefits accrue.
      Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is correct. Although real earnings have gone up, pensioners have not received a real increase. They have therefore fallen behind in real terms compared with the employed.
      It is wrong of the Government to suggest that people in work are unwilling to pay for proper pensions for the elderly. Everyone during his working life contributes fully and well towards the pension that he will receive on retirement. That should never be forgotten. Secondly, most of the working people to whom I have spoken are willing to contribute to ensure that the elderly have a decent standard of living.
      I hope that this amendment will find more favour than amendment No. 1. It is ridiculous that we should be going through this pantomime now—even the Minister has said that the legislation will cause more problems —when we know that there will be an election within the next 12 months and that there will be a change of Government — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is quite clear. We know that a Labour Government will be returned. In view of the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), it is crazy to go through this exercise at this stage.
      Worst of all, this is part of the whole Budget exercise, which has given extra mortgage and tax relief to the already well off, helped those who are already rich, and penalised the poor. It is in that context that the Bill must be opposed. I hope that some Conservative Members—if not the hon. Member for Wirral, perhaps the hon. Member for Galloway — will at least vote for the amendment to postpone the introduction of the penalty contained in the Bill. This measure should not be called by its long, cumbersome title of Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill; it should simply be called the "clawback" Bill.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: I listened to most of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), just as I did to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) in an earlier debate. In the debate last week, along with other colleagues, I pointed out that the Chancellor's prediction of a 6 per cent. increase in the cost of living could well be a conservative estimate.
      9.15 pm
      Since the Chancellor made that speech there have been some dramatic increases in vital commodities, including fuel prices. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not know, when formulating the Budget, that the oil companies, despite a reduction in the price of a barrel of oil, would lump, in one go, 20p on the price of a gallon of petrol. That sort of increase is bound quickly to work its way through into retail prices and affect the cost of living.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire thought that few pensioners were owner-occupiers. From my experience in my constituency I would agree with that. Most of them, because of the make-up of the constituency, are council house tenants. Although some of them have received help, there has been a drift because of substantial increases in council house rents in the past three years. More money has been taken out of their pockets by the
      366
      drift in social security benefits and rent rebates and because of lower standards forced on low-paid workers. Each substantial increase in council house rents —arbitrarily imposed because of the actions of the Government—has resulted in more people, including wage earners, having to apply for assistance. This measure will escalate that trend, which will continue until there is a complete reversal in the economic situation and people return to work.
      If the sums involved are as insignificant as the Minister predicts I see no logical reason why the Bill should not be put on ice for 12 months. As the Act which was passed last year has begun to take effect, it has been shown to be a complete flop. Old-age pensioners are finding difficulties with it. In the debate last week I pointed out that in one weekend a councillor in my area had had to deal with two threatened evictions because of benefits not reaching people in the privately tenanted sector in time. I have received another letter from him, councillor Fathers, a diligent person, and with the permission of the Committee I will read a section of it:
      "Dear Joe,
      Further problems with the unified benefit scheme have arisen. You will remember that some council tenants were given notice of eviction for non-payment of rent"—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that is going a little wide of the subject.
      Mr. Dean: I am explaining why the measure should be delayed for 12 months. The whole thing is a shambles. When I raised the matter last week the Minister did not answer it. It is not a lot to ask for a few minutes in which to make the point so that it is on record and the Government know of the difficulties their actions are causing. I do not think I am noted for delaying matters. I do not speak all that often, anyway, and I probably will not get another chance to make this point to the Government if you instruct me to resume my seat now, Mr. Weatherill. That is why I asked for the permission of the Committee to quote from the letter, and I thought I was given permission. The letter states:
      "You will remember that some council house tenants were given notice of eviction for non-payment of rent"—
      Some hon. Members are laughing. I received a telephone call late one evening about two constituents who were threatened with eviction because the Act is not working. They do not think that it is a laughing matter. They think that we are fools for having passed legislation that affects the houses in which they are living. The letter goes on:
      "because although their benefits had been cut, the social security housing allowance was not being paid in time by the local authority."
      That gives the lie to the part of the Act that says there will be no extra work for the local authority. I have never found that one could have legislation that introduces a new scheme without increasing local authorities' work. They have been asked to take on extra duties although they have had staff cuts imposed upon them by the reduction of the rate support grant.
      "I know an owner-occupier whose benefit has been cut by the removal of any contribution to his housing costs. Nevertheless, he has received no payment from the local authority but has been sent a bill for his full rates of over £100. Last night I was asked to help in the case of two private tenants in Armley who were threatened with eviction. Again, their benefits have been cut but they have not received any payment from the council. Understandably, their landlord holds them responsible for their rents even though they have no money. It appears that the

      367
      necessary information is not being passed from the DHSS to the local authority. I remember also that central Government was being mean about the additional resources it was allowing to the local authority for the extra work involved. I am only one councillor. If my experience is typical, there must be a lot of people in this city who are worried silly by the thought that they may well be made homeless by this cock-up. Can you help find out why this is happening? Whatever the cause, I feel too, that this messy state of affairs should be given an airing in the hope that we might prevent someone being put on the streets purely out of impatience with such bureaucratic bungling."
      It is not an intrusion on the normal procedures of the House to bring such circumstances to light. Leeds is a large city of 750,000 peple but those problems are not unique. Every hon. Member, whether he belongs to the Labour or the Conservative party, will receive examples of such cases in the near future.
      I said that the original Act was a mess and that it would create difficulty where there was none. In my opinion, these latest measures will only compound that difficulty. I ask the Minister to look upon the amendment sympathetically and put the Bill on ice for 12 months. If he cannot do that, will he assure the Committee that there will be a full investigation into the workings of the Act, because it is not working as the Government thought it would?
      Mr. Fowler: I want to say to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who raised the issue with me, that, as I made clear when we were discussing the group of amendments before this, we intend to keep to the May to May measure. That is why we put May into the primary legislation. We should only want to change that if we could reduce the gap between the time of the uprating announcement and the uprating. We should then have to bring amending legislation before the House.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is that a similar undertaking to that which we have received from the Opposition Front Bench — that they would not make use of that manoeuvre to pay a small increase, but would ensure that it was used in a year which would result in a bigger increase being paid?
      Mr. Fowler: I am coming to the commitment that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made. The initial point that we all move from is that the Labour Government introduced the forecast system in 1976. There is no serious doubt that in 1976 they did that to save money. That is clearly documented.
      The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was frank about his position. He said that the system was not acceptable. However, he will concede that it was prepared and introduced by the Labour Government. I was a little less clear about where the hon. Member for Pontypridd stood on that matter. When I asked him whether everything he had been saying up to that point meant that he was opposed to the change that took place, he promptly sat down, not enabling me to get a reply.
      Mr. Stallard: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
      The hon. Member for Pontypridd and others have lectured the Government throughout the debate, but they should be reminded where this story began. We did not
      368
      drift into the forecast method. We went into the forecast method through a deliberate act of policy by the Labour Government.
      This is unquestionably an important group of amendments.
      Mr. John: The Secretary of State will accept that I was in another Department and therefore had other preoccupations at that time. How many votes did the Conservative Opposition mount against the change in the system? My understanding is that they did not oppose that change, even in those circumstances.
      Mr. Fowler: We did not oppose the change. The hon. Gentleman is right. We did not seek to challenge the Government's judgment of public spending at that time. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously putting forward the argument that the responsibility of the Opposition excused him and the Labour Government for putting forward that policy, that is the most extraordinary case for the defence that I have heard for a long time.
      Mr. John: It means that a few of the pious and sanctimonious words of the right hon. Gentleman ought to stick in his throat and choke him.
      Mr. Fowler: It means that the hon. Gentleman's sanctimonious attitude is misplaced. The Labour party—including the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who was frank enough to concede that he wants no part of the system and does not accept it, and I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is probably in the same position—knows perfectly well that the Labour Government fiddled the system. Those are the facts. The change was approved by present Opposition Members. The modest point that I make is that, far from Conservative Members being sanctimonious, Opposition Members who lecture us need to adopt some humility and recognise their past record.
      These amendments are important. The intention of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is clear. They want to retain the present provision for the 1983 uprating as inflation in November is currently forecast to be above the rate of inflation in May. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear during his Budget statement that inflation in November is likely to be about 6 per cent., whereas for May we are working on the assumption that it will be 4·25 per cent. Obviously, those forecasts, like previous ones, might be wrong.
      The debate has not been about the forecast and historic methods. Whatever divisions there are in the Committee, the case for change to the historic method has now been accepted in the Committee just as it has been outside. That is not surprising because the forecast method was introduced for the wrong reasons and did not work.
      9.30 pm
      I cannot accept that we should postpone the Bill's coming into effect or write in a requirement that the Government should increase pensions in November by not less than 6 per cent. I shall say why. In 1976, when the system was changed from the historic to the forecast method, the Government ignored the eight months of rapid inflation which had taken place and substituted their own estimate of what inflation would be in the 12 months to November 1976. The result was that pensioners and other

      369
      social security beneficiaries missed out on those eight months, which were lost for ever. There was and is no way in which those months can ever be recovered.
      The fundamental difference between the proposals that were made by the Labour Government and the proposals that we have presented to the Committee today is that, under our method, that gap will not exist. In other words, any increase in inflation between the end of May and November will be caught automatically in the following year's uprating. If the Budget forecasts are correct and inflation is 4·25 per cent. in May and 6 per cent. in November, the difference will automatically be paid as part of the following year's uprating. Of course, the system could equally work the other way. If inflation falls rather than increases between May and November, pensioners will benefit from that.
      The other point that has been ignored is that this year pensioners and other beneficiaries have enjoyed the advantage of the overestimate of inflation in the 1982 Budget. The estimate for inflation for the 12 months between November 1981 and November 1982 was 9 per cent. Inflation worked out at 6·3 per cent., which resulted in a 2·7 per cent. overpayment in the current year. The recipient will receive whatever the May figure is. He will retain the 2·7 per cent. and have the assurance that any increase in inflation between May and November this year will be picked up in the next uprating. Even without that assurance, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated, in the five years from November 1978 to November 1983, the retail price index will have increased by 70 per cent., whereas pensions will have increased by 75 per cent. If we had stuck to the forecast method and automatically adjusted for the overshoot this year — such adjustments were an integral part of the forecast method—the payment in November would be not about 4 per cent., but 3·3 per cent.
      My last point goes directly to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). The Government have been criticised for making a saving in the social security budget. In 1982 we spent £32·5 billion on social security, and in 1983–84 we plan to spend £34·5 billion. The significance of those figures is that it is not a reduction in the planned expenditure—
      Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that those gross figures are meaningless because there are now more old people and more unemployed, so the social security budget is bigger? We must consider the real value of the pension that each individual receives. The Government are clawing back £210 million with this Bill.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. If we consider the real value of the pension compared with the retail price index — the Select Committee said that the retail price index was probably the best comparison—and take it up to the current year, we are ahead of prices. On the forecast we are ahead of prices, which means a real increase—[Interruption.] I am not talking about the total budget.
      The hon. Member for South Ayrshire, in an amusing and polished speech, said that he had done some detective work, but, regrettably, his detective work did not take him to the Government's expenditure plans. They are significant because the money being made available for social security represents not a reduction in the plans published in February, but a £220 million increase for
      370
      1983–84 and a £590 million increase in a full year. That shows the significance and importance of the Government's proposals. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. John: I wish that the Secretary of State's reply had been more adequate. I must remind him of what we are doing. We are not assailing the principle of the Bill because, Second Reading having been given, the Committee cannot do that. We accept that there will be a change to the historic system, but we ask whether a Government who exhibit the care and compassion that the Secretary of State says they do will make sure that those who are affected by the change this year will not lose as a consequence. That is what amendment No. 24 says, but the Secretary of State did not even mention it in his reply. He is more in tune with 1976 than with 1983. I remind him, so that he will not use it again, that in 1976 the Conservative Opposition did not vote against the previous change.
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Where was the hon. Gentleman in 1976?
      Mr. John: I know that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is in a difficult position. As a Whip he can only smile benignly or scowl, as he more frequently does, but in 1979 he signed an early-day motion that called for twice-yearly upratings. That is in sad contrast to what he has done tonight, and he has the temerity to ask me where I was in 1976. I ask him where he is tonight.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) was worried that it might be believed that some Labour Members accepted only parity in pricing. Some amendments sought to restore an earnings link, but they were properly ruled out of order. However, it is fair to say that we do not accept that proposition. The great change between 1976 and now is that in 1976 pensioners could still get the better of earnings or prices in any year. Now they are tied only to prices.
      The Scretary of State boasts about the volume increase in spending in his Department. I have never heard such a ridiculous argument. If the Government go on making people unemployed at the rate that they have done in the past four years, he will have an even larger increase. That is nothing to be proud of but something to be ashamed of. It is the quality of the service that we want improved, not the quantity.
      The Secretary of State said that pensioners are well ahead, and returned to the point about the RPI having risen by 70·7 per cent. and pensions having increased by 75·1 per cent. We have put the 1976 argument on the record once and for all, so let us now put the Prime Minister's boast on the record once and for all. A 75·1 per cent. increase in pensions as against a 70·7 per cent. increase in the RPI is 175 over 170 and not a 5 per cent. increase in real terms, which is what the Secretary of State is trying to pretend. Therefore, it is a 2·6 per cent. real increase, of which 1·8 per cent. was the inherited undershoot from 1979 and 0·7 per cent. is the undershoot of what he is allowing the pensioners to keep back under the partial clawback of the 2·7 per cent. that was overpaid last year.
      The Secretary of State has denied that there has been a volume cut is social security expenditure, but let him deny that the plans that he inherited were for £1·5 billion more than what he is now spending, and that he acted to cut the plans in various and devious ways. He has cut in

      371
      the meanest possible way, because he has refused to safeguard the people whom he is trying to subject to the historic method. He has refused to say that, whatever method the Government choose to operate for the pensions, they will make sure that the pensioners do not lose. That is the minimum pledge that a civilised Government should make, and the fact that he has not even been able to mention it is ample justification for making the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 258.

      Division No. 124]

      [9.42pm

      AYES

      Allaun, Frank

      Foster, Derek

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foulkes, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Freud, Clement

      Bagier, Gordon AT.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Golding, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Graham, Ted

      Beith, A. J.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Bennett, Andrewf(Sf'kp't N)

      Hardy, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Haynes, Frank

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

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

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

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Homewood, William

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn & P)

      Horam, John

      Campbell, Ian

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Cartwright, John

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      John, Brynmor

      Clarke, Thomasf(C'to'dge, A'rie)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lamond, James

      Cowans, Harry

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Davidson, Arthur

      McCartney, Hugh

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      McElhone, Mrs Helen

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

      McKelvey, William

      Deakins, Eric

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dixon, Donald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dormand, Jack

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dunlop, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Eadie, Alex

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Ellis, R. (NE D'byshre)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      English, Michael

      Morton, George

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Evans, John (Newton)

      O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

      Field, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Ford, Ben

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Forrester, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      372

      Park, George

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Parker, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Strang, Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Jack

      Penhaligon, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Prescott, John

      Tilley, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Tinn, James

      Radice, Giles

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Richardson, Jo

      Watkins, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Weetch, Ken

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Welsh, Michael

      Robertson, George

      White, Frank R.

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Rooker, J. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Roper, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

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

      Sever, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

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

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Winnick, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Woodall, Alec

      Silverman, Julius

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Sheila

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Snape, Peter

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

      Mr. Walter Harrison and

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Stallard, A. W.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Ancram, Michael

      Corrie, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Critchley, Julian

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

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dover, Denshore

      Bendall, Vivian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Durant, Tony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Best, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Farr, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bright, Graham

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

      Brinton, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Brown, Michael (Brigg &Sc'n)

      Fox, Marcus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Budgen, Nick

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gardner, Sir Edward

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

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

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gorst, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gow, Ian

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

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

      373

      Grieve, Percy

      Needham, Richard

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Newton, Tony

      Grylls, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Osborn, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hannam, John

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Parris, Matthew

      Hastings, Stephen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pollock, Alexander

      Heddle, John

      Porter, Barry

      Henderson, Barry

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Hicks, Robert

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

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

      Renton, Tim

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Hugh

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

      Lamont, Norman

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lang, Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Latham, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Silvester, Fred

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Lee, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Speed, Keith

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Speller, Tony

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Wloo)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Loveridge, John

      Squire, Robin

      Luce, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stanley, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stevens, Martin

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Stokes, John

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

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Tapsell, Peter

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Major, John

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Marland, Paul

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Thompson, Donald

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mather, Carol

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Mawby, Ray

      Trippier, David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Viggers, Peter

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Waddington, David

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Wakeham, John

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Waller, Gary

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Walters, Dennis

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Warren, Kenneth

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Watson, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Wells, Bowen

      Mudd, David

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Whitney, Raymond

      374

      Wickenden, Keith

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 26, at end insert "for the word "may" there shall be substituted the word "shall" and for the words "'he considers appropriate" there shall be substituted the words
      "is necessary to restore their value".'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      `(3) Subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
      Mr. Foster: The intention of the amendment is to make the uprating of housing benefit mandatory. The present legislation requires the Secretary of State to review the value of housing benefit each year, but does not require him to uprate it. On Second Reading the Secretary of Slate spoke about accuracy, certainty and protecting the living standards of beneficiaries. He said:
      "The context of the Bill is our central concern to protect the living standards of pensioners and others receiving social security benefits."
      A little later, talking about the forecast method of uprating, he said:
      "The time has come to be shot of it and instead use an exact measure of inflation rather than a projection of what it could be, and to bring certainty to the whole process." — [Official Report, 13 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 818–820.]
      However suspicious we are of the real intentions of the Secretary of State — and our suspicions have been forcibly expressed this evening — we must heartily applaud his stated intentions of certainty, accuracy and protecting the living standards of beneficiaries.
      However, there is no certainty for those on housing benefit. There is nothing in the Bill to protect their living standards. We have said on other occasions that we regard the housing benefit scheme as fatally flawed in principle and a nightmare to administer, but we must ask the Minister of State what the Government have against housing benefit claimants. The Under-Secretary, who is not present at the moment, will remember the Opposition's surprise when he stated, in a recent debate on housing benefit regulations, that a third of all authorities were not in a position to implement the new scheme on 4 April. We are entitled to ask him whether he can now publish a Fist of those authorities and whether he can tell us how many tenants are affected in those authorities which are—or were on 4 April — unable fully to implement the scheme.
      As the Minister of State well knows, many of those tenants will lose. The Under-Secretary of State made no attempt to hide that. Those losers are in addition to the 2·3 million people who, on the Government's own admission, will already lose as a result of the scheme.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
Again considered in Committee.
Mr. Foster: The proud boast of the Secretary of State on Second Reading was to protect the living standards of all beneficiaries. How does the Minister of State propose to protect the millions of housing benefit claimants, especially when some of the largest authorities in the land are having difficulty? In an earlier debate today, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, (Mr. Dean) quoted a letter from a councillor in his area suggesting that a tenant was about to be evicted. As we are talking about protecting the living standards of beneficiaries, I should cite a further example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) received a telephone call today from a Mr. Gardner. The Doncaster authority has about 6,000 cases to administer and my right hon. Friend had the impression that it was having considerable difficulty in implementing the scheme. Mr. Gardner's rent has not been paid by the local authority for three weeks and he is now threatened with eviction. There are similar cases all over the country.
If the Minister is really interested in protecting the living standards of housing benefit claimants whose living standards are currently not at all protected by the Bill he must pay serious attention to that point. Will he even at this late stage accept the amendment or at least promise to bring forward a suitable amendment perhaps in another place?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. It is extremely important that the Government make their intentions clear now. Do they intend to wait until the information is available on 17 June, then think about it and decide perhaps to increase housing benefits by the amount required by the retail price index, or do they intend to increase it by a smaller amount?
Complicated problems arise. So far, we have been probing whether the Government can manage to carry out their uprating in the time allowed between the Government's taking the decision sometime soon after 17 June, laying orders before the House and getting the legislation through.
As to the housing benefit scheme, the Government have to do no more than announce the scales, because the local authorities will have to implement them. Has the Minister consulted the local authorities and are they confident that the process can be carried out in the required time? Although local authorities had notice that the new housing benefit scheme was to be fully implemented by the beginning of April, there is considerable evidence to show that many have not done so. It may be that problems have arisen because of the complexities in the transition. Working out those calculations is a considerable work load for the local authorities. I hope that the Minister will inform the Committee how many tenants are involved within those local authorities and how far those local authorities are in difficulties as a result of the complexities of the system, or because they have not had the staff to implement the scheme in the time involved. That is extremely important if any uprating is to take place as a result of the change in the needs allowance. That information should be given to the Committee immediately. A guarantee must be given that there will be
376
no problems in future with the housing benefit scheme. All hon. Members are worried about the problems facing our constituents, but guarantees are sought that, as a result of any uprating, there will be no further problems.
The Government should update the figures for the losers. There has been some difficulty in obtaining a clear statement from the Government as to how many losers there were on 1 April. The Government should be able to give us, not just an estimate, but a statement of how many losers there were.
I accept it may take a little time before those figures come from the local authorities. I trust that the Minister will tell the Committee fairly soon what the figure is, instead of an estimate of the number of people who have lost, and how far that will be continued if the uprating goes through at the level of the retail price index. Furthermore, will the Minister tell the Committee whether the number of losers will remain the same or whether there will be a progressive increase or decrease in that group?
I trust that the Government will state clearly that the uprating will be based on the retail price index and not on another figure that they pluck out of the air, saying that that is the figure they will use.
What evidence have the Government got about the large number of appeals that have been coming forward as a result of the introduction of the new housing benefit scheme? How many local authorities have set up their appeal tribunals? What is the experience there? That information is needed to show whether the local authorities will have difficulty in implementing an uprating. I hope that the Government can answer those questions.
Should the Government be making extra provision as to housing benefit because the major reduction in the retail price index has occurred as a result of mortages? People on many housing benefit schemes—certainly from the rent point of view—have not benefited. They have had the worst problems because council rents have risen in excess of the retail price index. The Government ought to be protecting that group. I trust that the Minister will assure the Committee that if the Government do not accept the amendment today they will implement its spirit in this year's uprating.
Mr. Rossi: The comments that have been made fall into two parts. The first part is directly concerned with the amendments, which urge the Government to adopt an inflexible method for uprating the housing benefit needs allowances. The second part involves an understandable inquiry into the scheme, the problems that have been encountered and whether there is provision to help people where, perhaps locally, there have been difficulties. I shall try to deal with the questions in turn.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) will not be surprised to hear that I advise the Committee to resist the amendments. Section 29 of the 1982 Act is the very first statutory provision covering the uprating of the needs allowances. There was no similar provision under the previous rent and rate rebate and allowance schemes. Those have been in operation for many years without any statutory requirement for their uprating. However, upratings have taken place.
We took the opportunity in our new legislation of imposing a positive obligation on the Government, which did not exist before, that they should come to the House of Commons with their proposals. Section 29 requires the Secretary of State to review the needs allowances each

377
year to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to prices and housing costs. If not, the Secretary of State must do one of two things: he must lay the regulations increasing the allowances as appropriate, or, if he decides to increase some or all of the allowances by less than the amount required to restore their value, he must lay a report before Parliament giving his reasons. He must say why he is uprating by a lesser factor, if that is his decision.
That requirement was not imposed on any Secretary of State regarding rent and rebate schemes prior to the 1982 Act. When the then clause 29 was tabled in Committee on what became the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, I acknowledged that the absence of a statutory provision to review the needs allowances was inappropriate to a scheme that affected so many people. However, we could not—and still cannot—accept that the Government should bind themselves indefinitely to an inflexible formula in determining the uprating of such a means-tested benefit. That is the essential difference between this type of benefit and the pensions that we have been discussing. The pensions are not means-tested in the same way as housing benefit. Therefore, they require a different approach.
We believe that section 29 has struck the right balance between the need for a statutory review, accounted for to Parliament, and the need for freedom of decision in the light of all the circumstances of the day. That was all debated on the Floor of the House when we discussed the 1982 Act not so long ago. The purpose of this Bill is simply to change to an historic focus in conducting the review. That is all. That is the only change proposed. Nothing about the change undermines or detracts from the case for maintaining this flexibility of approach in considering proposals for uprating. The existing provision has yet to operate, and I see no reason to change it beyond the provisions of the Bill.
In response to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I should point out that we propose to undertake the first review of the housing benefit needs allowances this June, as he will have seen from the notes on clauses. The main element of the single person's and couple's needs allowance is equal to the corresponding long-term supplementary benefit scale rate. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, its value will be reviewed on the basis of movements in the general level of prices, excluding housing costs.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made the point about flexibility. The supplementary benefit scale rates are not subject to the type of uprating that we have been discussing for pensions. Supplementary benefit uprating is dealt with quite differently. There is not the obligation to lay an order in the way that will now be required for pensions. In so far as the main element of the housing benefit needs allowance is based on the long-term supplementary benefit payment, it would be inappropriate to make one flexible and the other inflexible.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister ensure that local authorities have at least the same amount of time to implement the uprating as his own staff?
10.15 pm
Mr. Rossi: Yes. Indeed, we shall make an improvement on what has happened in the past. In the past
378
local authorities have not carried out a review of rent and rate rebates until some time in July. We are making an advance on what has been the practice in the past.
The housing element of the needs allowance consists of components relating to rents, rates and water charges. These components will be reviewed on the basis of movement in the value of these items during the period under review.
I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with the Government's approach to uprating housing benefits, which has gone much further than the approaches adopted by any of their predecessors. I hope that the Committee will agree also that a satisfactory case has not yet been made for the proposed amendments to the substance of the provision, which has reached the statute book but has not yet been used.
Hon. Members want to know whether great difficuties have arisen from the main start. There have been some local problems and some individual mistakes that is not surprising when we consider that we are introducing a new scheme involving over 5 million claimants. However, there has been no breakdown. I have received practically no correspondence from hon. Members or from the general public drawing attention to main start problems.
Mr. Foster: The Under-Secretary of State is now in his place and he will recall surprising us all by saying that one third of all authorities were not in a position fully to implement the scheme. What is the Minister's definition of a breakdown if one third of all authorities can not fully implement the scheme?
Mr. John: How many tenants are involved?
Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), because he has made the precise point. The real issue is the number of those who may be disadvantaged. I shall give the Committee those figures.
Progress reports entering the Department's headquarters show that DHSS local offices reassessed nearly 90 per cent. of supplementary benefit claimants in the main start by 18 March, which was their target date. Most of the remaining cases were completed by Easter. On the local authority side, over three quarters of the existing rebate cases were reassessed under the main start. Where cases have not been reassessed on time, this has been due to a variety of factors that have often been local in origin, and in many instances not directly associated with housing benefit.
A good example was the recent industrial action in DHSS offices at Birmingham and Oxford, which had a knock-on effect on housing benefit. The implementation of housing benefit reassessment in local offices and local authorities has generally been completed at least as quickly as the reassessment of cases for rent changes in previous years under the old schemes. As soon as all the final reports have come in from the various local authorities and these have been collated, the results will be submitted to the House of Commons. We shall let the House of Commons know the exact position.
I accept that a number of reassessments have been late but I assure the Committee that we have contingency arrangements in hand to ensure that individuals are protected and do not lose out. In those cases in which the DHSS has not reassessed the existing supplementary benefit claimants on time, the Department will continue

379
to pay the pre-April amount for rent and rates until the cases have been reassessed for housing benefit. The local authority will calculate in due course the housing benefit entitlement from 4 April, offset the DHSS payment and pay any arrears. So those people will be fully protected and we will make sure that they get all that they are entitled to.
Where the local authority has not reassessed existing rebate cases on time, it will be able to continue the rebate granted under the old scheme as an interim payment. When it has reassessed the case for housing benefit it will make up the arrears. I do not deny that, because of the difficulties that I have discussed, some claimants will get some of their help late, but the arrangements I have outlined will maintain continuity of payments.
Where we are dealing with council tenants and also with owner-occupiers, where we are concerned in the main with rate rebates, there is no problem, because the matter can be dealt with internally in the local authority bookkeeping arrangements. A concern exists in regard to private tenants, especially those on supplementary benefit. That is why the housing benefit regulations require authorities to make interim payments of rent allowances to private tenants on supplementary benefit 14 days after the receipt of the certificate from the DHSS if they cannot make a full final determination.
The only case in which such an interim award cannot be made is where the tenant has not supplied the necessary information or has not produced the papers. We are trying to deal with that. Where forms have been sent out and have not been returned, a follow-up is being made to try to clear the problem so that people may get the money to which they are entitled.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If someone has returned the form to the benefit office but it has not sent the certificate through, there can be a delay. Is the Minister certain that certificates have been issued to local authorities for all the people who have returned forms?
Mr. Rossi: Obviously I cannot speak for every individual case, and where we are dealing with 5 million claimants in what is essentially a new scheme, there will be difficulties. We are trying to keep the difficulties to a minimum. We have taken what I hope the Committee will accept as reasonable longstop measures to protect everybody we can. Sooner or later all the people will receive the money to which they are entitled. There is no reason why anyone, simply because of the change to housng benefit, should be under threat of eviction.
I have not seen the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. One was mentioned last week, in which apparently a tenant received a threat of eviction within one week of the introduction of the scheme. I venture to suggest that there is probably some background that has not been disclosed, because a threat of eviction is not made so swiftly. There must be a history to that case. I should like to know all the details before I would be prepared to make a judgment on it.
I hope the Committee will accept that we have taken all reasonable precautions. For the reasons I have given regarding the history of section 29, the amendments are inappropriate and I recommend that the Committee reject them.
Mr. Foster: The Minister said that we would not be surprised that he could not recommend the acceptance of the amendments. He will not be surprised that we do not find his reply satisfactory. He described the method we are advocating as inflexible. The Secretary of State boasted on Second Reading of accuracy and certainty. We are still entitled to ask what is so different about housing benefit beneficiaries.
Mr. Rossi: I have explained that.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman sought to explain it, and we do not accept his explanation—but they cannot have the same certainty and be subject to the same accuracy in their uprating as the other claimants about whom we have been talking.
The Minister described some of the local problems and gave an assurance that he would make a full report to the House. We look forward to that. He could have given more information on the number of tenants involved. He quickly latched on to a comment about the number of tenants, but having whetted our appetite, he failed to satisfy us. We still suspect that many more people are involved in these local difficulties than the Minister led us to believe, because a substantial number of people are affected by this benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) covered many of the points. He asked about adequate consultation with local authorities, but we had no comment on that from the Minister. My hon. Friend asked about the work load imposed on local authorities and whether they were now well equipped to deal with it. Again, the Minister did not comment on that. My hon. Friend rightly said that many of the difficulties experienced by local authorities arose very much as a result of the complexity of the scheme.
As to private tenants, the Under-Secretary will recall that in the recent debate we referred to the four-page application form that private tenants were expected to complete. Has the Department yet decided to review that procedure? Many of my hon. Friends, let alone many of the tenants who claim the benefit, would have difficulty completing that form.
What do the Government have against tenants? I know that they would much prefer council house tenants to buy their own properties than to be the beneficiaries of this scheme. That would be fine if such tenants could afford to buy, but the Government have put many thousands of them out of work. Even if they wanted to buy their properties, those people are now unable to.
The Opposition want the same certainty for tenants as for all other beneficiaries. The Secretary of State boasts that the Bill will do just that, but patently it will not. We must therefore press the amendment to a Division, and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in supporting it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 271.

Divison No. 125]

[10.28 pm

AYES

Allaun, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bidwell, Sydney

Ashton, Joe

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

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

Beith, A. J.

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

381

Brown, Ron (E burgh, Leith)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Buchan, Norman

Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Campbell, Ian

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Canavan, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cant, R. B.

McKelvey, William

Carmichael, Neil

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McNally, Thomas

Clarke,Tbomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

McTaggart, Robert

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

McWilliam, John

Coleman, Donald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Cook, Robin F.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cowans, Harry

Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

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

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Cryer, Bob

Meacher, Michael

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mikardo, Ian

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

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

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Davidson, Arthur

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Morton, George

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

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Deakins, Eric

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

Dewar, Donald

O'Halloran, Michael

Dixon, Donald

O'Neill, Martin

Dobson, Frank

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dormand, Jack

Palmer, Arthur

Dubs, Alfred

Park, George

Duffy, A. E. P.

Parker, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Parry, Robert

Eadie, Alex

Pavitt, Laurie

Eastham, Ken

Pendry, Tom

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

Penhaligon, David

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

English, Michael

Prescott, John

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Radice, Giles

Evans, John (Newton)

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Field, Frank

Richardson, Jo

Flannery, Martin

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ford, Ben

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Forrester, John

Robertson, George

Foster, Derek

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Foulkes, George

Rooker, J. W.

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

Roper, John

Freud, Clement

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Sandelson, Neville

Golding, John

Sever, John

Graham, Ted

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

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

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Hardy, Peter

Silverman, Julius

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Skinner, Dennis

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Haynes, Frank

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Heffer, Eric S.

Snape, Peter

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

Soley, Clive

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

Spearing, Nigel

Home Robertson, John

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Homewood, William

Spriggs, Leslie

Hooley, Frank

Stallard, A. W.

Hoyle, Douglas

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Strang, Gavin

Janner, Hon Greville

Straw, Jack

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

John, Brynmor

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Tinn, James

Kerr, Russell

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Lambie, David

Watkins, David

Lamond, James

Weetch, Ken

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Welsh, Michael

Litherland, Robert

White, Frank R.

382

Whitlock, William

Woolmer, Kenneth

Wigley, Dafydd

Wright, Sheila

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

Young, David (Bolton E)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winnick, David

Mr. Hugh McCartney and

Woodall, Alec

Mr. Ron Leighton

NOES

Adley, Robert

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Aitken, Jonathan

Farr, John

Alexander, Richard

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

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

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bendall, Vivian

Fox, Marcus

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fry, Peter

Best, Keith

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gardner, Sir Edward

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Blackburn, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blaker, Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Bottomley, Peter (Wwich W)

Gorst, John

Bowden, Andrew

Gow, Ian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gower, Sir Raymond

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grant, Sir Anthony

Bright, Graham

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Brinton, Tim

Greenway, Harry

Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

Grieve, Percy

Brooke, Hon Peter

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

Brotherton, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Brown, Michaei(Brigg & Sc'n)

Grist, Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grylls, Michael

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buck, Antony

Hannam, John

Budgen, Nick

Haselhurst, Alan

Bulmer, Esmond

Hastings, Stephen

Burden, Sir Frederick

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Butcher, John

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hayhoe, Barney

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heddle, John

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

Henderson, Barry

Chapman, Sydney

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Churchill, W. S.

Hicks, Robert

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

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hordern, Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Colvin, Michael

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

Cope, John

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Corrie, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Costain, Sir Albert

Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

Cranborne, Viscount

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Critchley, Julian

Jessel, Toby

Crouch, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Dover, Denshore

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Durant, Tony

Knox, David

Dykes, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lang, Ian

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Latham, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Eyre, Reginald

Lee, John

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

383

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

Rossi, Hugh

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Rost, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Loveridge, John

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lyell, Nicholas

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

McCrindle, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

MacGregor, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Shepherd, Richard

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Shersby, Michael

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

Silvester, Fred

McQuarrie, Albert

Sims, Roger

Madel, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Major, John

Smith, Sir Dudley

Marland, Paul

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marlow, Antony

Speed, Keith

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Speller, Tony

Mather, Carol

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mawby, Ray

Sproat, Iain

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Squire, Robin

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mayhew, Patrick

Stanley, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Steen, Anthony

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stevens, Martin

Miscampbell, Norman

Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stokes, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Tapsell, Peter

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Mudd, David

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Murphy, Christopher

Thompson, Donald

Neale, Gerrard

Thorne, Neil (liford South)

Needham, Richard

Thornton, Malcolm

Nelson, Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Neubert, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Newton, Tony

Trippier, David

Onslow, Cranley

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Viggers, Peter

Osborn, John

Waddington, David

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Wakeham, John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Waldegrave, Hon William

Parris, Matthew

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Patten, John (Oxford)

Waller, Gary

Pawsey, James

Walters, Dennis

Percival, Sir Ian

Warren, Kenneth

Pink, R. Bonner

Watson, John

Pollock, Alexander

Wells, Bowen

Porter, Barry

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wheeler, John

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wickenden, Keith

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wiggin, Jerry

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wilkinson, John

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wolfson, Mark

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Renton, Tim

Younger, Rt Hon George

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Tellers for the Noes:

Rifkind, Malcolm

Mr. Archie Hamilton and

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State should make the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, a junior Minister and chuck him out.
10.41 pm
Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is now leaving the Front Bench which, I am sure, is a symbolic act. We are sorry to see him go.
Several themes have run through this debate. They can be summarised shortly.
First, no one has attempted to defend the action of the previous Government's move from the historic to the forecast method of uprating. It is accepted that that action was carried out to save the previous Government £500 million which, in today's terms, is worth £1 billion. It is accepted that that was a shabby manoeuvre by the previous Government which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer did nothing to justify.
Secondly, no one has seriously attempted to dispute the case that the forecast method has not worked out in practice and that, in five out of seven years, the forecast has been wrong. Few hon. Members or people elsewhere have challenged the basic proposition of this Bill, which is that the historic or actual method of uprating is preferable and that it gives a certainty to pensioners and other social security beneficiaries which the forecast method self-evidently has not achieved.
Thirdly, I believe that it has been accepted that it is a desirable aim of policy to reduce the gap between the date when the uprating is announced and the date when benefits are paid. For too long, that has been a complaint of pensioners. The Bill takes a step towards achieving that—and we shall continue to work to reduce that gap further. I emphasis that, unlike what happened in 1976, this Bill ensures that any increase in prices between May and November will automatically be included in the following uprating.
Fourthly, the Bill is being debated against the background of the Government's pensions and social security budgets having increased. Between November 1978 and November 1982, pensions increased by 68·5 per cent. whereas the retail price index rose by 61 per cent. On the basis of the Budget forecast for the five years up to November 1983, pensions have increased by 75 per cent. —whereas the retail price index has increased by 70 per cent. In other words, the Government have redeemed their pledge to keep pensions ahead of prices. Moreover, they have brought inflation down. We should never forget the damage that inflation does to pensioners' savings and to their standard of living. We should never forget that under a Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 inflation increased by 110 per cent. That spells disaster for pensioners and for industry, which creates the wealth for social provision.
The fifth point that has emerged is the gaping discrepancies in the Labour party's plan for pensioners. At the beginning of March the Leader of the Opposition published his 12-point plan for pensioners. At the end of March he published a document called "The New Hope for Britain". The plan contained an emergency programme that an incoming Labour Government would carry out immediately, but the 12-point plan is not mentioned. I have costed those proposals at a minimum of between £13 billion and £15 billion a year, and I have placed those costings in the Library. Opposition Front Bench Members

385
have so far refused to detail the costings of their proposals, or the phasing proposals that they made in a letter to The Times. Without those details, their plans lack credibility.
The Government's case is unanswerable. The Opposition's answer is unintelligible, and I ask the House to support the motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
10.46 pm
Mr. John: The Secretary of State has put up a determined smokescreen, in the sense that his logic was foggy and his language even cloudier, because he wishes to disguise from the nation the fact that the Conservative party offers no proposals for pensioners or people in the categories affected by the Bill. They have no new thinking, and on the basis of his speech, very little old thinking, on the subject.
I was heartened by the brave speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I was worried when he sat on the Government Front Bench for a long time before we started the Third Reading debate, because I believed that he might have been seduced by the instant image machine of the Tory party from being the licensed rebel to being the accepted junior Minister. I am glad that he has returned to being a licensed rebel, because it is no compliment to be a junior Minister on the Government Front Bench.
However many times the Secretary of State makes a speech, he appears never to understand his brief better at the fourth reading than at the first. He talked about inflation during the Labour Government affecting the standard of living of pensioners. There was a 20 per cent. real increase in pensions by the end of the Labour Government, even allowing for inflation. If he could achieve a tenth, or even a twentieth, of that at the end of his term of office, he would be overjoyed, but we know that he will not. The Secretary of State mentioned—[Interruption.] I hate to intrude in a private debate between a sedentary — indeed, supine — Secretary of State and the unduly chirpy and unusually present hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), but I would like the Secretary of State's attention. The Bill will be watched carefully. Millions of people will be watching the Government in November to compare what they have received and what they should have received at November prices.
The Bill shows that the Government have tried to effect by stealth what they do not have the guts to do openly. We do not accept that the Bill is merely a change in the uprating formula. If it were, it could have been debated dispassionately. But it is not just a change in the method. By their refusal to protect those affected by the Bill, the Government have introduced a disguised clawback of the 2 per cent. overshoot that will be taken from the pensioners in November this year.
That means that the Government will save £210 million in this tax year. I hope that they are proud of it. They speak of it as a comparatively small sum, and I can understand that at times Governments want to save such small sums. However, do the Government want to save such sums from this class of beneficiary — retirement pensioners, invalids, the unemployed, the sick, the widowed and the invalid carers, who are the recipients of attendence allowances? They are among the poorest and least fortunate in the land. It is because they have been singled out for this penalty that we cannot stomach the Bill. That is why we shall vote against Third Reading.
10.50 pm
Mr. Freud: Every Secretary of State for Social Services and all Ministers in that Department try to do the best that they can for their clients and try to be seen to do so. Every Government wish it to be known that they care for pensioners and those who look to them for benefits. By the same token, every Opposition have a duty to make it sound as if they could do better.
I do not oppose for the sake of opposition, but I have listened to the debate with great care. I have intervened seldom, but I should like to put the pensioners' lot into perspective and explain why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall vote against the Government, just as we have voted for the amendments. The Government have promised that they would share their prosperity with pensioners. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions, when she has defended the small increase in pensions, that, when the country is better off, the pensioners will benefit.
The Prime Minister, perhaps because there is an election in the offing, perhaps because it is true, has told us that the recession is now over and that things are better. Let us just look to see how pensioners benefit. We started on a base rate of 100 in the retail price index. By common consent it is admitted that pensioners do worse than the retail price index because for them, without mortgages, having to buy food in small units and having to heat rooms that contain only one person, the per capita cost is greater.
The pensions have risen from a base of 100 to 175. That is not a 5 per cent. increase over the 170 per cent. increase in the RPI; it is five points out of the 175, which is under 3 per cent. Of that, the Government inherited the promise of a 1·8 per cent. increase, which means that, in what the Government call "real terms", the pensioners are now approximately 1 per cent. better off than they were.
Quite simply, that is why, despite the promises of the Government, we shall oppose the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 186.

Division No. 126]

[10.54 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brotherton, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

Alexander, Richard

Browne, John (Winchester)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Arnold, Tom

Bryan, Sir Paul

Aspinwall, Jack

Buck, Antony

Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

Budgen, Nick

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

Bulmer, Esmond

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Burden, Sir Frederick

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Butcher, John

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

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

Berry, Hon Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Best, Keith

Churchill, W. S.

Bevan, David Gilroy

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

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Blackburn, John

Cockeram, Eric

Blaker, Peter

Colvin, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, John

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Cormack, Patrick

Bowden, Andrew

Corrie, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Costain, Sir Albert

Braine, Sir Bernard

Cranborne, Viscount

Bright, Graham

Critchley, Julian

Brinton, Tim

Crouch, David

Brittan, Rt. Hon, Leon

Dorrell, Stephen

Brooke, Hon Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

387

Dover, Denshore

Lawrence, Ivan

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Lee, John

Durant, Tony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dykes, Hugh

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Eggar, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Emery, Sir Peter

Loveridge, John

Eyre, Reginald

Luce, Richard

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Lyell, Nicholas

Faith, Mrs Sheila

McCrindle, Robert

Farr, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

MacGregor, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

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

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

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

Fookes, Miss Janet

McQuarrie, Albert

Forman, Nigel

Madel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Major, John

Fox, Marcus

Marland, Paul

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Marlow, Antony

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Fry, Peter

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mawby, Ray

Gardner, Sir Edward

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mayhew, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Miscampbell, Norman

Goodlad, Alastair

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Gorst, John

Moate, Roger

Gow, Ian

Monro, Sir Hector

Gower, Sir Raymond

Montgomery, Fergus

Grant, Sir Anthony

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Greenway, Harry

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Grieve, Percy

Mudd, David

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

Murphy, Christopher

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Neale, Gerrard

Grist, Ian

Needham, Richard

Grylls, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Gummer, John Selwyn

Neubert, Michael

Hamilton, Hon A.

Newton, Tony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Onslow, Cranley

Hampson, Dr Keith

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hannam, John

Osborn, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hastings, Stephen

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Parris, Matthew

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Patten, John (Oxford)

Hawksley, Warren

Pawsey, James

Hayhoe, Barney

Percival, Sir Ian

Heddle, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Henderson, Barry

Porter, Barry

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hicks, Robert

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Prior, Rt Hon James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Hordern, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

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

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Renton, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rossi, Hugh

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rost, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Royle, Sir Anthony

Kimball, Sir Marcus

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Knox, David

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Latham, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

388

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shepherd, Richard

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Shersby, Michael

Trippier, David

Silvester, Fred

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Sims, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Waddington, David

Smith, Sir Dudley

Wakeham,John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Speed, Keith

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Speller, Tony

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Walters, Dennis

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Warren, Kenneth

Sproat, Iain

Watson, John

Squire, Robin

Wells, Bowen

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Stanley, John

Wheeler, John

Steen, Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Stevens, Martin

Wickenden, Keith

Stewart, b.(E Renfrewshire)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wilkinson, John

Stokes, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wolfson, Mark

Tapsell, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, Donald

Mr. Carol Mather and

Thorne, Neil (liford South)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Thornton, Malcolm

NOES

Allaun, Frank

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

English, Michael

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Ashton, Joe

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Evans, John (Newton)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Field, Frank

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Flannery, Martin

Beith, A. J.

Ford, Ben

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Forrester, John

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Foster, Derek

Bidwell, Sydney

Foulkes, George

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Freud, Clement

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

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

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

Golding, John

Buchan, Norman

Graham, Ted

Callaghan, Jim (Midd'fn & P)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Campbell, Ian

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

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

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Cant, R. B.

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Carmichael, Neil

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Haynes, Frank

Clarke.Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

Heffer, Eric S.

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

Holland, S. (L'fth, Vauxh'll)

Coleman, Donald

Home Robertson, John

Cook, Robin F.

Homewood, William

Cowans, Harry

Hooley, Frank

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

Hoyle, Douglas

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

Janner, Hon Greville

Davidson, Arthur

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

John, Brynmor

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Deakins, Eric

Kerr, Russell

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Lambie, David

Dixon, Donald

Lamond, James

Dobson, Frank

Leadbitter, Ted

Dormand, Jack

Leighton, Ronald

Dubs, Alfred

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Litherland, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Eadie, Alex

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Eastham, Ken

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

389

McCartney, Hugh

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Sandelson, Neville

McElhone, Mrs Helen

Sever, John

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

McKelvey, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

McNally, Thomas

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

McTaggart, Robert

Silverman, Julius

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Snape, Peter

Martin, M(G'gow S'bum)

Soley, Clive

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Spearing, Nigel

Meacher, Michael

Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

Mikardo, Ian

Spriggs, Leslie

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Stallard, A. W.

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Strang, Gavin

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Straw, Jack

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

O'Halloran, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

O'Neill, Martin

Tinn, James

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Palmer, Arthur

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Park, George

Watkins, David

Parker, John

Weetch, Ken

Parry, Robert

Welsh, Michael

Pavitt, Laurie

White, Frank R.

Pendry, Tom

Whitlock, William

Penhaligon, David

Wigley, Dafydd

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

Prescott, John

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

Radice, Giles

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Winnick, David

Richardson, Jo

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wright, Sheila

Robertson, George

Young, David (Bolton E)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Rooker, J. W.

Tellers for the Noes:

Roper, John

Mr. George Morton and

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Mr. Norman Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Unemployment (Merseyside)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
11.5 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: I am glad to have an opportunity to raise the subject of the critical unemployment situation on Merseyside and in Liverpool, particularly in the inner urban areas. I make no apology for doing so at such a late hour. The House is aware of my deep concern about the problem, because I have drawn attention to it on many occasions — in debates, in written and oral questions, in early-day motions, on points of order and on Standing Order No. 10. After this Adjournment debate, I shall have used every possible device to highlight the grave situation in Merseyside.
The problems are getting more critical every week and, indeed, every day of the year. I have done some research, and I believe that I have raised the matter on more occasions than any other hon. Member. In view of the massive amounts of unemployment in the inner urban areas of Liverpool and particularly in my own constituency, it is my duty to do so. I do not say that in any boastful spirit. When the Government were first elected, I believed that unemployment would be one of the most crucial issues, and I therefore decided to launch a campaign to fight unemployment at every possible opportunity.
There has always been high unemployment: on Merseyside, even in the days of so-called full employment. At one time after the Government came to power we believed that the level must have reached saturation point, but we were wrong. The closures continue. The official Government figure for male unemployment in my constituency, given in the census in November 1981, was 43·5 per cent., and unemployment has increased substantially since then. In my constituency, more than 50 per cent. of the males are now unemployed. All hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that for one man in every two to be on the dole is unforgivable and indefensible.
Unemployment is not an act of God. It is the result of deliberate economic measures—introduced, in this case, by a woman Prime Minister. The Government's policies are eroding the industrial base of Merseyside, and parts of the dockland areas are industrial deserts and wastelands. But the Government do not appear to perceive the heartbreak, frustration and despair that they have caused among the unemployed—particularly among the middle-aged, who see no hope of ever working again, and the young people and school leavers, some of whom have never had a job and face a future without hope. The recent cynical attempt to recruit unemployed youth for training in the armed forces will be treated by youngsters on Merseyside with the contempt that it deserves.
Since the Government came to power in May 1979 the number of jobless and factory closures on Merseyside has reached epidemic proportions. It began with the closure of the Tate and Lyle refinery, resulting in nearly 2,000 people being thrown on the scrap heap. I warned the Prime Minister when I met her al: No. 10 Downing Street of the consequences of that closure. The domino effect that followed resulted in the closure of the Whitbread brewery in my constituency, with the loss of several hundred jobs.

391
The original Threllfalls brewery was founded there more than a century ago. The Barker and Dobson confectionery factory followed, with the loss of several hundred jobs. Last winter, Lyons Maid ice cream closed with a further loss of 400 jobs. There have also been job losses in the cake and biscuit industry. It is no coincidence that all those industries rely on sugar for their products.
The list of further closures read like a catalogue of misery from the CBI directory. Thousands of jobs have been lost through the closure of the Massey-Ferguson plant at Kirkby, the Courtaulds factory at Aintree and the Meccano factory. The proposed closure of the Plessey Cheapside factory in my constituency will axe hundreds of more jobs. Woolworths in the city centre—the first Woolworth store in the United Kingdom — has announced its closure, as has the Binns city centre store. The latest nail to be driven into our coffin was the shock announcement last week that Kraft Foods intends to axe 930 workers at Kirkby.
None of the aforementioned companies has closed through low productivity or bad labour relations. They have closed due to the greed of multinational and British companies which having made trading surpluses over many years, wish to maximise their profits without giving a damn for the people who created those profits. I cite a perfect example of the naked and vicious face of capitalism. On the day on which Tate and Lyle announced the closure of its factory it also announced record profits.
I hope that the Minister will confirm my statement about industrial relations in the companies that I have mentioned. The lie that Merseyside's problems are all caused by strikes must be nailed once and for all from the Dispatch Box. Will he also ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asks the Secretary of State for Industry and the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside to have urgent talks with the chairman of Kraft to see whether the jobs there can be saved.
Mr. John McWilliam: Where is the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside?
Mr. Parry: That is a good question. I have no idea.
Unemployment and its consequences have taken a heavy toll in all sections of the community, with traumatic and, in some cases, tragic effects. People have committed suicide because they were depressed at the thought of life on the dole. Only last year, two teenagers took their lives and left a message that they had given up hope of ever finding jobs. Old people have died of hypothermia because they could not pay heating charges or standing charges for energy. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people involved in glue-sniffing and solvent abuse, as the director of education has confirmed.
There has also been a serious problem involving housewives getting into financial difficulties through borrowing money from professional moneylenders —sharks who have been charging interest rates between 600 per cent. and 1,000 per cent. Once in the hands of these Shylocks, poor people have not been able to escape. The results have been broken marriages and nervous breakdowns. In the past year or so two young married women died after throwing themselves from multi-storey blocks on Merseyside. I congratulate the Merseyside
392
county council, especially Councillor John Gallagher, chairman of the consumer protection committee, on its investigation of this problem.
Most of the troubles can be attributed to the fact that there were nearly 90,000 registered unemployed in Liverpool in March. That is nearly 19 per cent. across the board. In the Merseyside special development area the figure was 133,000—almost 20 per cent.
The Government must embark on a massive building programme in the public sector to get the economy moving again. Liverpool has pre-war tenement blocks of flats and slums. At the same time, under the Liberal/Tory coalition on the city council more than 25,000 people are on the housing waiting list. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the Front Bench because he and I have both worked in the building industry and we are still members of construction industry union branches. Merseyside has one of the highest levels—if not the highest level—of unemployment in the construction industry in the United Kingdom. that even includes Belfast. At the same time, Liverpool has thousands of outstanding repairs.
I wish to make three suggestions to the Minister, which I trust he will take on board, that may help Merseyside. He will have seen early-day motion No. 448 on the proposed Falmouth terminal application. I have lead a deputation to the Secretary of State for Transport. Several of my hon. Friends who represent Merseyside, and trade union representatives, have pointed out that if this application gets the go-ahead it will mean the death of the Seaforth terminal and the end of the port of Liverpool. This application is opposed by my union, the Transport and General Workers, and if it leads to a national dock strike, please do not blame the dock workers or the T and GWU. The Government are being asked to kill this application once and for all. We do not need the Falmouth terminal. There is already overcapacity in our port. I hope that the Government will stop any further applications on this site.
Secondly, will the Government introduce legislation to allow British Gas to give contracts to British firms, instead of the tendering system that allows foreign tug boatmen, especially the Dutch, to do the work of British tug boatmen? British tug boatmen have the greatest expertise of any in the industry. I am thinking especially of the work that could be carried out by our own workers in the Morecambe Bay and Celtic Sea regions.
Thirdly, will the Government give free port status to Liverpool? This will be great stimulus to the area and will help provide badly needed jobs. Positive, not cosmetic measures, are needed, such as the garden festival, the urban development corporation and the enterprise zone, which will provide a few jobs, even in the long term.
Last night the Prime Minister quoted the old Liverpool sea shanty, Maggie May. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady or her advisers know the story of Maggie May. I will quote briefly from the song:
"Come gather round, you sailor lads,"—
I do not know whether that is referring to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—
"and listen to my plea,
And when you've heard my tale you'll pity me.
I was a bloody fool in the port of Liverpool,
The first time that I came home from sea.
We was paid off at the Home from the port of Sierra Leone,

393
And three pound ten a week it was my pay.
With a pocket full of tin I was very soon taken in
By a [pretty] girl with the name of Maggie May."
Last November I was suspended from the House for attacking the Prime Minister.
Mr. Eric S. Hafer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Parry: I will.
Mr. Helfer: The second verse states:
"Too well I do remember when I first met Maggie May,
She was cruising up and down old Canning Place,
With a figure so divine like a frigate of the line,
And me, being a sailor, I gave chase.
Next morning I awoke, I was flat and stony broke,
No jacket, trousers, waistcoat could I find.
When I asked her where they were, she said to me, 'Kind sir,
They're down in Kelly's pawnshop, number nine."'
That is precisely where the Prime Minister and her Government are putting most of our people.
Mr. Parry: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walton has said. It was through his initiative and ingenuity today that I have a copy of the song.
I was suspended for one day from the House for attacking the vicious and hard policies of the Prime Minister and her Government towards the regions where there is massive unemployment. I did not feel that I had used unparliamentary language on that occasion. If I were in the same position again, I would probably say the same thing again. Maggie May was a poor lady of easy virtue. I am sure that she had a far warmer heart than the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady is heartless, uncaring and totally indifferent to pain and suffering. Maggie May may have robbed a few "homeward-bounders," but the Prime Minister has robbed the old and the poor of their independence, the jobless of their pride, the youngsters of their dignity and a few unfortunate people of their very lives. The Prime Minister has much to answer for because of what she has done to this country and to regions such as Merseyside, Tyneside and Clydebank.
11.20 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) deserves all our congratulations on having the good fortune to secure this debate. Indeed, he and I have had the good fortune to hold it early in the evening. I certainly welcome the opportunity to reply at least to some of the points that he has raised. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister was answerable for many things. She will seek a response from the public, and the result may surprise the hon. Gentleman.
Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the continuing high level of unemployment in Merseyside. Merseyside has, alas, almost historically had a high level of unemployment particularly associated with the decline of its port and port-related industries. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Although new manufacturing industry has been introduced, it has not yet grown quickly enough to provide for those displaced from declining industries and school leavers. I therefore have no wish to underestimate the difficulties that the consequential unemployment brings. I am also well aware of the misery and sense of hopelessness that afflict those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.
394
The current high levels of unemployment in this country as a whole result partly—as I think all would agree—from the world recession and partly from past inflation and our chronic lack of competitiveness. A lasting reduction in unemployment on Merseyside and in the rest of the country depends obviously on industry becoming more competitive by continuing to gain customers and by becoming more adaptable to changing markets. All the signs are that economic recovery is beginning to gather pace with inflation down, industrial output beginning to rise, sterling becoming stronger and interest rates lower.
The Government have played their part in helping that recovery and will continue to do so by establishing a sound monetary and fiscal framework to encourage that growth. The recent Budget, for example, contained quite a wide range of measures to encourage recovery directly, and to provide opportunities for growth in employment. They included tax cuts to provide an incentive for direct personal taxpayers, and for business to help it to reduce its costs and to improve its power to compete. There was also a wide range of other carefully directed measures, some specifically focused on the unemployed, others on particular sections of the economy, and others designed to further recovery across the board. The people of Merseyside will share the benefits of all those measures.
Already, there are some encouraging signs that Merseyside will not be left behind in any economic recovery. There are, after all, 542,000 Merseysiders in work and there are plenty of signs of basic strength in many of the local industries, including glass-making, chemicals, food processing, detergents, brewing and pharmaceuticals. On the automotive side, Vauxhall has been performing well and Champion Spark Plugs in the Wirral has been expanding. I am pleased to hear, for example, that Prudential Window and Door Systems is to open a new high technology factory in Merseyside, that new enterprise workshops for small businesses have been opened in Liverpool providing up to 300 jobs, and that a 60-acre high tech park is to be established next to Plessey's Edge lane factory, sponsored jointly by Plessey and Merseyside county council.
The hon. Member for Scotland Exchange referred to Kraft Foods. Although the items that I have mentioned are encouraging developments, I am aware that large redundancies continue to be declared in the area. The proposed redundancies at Kraft Foods are essentially and unavoidably a matter for the commercial judgment of the company—it is a private company—and we have no jurisdictional power to influence what it decides. We cannot intervene directly. However, we shall ensure that all the MSC facilities will be available to help those who are make redundant to find alternative employment or training.
Mr. Parry: When I raised the issue on a previous occasion, the Prime Minister said that she would not intervene in a company's commercial decisions. In a letter sent to me yesterday the Minister's right hon. Friend said the same thing. If the Government are really concerned about unemployment, surely they can have discussions with companies with a view to retaining jobs and helping Merseyside. I know that Merseyside is receiving help, but I understand that it costs about £5,000 a year to keep a person unemployed. I am certain that the millions of pounds that are being spent on dole money or

395
supplementary benefit could be better used. Workers who are not laid off will pay taxes and contribute to the national insurance scheme, for example.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the millions of pounds that are made available indirectly to firms such as Kraft Foods through reductions in the national insurance surcharge, through the funds that have been made available through the temporary short-time working compensation scheme—I do not know whether Kraft Foods has yet had a go at that scheme — and through the indirect forms of assistance that have been provided by the fall in interest rates and in inflation. All these factors have been of enormous indirect benefit to companies. The Government have no remit to involve themselves directly in the commercial judgment of a private company.
The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her alleged heartlessness, which I refute. The soundest and surest way to rebut what the hon. Gentleman is saying is to give him some examples of what we have done in providing hard cash to encourage development on Merseyside. For example, an inner city partnership area in Liverpool is one of the features of the Liverpool scene. Under the inner city partnership scheme alone it will receive £23 million in 1982–83. As part of the Merseyside special development area, Liverpool and Birkenhead are benefiting from the full range of regional incentives at the highest levels available in Great Britain. Indeed, since the Government came to office we have paid out over £114 million in assistance to Liverpool under the Industry Act.
All Merseyside's metropolitan districts are now designated under the urban programme and receive extra funding for regeneration, amounting to about £32·5 million in 1982–83. There is an enterprise zone at Speke which has now been enlarged and the Merseyside development corporation intends to bring 865 acres of disused dockland into effective use with a £24 million allocation for 1982–83.
Merseyside has received substantial benefit from the European social fund. As an assisted area, Merseyside receives priority for its employment and training schemes through the fund's assistance to regions of high unemployment. Merseyside is also classified as a "restructuring zone".
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Alison: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as there are only a few minutes left to me. Merseyside obtains high priority under the fund's schemes, involving young people. In 1982, 18 schemes specific to Merseyside were assisted, including nearly £900,000 to Merseyside county council for a wage subsidy scheme to assist the recruitment of 1,875 unemployed workers into new permanent jobs and nearly £300,000 to Merseyside Training Ltd. to assist 582 of the less able-bodied who are unemployed to find work.
The task force, so called, which was especially set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, is looking for ways of strengthening Merseyside's economy and improving its environment. In co-operation with local companies, local authorities and the MSC, the task force
396
is seeking to involve Merseysiders fully in the many new initiatives. The approach is practical and realistic and is very much reliant on the commitment of the people of Merseyside to the regenerration of their own environment and industry. A start has been made and there can be no doubt of our commitment to continue, I am particularly pleased that the task force is putting so much emphasis on small firms, since the Government believe that small firms play a major role in creating jobs. Since we took office we have introduced more than 110 separate measures to help them, and generous provisions in the recent Budget continue this trend.
Tax concessions to encourage buy-outs, extension of the loan guarantee scheme, and the new business expansion scheme, which replaces and improves the business start-up scheme, are all important developments in our efforts to ease access to finance, often a major source of concern to small firms. We are also improving tax allowances on industrial building and small workshops and increasing grants to support innovation and investment. In particular, we are providing £100 million over the next three years to reopen the small engineering firms investment scheme. That has been widely welcomed in all parts of the House. This scheme, which helps small engineering firms to invest in advanced capital equipment, proved remarkably successful when introduced last year.
The hon. Gentleman made special reference to early-day motion 448 about the Falmouth container terminal. Thanks to the rapidity and enterprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), who helps me on the Back Bench, I have a copy of the motion in front of me and have taken note of it.
I set it in the context of the reference that the hon. Gentleman also made to the so-called free port proposals. I noted that the hon. Gentleman is enthusiastic about the scheme. There will be ample opportunity for potential free port operators to make their case before a decision is taken on the locations of the experimental free ports announced by the Chancellor. The Government will shortly be publishing the criteria by which applications for free port status will be judged. It will then be for potential operators to submit evidence in the light of the guidelines. All bids received will be fully considered and any encouragement the hon. Gentleman can give to possible free port sponsors will help the momentum. I take note of the points he made.
Mr. Heffer: Can the Minister spell out, if he has the information, how much of the money from the European social fund is in grants, how much is in loans, and what the total is?
Mr. Alison: I would need notice of that. I shall look quickly to see if I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. I am afraid they are not broken down in the advice I have. Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, I shall write to him about it and give him the information.
The Government have also played their part in giving direct help to the unemployed. Over 25,700 young people have entered the youth opportunities programme in Merseyside since April 1981. Some 10,721 people in the area are currently benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme, the community enterprise programme, the young workers scheme and community industry. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme is one that Kraft might be able to make use of.

397
Young people are particularly vulnerable, as we all agree, in periods of high unemployment. They lack basic work skills to compete in a difficult labour market and are disadvantaged by too high wage rates. Recognising this, the Government have always given priority to help the young unemployed. Over the past two years there have been over 50,000 entrants to the youth opportunities programme in Merseyside. That is a substantial number. The guarantee to school leavers of an offer of training on YOP was substantially met last Christmas, with only just over 200 eligible young people in the area not having received a suitable offer of training.
One important factor influencing companies in deciding whether or not to establish themselves in the area is the level of rates. I therefore regret that increases in Merseyside rates have been so high. Had all the authorities in the area budgeted to meet the Government's guidance figure, the increases would have been lower.
I hope it is clear that the problem of unemployment in Merseyside is one that deeply concerns us and needs to be tackled from many angles. There are many encouraging signs that new businesses are getting off the ground and the process of decline is being halted and reversed. The Government are doing all they can to encourage growth in the area, making Merseyside the most heavily assisted area in Britain, and to help those made unemployed as a result
398
of industrial decline and uncompetitiveness stretching back over a long period. We must ensure that, as the world recession eases up, we have a better trained work force and more productive industries ready and willing to grasp opportunities. It is for the people of Merseyside to respond to the challenge as I am sure they will.
Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a fear among many of those who are training youth that they will be made redundant? That will badly affect youth training. I have recently written to him about this matter. I hope that he will take that letter on board, because of the growing feeling among those people that they will be made redundant.
Mr. Alison: I shall look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's letter, but at first sight I doubt the reality of what he says this year. For example, based on the intake coming in under the youth opportunities programme, the numbers will ensure that the training period will last for 12 months or more. I therefore believe that that fear is misplaced—
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 twenty-five minutes to Midnight.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Management and Efficiency
  Management and Efficiency
  Unions (Discussions)
  Unions (Discussions)
  Official Papers
  Official Papers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Exotic Animals (Shipment)
  Exotic Animals (Shipment)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Uganda
  Uganda
TRADE
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Business Failures
  Business Failures
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Ships (Manning, Health and Safety)
  Ships (Manning, Health and Safety)
  Pollution Control
  Pollution Control
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (After-care)
  Prisoners (After-care)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Apna Radio, London
  Apna Radio, London
  Television Service (Devon)
  Television Service (Devon)
  Criminal Justice Act 1982
  Criminal Justice Act 1982
  Firemen (Pension Scheme)
  Firemen (Pension Scheme)
  Prisons (Deaths)
  Prisons (Deaths)
  Mr. Stancu Papasoiu
  Mr. Stancu Papasoiu
  Contempt of Court
  Contempt of Court
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Philippines)
  Commonwealth Development Corporation (Philippines)
INDUSTRY
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  New Cars
  New Cars
  Steel Industry (Job Losses)
  Steel Industry (Job Losses)
  Stainless Steel Cutlery
  Stainless Steel Cutlery
  Industry and Business (Relocation)
  Industry and Business (Relocation)
  Sir William Duncan
  Sir William Duncan
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  New Coins
  New Coins
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  Tax Payments
  Tax Payments
WALES
  Council Dwellings (Dampness)
  Council Dwellings (Dampness)
  Telephones (Assistance)
  Telephones (Assistance)
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Household Adaptions (Assistance)
  Household Adaptions (Assistance)
  Aids (Assistance)
  Aids (Assistance)
  Holidays (Assistance)
  Holidays (Assistance)
  Wales Tourist Board
  Wales Tourist Board
  Departmental Staff Exchanges
  Departmental Staff Exchanges
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
PRIME MINISTER
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Public Assets (Sales)
  Public Assets (Sales)
  Motor Vehicles (Lead Filters)
  Motor Vehicles (Lead Filters)
ENERGY
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
EMPLOYMENT
  Company Closures
  Company Closures
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
SCOTLAND
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Student Travel Allowance
  Student Travel Allowance
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Households (Assistance)
  Households (Assistance)
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
  Census Statistics (Dundee)
  Census Statistics (Dundee)
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Pig and Poultry Farming
  Pig and Poultry Farming
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Households (Assistance)
  Households (Assistance)
  Holidays (Assistance)
  Holidays (Assistance)
  Barnacle and Brent Geese
  Barnacle and Brent Geese
  Farmers
  Farmers
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Ulster Office
  Ulster Office
TRANSPORT
  Greater Manchester
  Greater Manchester
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  British Rail Hotels
  British Rail Hotels
  European Community (Transport Regulations)
  European Community (Transport Regulations)
  Road Construction and Maintenance
  Road Construction and Maintenance
  Motorway Safety
  Motorway Safety
  Local Transport (Expenditure)
  Local Transport (Expenditure)
  Severn Crossing
  Severn Crossing
  Track, Viaducts and Underbridges (Investment)
  Track, Viaducts and Underbridges (Investment)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  British Rail (Electrification)
  British Rail (Electrification)
  Port of London (Ship Repairs)
  Port of London (Ship Repairs)
  Historic Towns (Bypasses)
  Historic Towns (Bypasses)
  Motorway Services
  Motorway Services
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Pitmore Copse (Interchange)
  Pitmore Copse (Interchange)
  London (Heavy Lorries)
  London (Heavy Lorries)
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Ferry Services (Portsmouth Harbour)
  Ferry Services (Portsmouth Harbour)
  British Rail (Ordering Policy)
  British Rail (Ordering Policy)
  Cyclists (Fluorescent Strips)
  Cyclists (Fluorescent Strips)
  Local Authorities (Grant Aid)
  Local Authorities (Grant Aid)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Tyre Tread Depths
  Tyre Tread Depths
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Mudguards)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Mudguards)
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Cycling Policy
  Cycling Policy
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea
  Liquid Petroleum Gas Tankers
  Liquid Petroleum Gas Tankers
  Sealink (Fast Ferries Tenders)
  Sealink (Fast Ferries Tenders)
DEFENCE
  South Africa (British Personnel)
  South Africa (British Personnel)
  Foreign Services (British Personnel)
  Foreign Services (British Personnel)
  Dominie Navigation Trainer Aircraft
  Dominie Navigation Trainer Aircraft
  RAF Leuchars (Sound Insulation Grants)
  RAF Leuchars (Sound Insulation Grants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural (Grants)
  Agricultural (Grants)
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Pigs and Poultry
  Pigs and Poultry
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medical Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Special Claims Control Unit (Huddersfield)
  Special Claims Control Unit (Huddersfield)
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Population Statistics (Trent)
  Population Statistics (Trent)
  Mortality Rate (Derbyshire)
  Mortality Rate (Derbyshire)
  Toxic Chemicals (Committee)
  Toxic Chemicals (Committee)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Households (Assistance)
  Households (Assistance)
  "Europe's Babies"
  "Europe's Babies"
  Drugs (Side Effects)
  Drugs (Side Effects)
  Benefits
  Benefits
ENVIRONMENT
  Greater London Council (Block Grant Penalties)
  Greater London Council (Block Grant Penalties)
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Leasehold Schemes
  Leasehold Schemes
  Construction Projects (Expenditure)
  Construction Projects (Expenditure)
  Property Services Agency (Privatisation)
  Property Services Agency (Privatisation)

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

"General Belgrano": President of Peru's Alleged Statement
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made any representations to President Belaunde Terry of Peru regarding his statement on the sinking of the cruiser "General Belgrano"; and, if so, what reply they have received.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): No, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord had his attention drawn to the interview given by the President of Peru in which he stated that he, in conjunction with the then Secretary of State of the United States, had devised a plan by which Australian, Canadian and Venezuelan troops would supervise the withdrawal of the Argentinian forces from the Falklands and that this had been agreed by the Foreign Minister of the Argentine, and that just at the moment when the junta was meeting to consider it the news came of the sinking of the "Belgrano"? Is he aware that in that interview the President of Peru stated that he realised that that action had destroyed any chance of his plan coming to fruition?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have seen a brief reference in the British press to the alleged statement which the noble Lord has mentioned. But I understand from the embassy in Peru and from the British interests section of the Swiss Embassy in Argentina that no reports of such a statement have appeared in the press there, and I therefore cannot comment on a text I have not seen.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in that situation, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will pursue his inquiries so that he can report to this House whether there is in fact any truth in the statement which the President of Peru is alleged to have made?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord's original Question was whether the Government would make representations. We certainly could not base representations on a press report. Therefore, I think I have reported to your Lordships' House as much as I know.

Infective Hepatitis A: Leeds
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is included in the programme for school health in schools which come under the Leeds Education Authority to lessen the risk of infective hepatitis A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, schools in Leeds are urged to take all necessary steps to ensure reasonable standards of hygiene to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases. The Director of Education in Leeds wrote to all the schools within his authority on 2nd February this year to that effect. Additionally, advice about the prevention of spread of disease in schools is contained in the booklet Control of Communicable Disease in Schools, prepared in consultation with the Department of Education and Science. Furthermore, education of pupils in the principles of personal hygiene makes a vital contribution towards control in these areas.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that hepatitis A is spreading and has increased in the past few years throughout the country, and in Leeds it happens to be about three times the average? May I ask the noble Lord who supervises the washing of hands before meals in schools, and whether disposable towels are supplied in cloakrooms? Should there not be posters on lavatory doors saying, "Now, wash your hands"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the kind of arrangements which the noble Baroness describes would no doubt be of great assistance in this particular area. However, responsibility for this matter lies with the local education authorities, guided and advised, as they are, by central Government in the way that I have described. I am not certain that the noble Baroness is right when she refers to the increase in cases in hepatitis generally throughout the country. Although there has been a small increase in cases in the past two or three years, the level is still well below what it was, say, in 1968.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not over the years there have been sporadic outbursts of this disease in places other than Leeds, and whether looked at over the past few years Leeds is any worse than any other place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is right to ask me that question, if I may say so, because so far as I can ascertain Leeds is indeed no worse than anywhere else in this particular case. The fact is, as the noble Baroness says, that this disease—in common with most other infectious diseases may I say—increases and decreases on a cyclical basis for reasons which are not yet fully understood.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what guidance, if any, is given by local or area officers of health to schools on this matter, since this is a very unpleasant illness, and to what effect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the principal source of guidance is the source that I have already described; namely, the dissemination of information by the directors of education, particularly in Leeds, as I said, and also the various leaflets and other documents that I have referred to. Of course local medical officers of health are always willing to spend a good deal of time—and indeed they do—in lecturing, for example, to education authorities, and in some cases in schools themselves.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the position could be improved by reintroducing the statutory medical officer of health, which was abandoned in 1973?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would want to think about the answer to that question. I am not necessarily convinced, however, that a large increase in the number of people considering these matters would necessarily produce the right answer. As I have said, the real way to control these diseases is by better health education.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have the numbers from the regional medical officer? Is he further aware that in 1981 there were 102 cases in the Leeds district, and in 1982 there were 348 cases? In the national figures, in 1981 there were 9,834 cases, and in 1982 there were 10,641 cases.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, but in 1970 there were 21,584 cases.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give us any idea about how far the research into the causes of children catching this infectious disease has reached?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the reasons why this disease—hepatitis A is the disease we are talking about—is more prevalent among children is because they, in simple terms, do not wash their hands so often.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, in view of his last answer, if he can tell us who is responsible for implementing everything that the Department, in very good faith, tells the schools to do?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the staff of the schools who ought to be persuading the children to wash their hands more regularly, but as a parent of small children I know how difficult that is.

CND: Photographing of Demonstrations
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether persons attending CND demonstrations are photographed by Government agents or by agents of the American Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I can say that the police in this country do, on occasions, photograph demonstrations for operational or training purposes; and there is no reason why they should not, if appropriate, photograph those organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, but will the noble Lord address himself to the second part of the Question in which he was asked whether he had any reason to believe that these photographs were being taken not only by people responsible to his Government, but by people ultimately responsible to the American Government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, any activities of foreign intelligence agencies are kept under close scrutiny. If there were evidence of illegal or improper activity by any agency, the appropriate authorities would not hesitate to take action.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend conceive of any reason why those attending CND demonstrations should object to being photographed by anyone, including the press, British or foreign? Presumably they do not mind being seen to have attended such a demonstration, unless they are photographed carrying out something illegal or disorderly?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the question my noble friend has asked me. Your Lordships will be aware that where one has very large numbers of people spread over a large area the police force responsible for seeing that traffic flows and life continues normally need to be able to see what is going on all at one time. It is essential to use modern technological devices to enable the senior officer to see what is going on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, in addition to taking photographs of demonstrations of all kinds, not just CND, the police sometimes make very detailed inquiries of the organisers, and that their questions appear to go beyond what is necessary for the purposes of control of crowds? Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that information obtained in this way or photographs taken of ordinary demonstrations for operational purposes will not be conveyed by the metropolitan police, or on their behalf, to agents of a foreign power?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not certain that the noble Lord's question does not go beyond the one on the Order Paper in some respects, but photographs need to be taken for operational reasons and these are used for the proper purposes. I am not certain that I have satisfied the noble Lord, but I am not sure that I have understood his question.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I asked whether the noble Lord will give an undertaking that photographs or information obtained about demonstrations by police inquiries will not be conveyed by or on behalf of the metropolitan police to agents of any foreign power?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would be surprised if they were. I cannot see the purpose for which they would be. The noble Lord who asked the original Question was referring to Greenham Common, which of course is not the concern of the metropolitan police, but if there is anything to be concerned about I will let the noble Lord know.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in the interests of the security of this country it is highly desirable that those members of the CND who are not friendly to this country should be recognised on future occasions?
Lord Renton: My Lords, might not these photographs sometimes be of interest to Interpol? In such circumstances, might it not be perfectly proper for the police forces of other countries to be told of the contents of the photographs? Would not the demonstrators be most terribly disappointed if they were not photographed by as many people as possible?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that we are talking about peaceable demonstrations which are not illegal, and that, of course, cannot be of interest to Interpol.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, did I understand the noble Minister to say, and will he confirm, that photographs were taken by Government agents and if so what Ministry controls them and what do they do with the pictures that they take?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I said that some peaceful demonstrations were photographed or filmed and that such films were used for operational reasons. If the noble Lord does not follow me, if one has a human chain 14½ miles long and one senior police officer responsible for good order in the area, it is necessary to know where he should place his policemen to secure good order. That means he needs a film of what is going on. It is also very useful, with demonstrations of this sort or of a less peaceable sort, to have a record for training purposes to see how it is possible to control the movements of large bodies of people in a peaceful manner.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a considerable difference of principle here between the rights of the British Government and the British police and the rights of agents of foreign Governments to photograph legal British peaceful demonstrations? Will he say plainly that he regards the second category as improper?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have said already that anything that is improper is the subject of control by this Government. But the noble Lord is moving to questions of security in a rather detailed manner. It is the long-standing practice not to comment upon security and intelligence matters. If we replied to a
564
specific question, then refusal to do so on another occasion could be misconstrued as either endorsement or contradiction of whatever was implied in the question.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister please confirm that in this country the police are not government agents?
Lord Elton: Indeed, they are not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that sometimes they seem like it? Will he also accept that the series of supplementary questions seem to me to have given the matter a sufficient airing at this time and that I have no further questions to ask?
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, I have several further answers to give but I will not give them.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that it would have been very desirable if the group of CND who broke up a local meeting of my Devon Defence Volunteers had been photographed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I collected the statement but not the supplementary question. I have noted the statement implicit in the question.

Argentina: Licensed Supplies of Armaments
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they informed the Franks Committee that arms and ammunition, licensed by the Government, were being exported from this country to the Argentine throughout the month of March 1982.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Franks Committee were informed of all major United Kingdom defence contracts with Argentina during the period 1964–82. The deliveries were detailed on a yearly rather than a monthly basis.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the Answer given by his noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade at column 1455 on 29th March this year, in which he informed me that over £1 million worth of military material had been sent from this country to the Argentine during the month of March 1982? In the light of that Answer would he not agree that this, along with the projected withdrawal of HMS "Endurance", could be taken as a signal by the Argentine junta that there was no intention on the part of this Government to resist any invasion of the Falklands?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not agree with that as it would seem from paragraph 280 of the report of the Franks Committee that they did not consider defence sales to be a major factor in their review.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will accept that the matter of the export of arms and ammunition to the Argentine is an on-going policy. Will he accept that the House is probably even more concerned with the policy pursued in that matter since March 1982, and will he give some indication of the general principles which now apply in relation to it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, that the future is more important to us now than the past. I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am being dismissive or discourteous when I say that that is not what the Question is about.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly tell the House what was the total value of armaments sold by the United Kingdom to the Argentine in the whole of 1981?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not got the figure with me. I will get it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, if he had been in a Government which were receiving arms from a potential enemy, he would have considered that that supply of arms indicated that there would not be military action against him? In view of that proposition, would he not also agree that the continued supply of parts of armaments since the end of the Falklands war by companies in this country to assist in the rearmament of Argentina in the past 12 months is likely to give the same impression?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I think that the noble Lord is rather forgetting who attacked whom. It is absurd to suggest that when, in the past, Her Majesty's Government have been delivering armaments to another country it should therefore be the case that that other country would not expect that Her Majesty's Government would attack it. But that is not what happened. Britain was attacked by the Argentine, unexpectedly, in a way which the Franks Report has recorded in paragraph 337:
"We are convinced that the invasion of 2nd April 1982 could not have been foreseen".
So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, that refers to the future. I conceded to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that that is important; but that is not what the present Question is about.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood my supplementary question. May I put it to him again? May I ask him the same supplementary question in simpler language? At the beginning of March 1982, as the Franks Committee has reported, the Foreign Office here warned our
566
representative in Buenos Aires that we were on the verge of a confrontation. If the noble Lord had been in the position of the Argentine Foreign Minister at that time, would he not have imagined that, so long as Britain was supplying arms to the Argentine, any invasion by them would not be met by retaliation from this country, which was supplying the arms?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can go over the ground again. It has been covered exhaustively by the Franks Committee. They reached the conclusion that I have read out to the House.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina &c.) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Energy: Development and Conservation
2.59 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill rose to call attention to the need for a positive policy for the development and conservation of the nation's energy resources; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today we live in an energy hungry world in which the whole prosperity and lifestyle of the industrialised nations, not to mention the future prosperity of the third world, depends largely on reliable, adequate and reasonably priced sources of energy. It is often suggested that there is no real energy problem in the world because so many different sources are now available. But half the world's energy comes from oil. The production rate is unlikely to increase significantly and must begin to fall in the future because new discoveries are not keeping pace with extraction. Even with energy conservation measures in the developed countries, the problem is bound to increase in the future. In this country, along with other nations, we have been made increasingly aware of the problems associated with world energy supplies since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973.
The revolution in Iran, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq-Iran conflict are reminders that not only is the flow of oil in ultimate danger of running out but, in the Middle East at least, it is also critically vulnerable to more immediate political stresses and strains. In the United Kingdom, however, we are fortunate in being one of the few industrialised nations to have significant reserves of coal, oil and gas in addition to our potential for nuclear power. After many years of being a net importer of energy we are now self-sufficient, and throughout the 1980s domestic production should be large enough to ensure that the nation has a net energy surplus.
Our immediate prospects are therefore bright but it is important to avoid complacency, bearing in mind that the full benefits of the North Sea are likely to be available only for a limited period. Present expectations are that by the 1990s the country will

567
again become a net importer of fuel as indigenous oil and natural gas taper off. In the world as a whole the future picture is one of increasing pressures on available fuel supplies. The requirement of the developing countries for fossil fuels is certain to grow, and these nations will expect the industrialised countries to help to relieve pressure on supplies by developing alternative energy sources.
So far as this country is concerned, we have now reached the stage when we need a positive policy for the development and conservation of the nation's energy resources. We need to plan now against the day when domestic production of oil and gas will be falling off and when these fuels become so valuable that developed and available alternatives make good economic sense. Indeed, much more should be done now, I believe, to investigate the long-term possibilities of producing oil from coal—a move which would reduce the amount of coal available for power stations and which must lead to an eventual increase in coal production and the further development of the nuclear power plant manufacturing industry. Incidentally, can we be told by the noble Earl the Minister when he replies whether the Government agree? So far theirs would seem to be a policy of silence on this matter rather than an affirmation of a publicly-discussed strategy.
It has to be emphasised that there is no basic shortage of energy, at least in the medium term. The real question is the cost of energy and its management, particularly in relation to the timing and introduction of new sources. The national economy is dependent on securing supplies of energy at economic prices. We need to be competitive in this with overseas countries in Europe in particular. There is a long time-scale for planning in the energy industries. It is usually 8 to 10 years before a change of policy has any major implications, and it is therefore essential to aim for stability in policy rather than for abrupt changes. Such changes, when they occur, always involve higher costs on the supply side and as regards consumers' installations. Have the Government such an aim? Do they accept that stability in policy is vital? If so, how do they reconcile recent and current legislation with such a dictum? If not, of course the question answers itself.
One of the main requirements for a national energy policy is the creation of a climate which is favourable for future sensible investment decisions. This means a sound approach to energy pricing and a clear specification of the return which the energy industries should aim at on the massive investments they need to make. A substantial proportion of national investment will be taken up by energy investment in the years ahead. A suitable pricing and financial discipline is therefore a necessity. Unsatisfactory pricing policies distort energy and other markets; and the clumsy use by the present Government of cash limits, set in such a way as to influence tariff levels in the energy supply industries, is a classic example of what I have just mentioned. It results in inadequate financial provision for investments needed for future energy supplies, little encouragement to conserve energy and the provision of misleading information to customers on how to choose forms of energy use appropriate to their situations.
The world energy outlook suggests that attempts to supplement indigenous fossil fuel reserves with oil imports will become increasingly expensive. Also, the outlook for United Kingdom energy is uncertain; oil and gas production are likely to have reached their peak and will be falling by the year 2000. Clearly, the coal and nuclear power industries will then assume increasing strategic importance when other fossil fuel supplies begin to decline. Total known United Kingdom reserves of coal are estimated to be 190,000 million tonnes, about a quarter of which are recoverable using established technology.
The Coal Board's ability to maintain, and in the longer term increase, coal production will demand a continuing and substantial level of investment in new and more efficient pits to replace existing high-cost pits, which will become exhausted well before the end of the century. The National Coal Board is currently modernising existing pits and investing in new capacity; but, Selby apart, it is unlikely that this will contribute significantly to coal production before 1990. Indeed, it is likely that environmental and social pressures for the National Coal Board to justify their plans for new pits will increase, with subsequent delay to planned investment.
In passing, it is worth mentioning that if the new chairman's past record in dealing with trade unions is considered—that is, he tries to ignore them if he possibly can—the future harmony in the coal industry may be in serious jeopardy. In my view, the coal industry's prospects can be realised only if new capacity is introduced to improve overall productivity and cost structure, enabling the price of coal to remain competitive with that of other fuels.
I turn now to the consideration of North Sea oil production. It is expected to exceed United Kingdom demand throughout the 1980s, although substantial quantities of certain grades of oil will still be imported for economic advantage and to satisfy industrial needs. The world oil market is subject to a variety of political and financial influences and its price may continue to be affected by the operation of cartels such as OPEC.
In 1981 the Department of Energy estimated that United Kingdom oil reserves lay between 1,900 million and 4,100 million tonnes, and forecast that offshore oil production of 80 million tonnes in 1980 would increase to between 90 million tonnes and 120 million tonnes a year in the mid-80s. Yet by the year 2000 there will be a net oil import requirement of 35 to 50 million tonnes a year. Self-sufficiency might be extended into the 1990s if there are further discoveries of oil—for example, in other parts of the United Kingdom continental shelf—and with rising crude oil prices that leads to the development of small fields that have hitherto been considered as being uneconomic. However, in 1975 our trade deficit in oil was nearly £5 billion. In 1980 oil exports exceeded imports by £19 million. A slower rate of depletion would prolong the benefits to the balance of payments. We would also benefit from greater security of oil supplies towards the end of the century, and give industry more time to introduce new, efficient equipment and to adjust to new patterns of energy supply.
In such a situation, the Government stand indicted by their excessive zeal to support oil discovery and production at the hands of the multi-nationals—a

569
modest BNOC presence proving, it would seem, too much to accept by this most partisan of Governments. There is, of course, the great political divide between Government and those of us on these Benches. A major public asset, as North Sea oil undoubtedly is, should not be principally the responsibility of the entrepreneur but should be held in public account.
Let us forget the present Government's behaviour for a moment and consider the availability of natural gas, which will, of course, depend on the size of the reserves and the pattern of their depletion. The Department of Energy's 1981 estimates suggest remaining reserves of possibly 76 tera-cubic feet, and another 12 tera-cubic feet might be recovered from gas found in association with oil, provided that a gas-gathering pipeline is built for the northern basin of the North Sea. Gas production from the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1980 was 1·31 tera-cubic feet, meeting 77 per cent. of the United Kingdom's demands. The remainder was imported Norwegian gas.
Ultimately, as gas reserves diminish, the gas industry will need to rely on increasing supplies of substitute natural gas produced from coal. This will lead, obviously, to still higher gas prices. In my view, it is imperative, therefore, that the current wastage of North Sea reserves through gas flaring is brought to an end. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us whether or not the Government agree with that view and, if not, why not.
Quite obviously conservation is clearly an important element in future energy projections. The extent to which energy can be conserved has been a source of much discussion over the past decade, and in some quarters the need to save energy has been elevated to a principle in itself. Such an approach implies that it is right to waste other scarce resources in order to conserve energy—a proposition which I do not believe bears serious examination. Further, I do not believe that Government can claim that the current level of resources devoted to conservation does justice to its important position in our overall energy strategy.
This country's conservation is not only minuscule but is fragmented. The diversity of schemes and diffusion of effort among Government departments blurs policy initiatives. I consider it to be imperative that positive steps are taken as a matter of urgency to overcome these weaknesses. As a first step, the central recommendation of the Rayner Report should be implemented; that is, the setting-up of a new division of the Department of Energy to co-ordinate and improve ministerial control over energy conservation. Having done this, Government expenditure on conservation schemes must be raised to the levels enjoyed by our EEC partners. In addition, the bureaucracy which has built up around the administration of grants has resulted in the strangulation of many good schemes in both the domestic and the industrial sectors, and this is a well-known fact. Again, this must be put right.
Above all, we must not allow the momentum for change to be dissipated by spurious arguments as to the effectiveness of conservation. The Government need to recognise that conservation raises particular difficulties in promotion and implementation, which
570
are much more difficult than on the supply side where in the main it is in the hands of reasonably competent specialised industries. Conservation demands the cooperation of individual owners or local authorities, and it is not clear that exhortation is enough to persuade them to adopt reasonable conservation measures. Conservation measures can also be technically demanding and owners are not always clear to whom they can go for unbiased advice.
I suggest, therefore, that it would be in the national interest to provide more finance by way of grants or low interest rate loans for the purpose of conservation, and to set up, through established agencies or industries, a national co-ordinated network of advisory centres which would undertake work under guarantee.
We hear much talk about the so-called renewable or benign sources of energy, such as the wind, the waves, the tides, the sun and, of course, geo-thermal power. We must maximise the contributions from all these sources, but they can only scratch the surface of the problem. However, it might be worth while to spend just a few moments considering their practicability. In this country the sun offers no prospects for the generation of electricity, but the use of solar power may prove attractive for the provision of low-grade heat, such as domestic water heating, and in that application may prove a useful partial substitute for more conventional forms of energy. The wind, the waves and the tides all offer substantial energy sources, but windmills are visually intrusive and noisy. Their necessarily small capacity will involve a network of inter-connecting lines and the wind does not blow steadily or continuously, so there is a need for alternative sources of generation, or alternatively for large storage.
A considerable amount of work is going on here and in other countries towards the development of wind generators, but when we reflect that 500 such machines, each built on a tower taller than a super-grid transmission tower, would be needed to have the equivalent peak output of one modern power station I think it can be seen that the siting of such a windmill farm, if I might call it that, could not be an easy matter. For this reason, it has been proposed that the mud flats on the Dogger Bank might be sufficiently remote from an urban area to be a possibility. This may indeed prove to be the case, but of course transmission costs would be correspondingly higher. It seems quite likely that eventually we shall see a useful contribution from wind power, but necessarily a marginal one. However, in isolated areas wholly reliant on diesel generation, as many of the islands offshore of the North and East of Scotland are, windmills may have a role to play.
The United Kingdom is particularly well situated in relation to power from the waves. A number of devices have been developed, ranging from the well-known nodding ducks, through articulated rafts to air turbines which have been devised to harness the kinetic energy of the tides. The power available on our Western Approaches is very substantial and, in theory at least, could provide some 10 per cent. of our total energy demand. But the difficulties are formidable, involving very large devices which would have to be anchored securely and which would have to perform in

571
hurricanes and in the presence of at least 50-foot waves. Even given the necessary sea-keeping qualities, the problems of transmitting the resultant power to shore and of maintaining the devices in service would be truly formidable. I very much doubt—I express an entirely personal opinion—whether the economics would prove to be attractive.
Some work is going on in this country on geothermal power. Some heat has been extracted from rocks in the vicinity of the Poole power station in Dorset which is now contributing to the overall performance of the power station there. Certain other areas of the country look promising but it seems clear already that we can expect no large contribution from this source. Perhaps we should be grateful for this. In general, where geothermal energy is readily available the earth's crust is thin and earthquakes are a substantial hazard.
Mine has, of necessity, been a brief survey of alternative energy sources. Nevertheless, it is clear that some of them may eventually become viable. Probably their total contribution in the year 2000 will, at best, represent only one or two per cent. of our energy requirements. How, then, will our descendants cope with their need for energy as our oil and gas reserves begin to run down? I am of the view that the only established technology capable of substituting for our failing resources of oil and gas will be nuclear energy. No credible alternative exists. Indeed, we cannot turn off and on the construction of new nuclear stations, as we would a tap. Able and experienced engineers in the nuclear design and construction industry are not going to hang about kicking their heels, on the offchance of the Government authorising another station in a few years' time. It takes many years and a long learning curve to put together the high quality teams needed to build our stations successfully.
It is no good the Government failing to grasp the nettle and then crying over spilt milk, which is largely of their own doing, if the performance of the United Kingdom contracting industry is not as high as they would like. Indeed, the United Kingdom contracting industry, and the United Kingdom nuclear design and construction industry in particular, have demonstrated—and are demonstrating, I believe—at Heysham and Torness that, given half a chance, they can match and beat the performances of their competitors overseas. These stations were authorised by the previous Government and they have been sustained by the present Government, but it has been reported that it took more than £150 million of taxpayers' money in relaunching costs to provide the proper manufacturing facilities necessary to make a job of them. Surely that is an example of Stop-Go and lack of stable Government policy at its very worst.
In my view, our future energy strategy should pursue several paths simultaneously. To replace falling oil and gas reserves we shall need to maintain coal output and to increase nuclear power production as extensions of our present technologies. At the same time we must pursue the development of new energy sources, recognising that their practical and economic potential remains to be demonstrated and that their contribution will be slow in achievement. We must also seek to extend the life of our fossil fuel resources
572
and limit the substitution problem by the vigorous promotion of such conservation measures as can be economically justified. Above all, we should aim to use all fuels more efficiently, more cost effectively and more wisely.
In the course of these remarks, I have asked some questions of the Minister: for example, what is the Government's attitude to the long-term possibilities of producing oil from coal? What are the Government's aims as to stability in policy, given some recent aberrations? Do the Government intend to bring gas flaring to an end? Do the Government intend to implement the major recommendations of the Rayner Report? Notwithstanding, I should like to put on record the intentions of the Labour party when we resume office, as outlined in our Programme 1982. We shall ensure that everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home. We shall give priority to the coal industry and to the use of coal as a fuel. We shall assist major towns and cities to set up combined heat and power schemes. We shall begin a massive conservation programme, led by insulation for council housing and giving incentives to industry on agreed plans to save energy. We shall greatly increase spending on the development of renewable resources.
My final thought is that perhaps the innumerable papers which exist dealing with conservation, combined heat and power projects and, as I would describe it, the present Government's non-policy, et cetera, could themselves be burned and thereby contribute to the nation's energy requirements. What we distinctly are short of is action. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the House will be greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, first, for choosing this subject for debate; secondly, for bringing to it a personal knowledge of one aspect of the energy industry, namely oil, which he developed for some years as a very distinguished Provost of Aberdeen; and, thirdly, for the temperate mood in which he addressed himself to the subject, although, of course, as was to be expected at a time like this—"Will Maggie, or won't she?"—there were one or two side swipes which one could have written for him beforehand. However, the main thrust of his speech I found to be satisfactory.
The noble Lord said that we must address our minds to the situation which will arise when the supply of indigenous oil from the continental shelf falls away. He said that the real questions are the cost of energy and its management—a bracket of considerations that is common ground to all sides of the House. The noble Lord minimised the lead times involved. He spoke of eight to 10 years. I should have thought they were more like 15. But in any case the noble Lord urged stability in policy. Again this would be common ground, I hope, on all sides of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord also threw in the suggestion—without being specific—that recent legislation was in some fashion in conflict with this. But yesterday we got through the Committee stage of the Energy Bill without a Division. The noble Lord called for a sound approach to energy pricing. Nothing could be more common sense than that; I should hope that that too would be common ground.

573
On conservation, the noble Lord, taking his words almost verbatim from the recent report of Sub-Committee F on the rational use of energy, referred to the diffusion of effort among a dozen Government departments. Again this is common ground. The noble Lord asked when the recommendation contained in the Rayner Report will be carried through. We are awaiting the Government's answer. The gossip in the Lobbies is that the Government are going to accept this recommendation; we shall no doubt quite soon now hear. The noble Lord also treated renewable resources as the marginal things that they are—well done again. I am only sorry that he had to take a side swipe at the new coal board chairman. At one point, moreover, he referred, without being specific, to "misleading" information. He also referred, naturally enough, perhaps, to his objection to cash limits on the energy supply industry.
Those are all legitimate areas of discussion and, as I have said many times before in this House, I hope that we can discuss these matters objectively, without rancour and without too much party bias. One thing is absolutely certain, and it is that in energy policy no Government ever carry the can for their mistakes or ever get the credit for their successes, because the results are only seen 15 years later. Although I believe that we shall have three terms of this Government, I would not believe that of any other! That is my only sideswipe this afternoon.
I found this Motion somewhat anodyne. It calls for a "positive" policy. Who is against that? It calls for the development of energy resources. Who is against that? Conservation also is mentioned, and I have yet to meet the man who is not for that as well. A positive policy demands more than a general denunciation of sin. I believe it is vital for us all, whatever may be the party to which we belong—treating this subject as being worthy of an all-party council of state and something to which we should seriously apply our minds for the sake of future generations—to be humble and to admit our mistakes.
Very few prophecies have so far come true in the energy field. Only a few years ago we were told that there was going to be a great uranium shortage, and yet today such a shortage is not even in sight. The British National Oil Corporation—to which I shall turn shortly—was conceived for an epoch of rising prices. What is our concern now? It is to stop prices falling. If we are to look at the long term, it is no use confusing the issues by introducing party points. We must be clear as to our objective, and this should be our first requirement.
Are we aiming to sterilise nature's ever-changing environment? Some would have it so. Are we aiming to prolong the pillow-soft comforts of our present self-indulgent way of life? Some would say that this is a natural human right. Is it our aim above all to safeguard jobs whatever and wherever they are? Again, for some that would be the prime objective of energy policy. I wish to suggest—and I believe that I have the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, with me on this—that the real objective is to provide the best and cheapest power for industry. Even if we choose that as our main objective, there are baffling dilemmas before us. There is the dilemma between the present cheapness of power and its very availability in 30 years' time. There
574
is the dilemma between the choice of lower prices now and what has come to be known as the long range, marginal cost of replacement.
In the matter of coal one speaks with great deference and hesitancy when two eminent noble Lords who are to follow have great experience of this industry. I should like to put it to your Lordships that the critical questions about the coal industry do not relate to strikes, nor to redundancies as such, nor to how the unions are behaving, nor even to whether National Coal Board chairmen are well chosen or not.
The real questions relate to the whole switch in the shape of British industry, from heavier to lighter. This switch is not peculiar to Britain: it is common to the whole of Western Europe. The British economy is now using only 310 million tonnes of coal equivalent of energy a year as against 346 million tonnes (about 10 per cent. more) in 1972–73, when on the one hand the Plan for Coal was being gestated and, on the other hand, the OPEC price rise was beginning. This figure could be down to 300 million tonnes in 10 years' time. The decline in the shape of British industry and its dramatic change from heavy to light—if you like, from the drop-forge to the gasket and the micro-circuit—is the factor that must condition to a large extent the future of the coal industry, whatever our emotions and national pride may be.
Although face productivity for the past year rose by something like 5 per cent. over the year before, and is in itself a very encouraging sign to an industry in which I have always believed—and I have always stated that belief—the fact is that the projections of 1972–73 on which the still extant Plan for Coal were based, are simply out of date. The situation has changed and this is just one more case of predictions being utterly wrong. That is always the case in the energy field.
If phasing-in the best investment for the coal industry and phasing-out the worst is the means by which production can be brought to match price demand by 1987 or 1988, that will still mean some drastic changes. It looks like absolute wastage, without replacement, of something like 25,000 men who are now over the age of 55. That may be, in social terms, acceptable in itself—that those jobs, as they end, will not be replaced. But the consequence can only be a new generation of an aging workforce. It is greatly to the credit of the industry that the average age of the NCB work force is today 39. This is to be applauded and we are grateful for it—but if one has to phase out 25,000 men, and one is naturally trying to phase out the older men, and do it without recruitment there is a consequential change in the structure and, above all, in the age levels of the subsequent workforce.
Another consequence which must be faced—and I am quite certain from my own information that it is being faced very seriously by the National Coal Board and in the Government's thinking on the subject—is the trend that there must be towards coal liquefaction. Another trend is toward the production of gas for chemical feedstocks. I hope and believe that ultimately, although the experts are much divided on this, underground gassification will be developed.
I turn now to oil. The Government were attacked and indicted this afternoon for their excessive zeal for the multinational oil companies' development when, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill,

575
correctly, he was arguing for a somewhat more conservative policy on depletion. The noble Lord called for an end to flaring, and I must say that I did not know any wasteful flaring was still going on in the United Kingdom sector, although maybe there is. On this subject, we surely have one thing to say about the present Government and it is that, despite blindness and blunders—which I shall list—the Government can be brought to see the light. That is something very rare in Governments of other parties.
First, we were treated to the project of a gas gathering pipeline. It was a strange idea, that one could somehow or another secure private enterprise risk investment in a public utility for public utility rates of return—all without a Government guarantee. How that idea took root I cannot conceive, and I have met very few people who can understand or explain now how it arose. If one is going to persuade private enterprise to invest in a public utility at public utility rates of return as a risk investment, then there must be a Government guarantee. I think that was a blunder and vital time was wasted on it.
Then a second blunder was the endeavour to make water run up-hill by using the gas gathering system as if it was a relevant factor in discussing with different companies their development programmes in the North Sea. Of course, development slumped, and then suddenly—my goodness! the street of Damascus called strait is nothing to what happened—the Department of Energy discovered that for a whole two and a half years, no Annexe B's had been submitted for North Sea oil development and they had better buck up and get some. So that was the second mistake, to couple the gas gathering pipeline and companies reluctance to participate with talks with those companies who wanted to develop their fields and were in fact, by silly production profiles, being discouraged.
The third blunder was the tax régime. The Treasury pushed for short-term revenue while forsaking the long-term considerations. At last these points have been grasped. On all three the Government have at last relented. So I believe we should honour, not vilify, a Government which is humble enough to see its mistakes and correct them. Then there is a very significant success to the Government's credit in the oil area. Having freed—wait for it your Lordships on the other side—BNOC's exploration activities from the restraint of Treasury control—that is what privatisation accomplished—we were left with a rump BNOC, still called BNOC, available to do its original purpose, which was to safeguard the national trading interest. What this Government have done is to make quite clear to BNOC that if in the endeavour to support the price of crude, or alternatively in the endeavour to prevent a helter-skelter collapse, BNOC loses money, then this very anti-subsidy Government will subsidise it. There is nothing ideological about that. Here is a Conservative Government cutting subsidies wherever they can but recognising the need for what is left of BNOC to do a particular trading job and in particular to influence the price.
I believe the Government deserve very considerable credit for their handling of BNOC and, through BNOC, their treatment of the North Sea crude prices as an element in stability at a time when we could have
576
had a collapse. I do not say we shall not have a collapse, but the procedures so far undertaken by this Government, using BNOC as their chosen instrument, have been satisfactory, have won the acclaim of Sheikh Yamani and other OPEC spokesmen, and have led to, at any rate, a steadying of the price when there could have been a disastrous breakdown. So on oil I give the Government a beta-plus. I have one question to ask before I leave that subject. We are awaiting any day now the results of the Eighth Round of licensing. Will the Government have a similar round next year, and in general terms what areas of the continental shelf do they expect that to cover?
I turn to the question of nuclear power. Here again—and I can say it happily in the presence of my noble friend the Minister, because he was not responsible at the time to which I am referring; indeed I am not sure he is not actually a product of that catastrophe—I think this Government have to live down the perfectly dreadful complacency shown in the face of one of the best informed debates this House has had in 15 years. On 8th December last the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, moved his Motion on the need for pressing on with the development of the commercial fast reactor. Some 15 of your Lordships supported him in that plea: among them were two former Secretaries of State for Scotland; there were five or six speakers with expert knowledge; there were two former heads of the Atomic Energy Authority; there were eight more who were very knowledgeable. They all said the same thing. It was that we simply could not stand still on the programme for the commercial demonstration fast reactor—the CDFR—otherwise we would be left behind and would be in a very bad shape 15 or 20 years hence. The House was treated by the Minister who was put up to answer—I am not going to name him—to a fifth form essay which took little note of the arguments. Somebody made the rather ironic comment—which I think is worth repeating, because it was a terrible performance—"Now we know he can read".
The public argument for delay that we were given is scarcely credible, that energy demands will be less than are expected 35 years hence—predictions 35 years hence! That is two and a half lead times. Nobody can predict what the situation is going to be 35 years hence. Look back 35 years; look back 10 years. That argument was intellectually unworthy. Then there were private arguments put in circulation coupled with it. One was a doubt about future uranium costs, but since it is re-used the gross cost is not really very important. How are you going to judge uranium costs 35 years hence, especially when you are saying it may not be there?
The second point made privately was that the important consequence of the commercial demonstration fast reactor will be its engineering reproduction all over the world. Here is an undertaking which it is said we ought to pursue in harmony and in conjunction with one or other of the big international consortia. There is a Japanese-American consortium and there is a Franco-German consortium. The suggestion was made that we really ought to wait until we can talk to them and find out which are the best partners before we come committed to going ahead ourselves. But of course the real answer is the reverse. If we do commit ourselves to going ahead now, to holding the design

577
and research teams together, to pursuing the matter as is perfectly possible at the state we have reached, then either of those two rival consortia will be very glad to come in behind us.
So there are three short points which I believe should be considered by the House and by the Government over the years. Do we want to keep our world lead in innovation, or do we just want to lapse into a licensing situation, as has now happened with the thermal reactor system, the PWR? The second question is: do we want a power source burning 99 per cent. of its fuel, and consuming—not making—plutonium? Do we want such a power source based on a negligible fuel cost, because it is re-used anyway? From the point of view of industries' eventual competition on the world scene, with cheap power, this is a very critical question indeed. Finally, do we want to do all this ahead of the rest of the world, because that is where we are now?
I believe there is still time for the Government to give the go-ahead, to make the jump from the 250 Mw to the 1250 Mw scale station that is being talked about. We all know that there is still a very serious technical problem about leaks in the steam generation boiler units and those problems have yet to be overcome. But of course if you slow down the research, if you say there is no hurry until the year 2020, it is very unlikely that the design teams and the research teams now gathered and focussing on this will hold together for the purpose indefinitely. So to press on hard now will hold the research and development teams together. I believe, as do others, that this will prove to be much cheaper in the end. If the Government are again humble enough to revise their view on this I shall vote them an alpha double plus now, and after the next two elections as well.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that the subject which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is one of the greatest importance. He has spoken on it with a depth of understanding of the problem. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has treated us, as we have come to expect, to a vigorous tour de force in which he has covered many important aspects of this problem. He hinted that it might well be that I would want to say something about his remarks on the coal industry. Indeed, I shall do that in a moment.
But I should first like to raise a general aspect of this problem. Although there is no doubt of the importance of the whole energy issue, it is a fact that over the years we have blown hot and cold in regard to it. At the time of the 1974 and 1979 oil crises we were full of thoughts of how we were to develop alternative energies, reduce our dependence on those undependable external sources, improve energy efficiency, and so on. But during the subsequent recessions which followed 1974–75, and the current one, the whole emphasis has been dimmed. The interest in the matter has been diminished. Indeed, one can understand why people are a little reluctant to take firm decisions in the energy sector, because one must reconcile so many variable considerations.
There is the question of efficiency. Everybody will agree that we must produce energy as efficiently as
578
possible and use it as efficiently as we can. We do not need to argue about that. However, there is also the question of security. Many people would agree that, long-term this is a desirable objective. It does not necessarily agree with being the most efficient at any particular point in time. There is the question of short-term market fluctuations, such as we are going through at the moment. There is the question of structural changes in the market place, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred. There is the question of the environment, with its increasing pressure. There is the question of consumers' interests; there is the question of the long lead time in investment and research. So when one contemplates the whole of this variable situation, and momentarily the pressures on energy seem to have diminished, then the temptation must surely be to let it look after itself.
However, in my submission that would be a very dangerous conclusion to reach. The energy crisis is still with us. It might be temporarily subdued due to external economic factors, but that it will re-emerge in the next few years, and thereafter, there is no doubt at all. The trouble is that if one wants to cope with future uncertain crises one cannot wait for those crises. One has to make the decisions today, and those decisions are generally of a long-term nature.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that in his opinion the prime objective must be to produce the cheapest energy for the use of our industries and for our homes. That sounds all right, but, as I think he went on to say, that could be a rather dangerous precept because what is cheapest today could be the most expensive tomorrow. I should like to submit that our objectives should be slightly different. We should have two objectives. The first is that we should aim to maintain self-sufficiency and security in energy. That is by far the most important consideration. We have seen the enormous damage that can be caused by undue dependence on third parties.
Let us say we limit our dependence on third country oil from the Middle East but at the same time increase dependence in Europe on gas from Russia, or increase our dependence on coal from America, Australia and South Africa. When the situation changes those countries will change their policies. I am very familiar with the international coal trade. It is a marginal trade; only 10 per cent. of all the coal produced is traded. Therefore, it is subject to very major changes, because the bulk of the coal is sold in the countries of production. We know that in Australia, for example, as the market firms up not only do the producers increase their prices but the Australian Government impose an export tax. There is the same tendency in Canada. Undoubtedly United States coal, which is quoted so competitively in the world market today, can change overnight if conditions change.
Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that our first objective, if we are to learn at all from past experience, must be that we should aim to maintain self-sufficiency and security. Our second objective must be to do that as efficiently as possible.
If we are to aim at those two objectives and work our way through the conflicting considerations to which I referred, then we must have a very clearly defined strategy. I believe that that has to comprehend greater efficiency in the production and distribution of our

579
existing sources of energy; a major exploration programme related to these sources to maintain them as long as possible, and a greater efficiency in their use; and—something that has tended to be reduced in these days of financial stringency—the maintenance of a major research programme in improving the use of existing resources and developing new ones.
I believe that we can apply a policy of this sort to each of our forms of energy and reconcile some of the difficulties to which I have referred. Let us take coal—a subject with which I have a slight familiarity. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to Plan for Coal, in which I was personally very much involved in 1974 with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gormley. The noble Earl said that the figures attached to this plan are now out of date, with the implication that we must start again. But the figures were not the key part of the plan at all. At the time those figures were estimated, the steel industries of the world were in a booming condition, and economies were moving upwards. I remember being personally criticised by a number of our consumers, whom I had approached, for being too modest in the estimates. So the estimates then were what they had to be, and no doubt if we made them today they would be different. But that was not the issue. Of course there had to be some figures; one could not produce a plan of that sort without figures.
What the plan was all about covered three basic considerations. First, we had to improve the efficiency of the industry by introducing a stimulus to those who worked in it. It was agreed by all parties—the unions, the Government and management at the time—that this could best be achieved by the introduction of an "effective incentive scheme". This was done. It took time and there were arguments about it, but it was done. The noble Earl referred to the improvements in productivity which have taken place quite recently.
Secondly, it was agreed that it was essential in an industry which had been starved of investment in new capacity during the preceding 15 years that we should catch up with this and that that new investment should be used to take the place of those mines which inevitably, through the long time that they had been in existence, were going to be exhausted of mineable coal. And that programme was put in hand.
Thirdly, it was agreed that we should aim through our research and development programme to transform coal into a high technology industry. All those things were put in hand and a great deal of progress was made. Indeed, on the last point, as a result of this concerted effort between the industry and the manufacturers of equipment, a very substantial export business was built up, showing that British mining technology was then, and still is, leading in this particular aspect. This is what was being aimed at. The significance of that plan is, I repeat, not the figures but what we were trying to do. I should personally be disappointed in the new chairman of the Coal Board if one of the first things that he was to do was to say that we need a new plan. What we need to do is to persevere with those objectives. Those objectives are of a long-term nature.
The noble Earl also referred to the fact that he thought that the structural change in industry and in
580
industrial activity was going to mean a reduced demand for coal. I am afraid that I do not agree. I shall tell him why. I believe that we have to decide that the appropriate fuels must be used for the appropriate purposes. We have a very valuable resource at our disposal in the North Sea: the oil and the gas. It is the most valuable natural fuel product being produced in the world today—high quality oil and high quality gas. But we know that its life is limited.
Therefore we must do two things about it. First, we must make sure that it is used in the most efficient and effective way for those purposes where it can bring the greatest benefit; and, secondly, of course, maximise exploration. I accept that the Government's changes in the recent Budget will stimulate exploration, and I think that that is very desirable. But that means that a lot of the traditional load of energy for which oil was being increasingly used at one time should be vacated. I think that it would be quite wrong for the general steam-raising load to be taken up by oil or gas, which should be used for much more sophisticated purposes. It is that area—
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is there any proposal now that oil and gas should be used to replace coal in power stations? Surely the trend is the opposite.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if I could reply to the noble Earl, I am not talking about power stations. I am talking about general usage in industry, to which he was referring, and about the enormous potential there is in industry for the conversion of boilers from oil and gas to coal. There is a substantial financial advantage in so doing. The thermal cost of coal is very much lower than that of oil or gas, and rightly so. There is now encouragement by the Government in grants of up to 25 per cent. of the cost of conversion, and there are benefits being provided by the European Community. These are things that are moving in the right direction.
I was a little disappointed, having regard to the views that I share so often with the noble Earl, that he should not have recognised that there is this great future for coal. There is a rational use of energy opening up for this country when each form of energy can find its natural, most effective market, and that is the direction in which we should be going. So I think that this plan for the coal industry fits in with what should be our general energy objective.
I should like to comment very briefly on the electricity industry, an industry with which I have had very close connections for many years and whose technical and professional skill is probably the highest in the world. But I think there is a risk that, if we believe that the only way forward for the electricity industry is to build more and more big power stations, fuelled by whatever means, we shall be going the wrong way. As we debated yesterday in the Committee stage of the Energy Bill, there is increasing interest in combined heat and power schemes.
The electricity industry are in the process of closing down a number of their smaller stations in order to concentrate operations at the bigger ones. On the face of it, that sounds a very sensible and rational thing to do, but the trouble is that you cannot operate these combined heat and power schemes from the very big

581
stations. They are too remote from the centres of population, the amount of waste heat is too large and the pipelines would cost too much. The points at which you want to do this are the smaller stations, near or in the urban areas, such as the small stations along the Thames which are now being closed down—such as Battersea, Deptford, and so on.
So I should like to submit that, in our approach to the most efficient use of energy and the most efficient use of existing energy resources, we give very serious consideration to prolonging the life of such smaller stations as would otherwise be closed by means of converting them to combined heat and power schemes, involving district heating, and, wherever possible, using waste material as a source of combustion. This would be a really big step forward.
There are other ways in which we must be developing this theme. Certainly the whole question of energy efficiency—and I do wish that we could use the term "energy efficiency" when we mean this rather than "energy conservation" which means so many things—is crucial. We are not yet doing enough on energy efficiency, as, indeed, the recent debate on the rational use of energy in industry demonstrated. There are three ways in which energy efficiency can be stimulated: by advice, by pricing and by investment. The advice has been plentiful. The prices have increased substantially. Both have had their impact. But what is now needed is investment. We must begin seriously investing in energy efficiency systems. This is related both to industry and the home.
I must say that I share the view which was expressed on the occasion of that debate that we really do need a new initiative in this field, and that it would be helpful if the Government were to see their way to creating a strong central body co-ordinating the work in energy efficiency and looking at ways in which we can now enter into this third, vital phase. How can we invest in efficiency instead of just talking about it? That is what is needed now.
I think that out of all these considerations, bearing in mind that if one's objective is the long-term energy security of the country, there are ways now, and there is the need now, to develop positive policies. I would say that there is the risk that, if we do not develop these positive policies now, the freedom to make decisions later will be very much blunted. People talk about keeping options open, as if that is synonymous with doing nothing. I am afraid that in the field of energy, because of the long lead times, doing nothing now will close options tomorrow. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we do agree, in this debate in which I believe all share the same basic views, the time has now come for very positive policies in this area.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am sure that what he has said has given all of us great food for thought, including, I hope, the Government. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in saying how grateful we are to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for initiating this debate, and for his able exposition of the present situation concerning the nation's energy resources. As my noble friend said, the debate also gives us an opportunity to question
582
Government policy, and here there is much to be questioned.
In a most interesting and constructive speech the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that energy should be treated in a non-party way, and that we should not be introducing party points. As someone who used to have to bat from the Government Front Bench against his party volleys, I cannot help regretting that he did not take this non-party line when in opposition. However, it was very refreshing to hear criticisms of the present Government from their own Back Bench. It always makes the debates in this House particularly worth while when one hears such an independent line from time to time.
The present Government started off on the wrong foot right from the beginning, when they abolished the Energy Commission, soon after they came into office. The Energy Commission was composed of representatives from the TUC, the CBI, the Department of Energy, and the consumer bodies. It did useful work—I think everybody was agreed—as an advisory body to the Secretary of State, in particular over advanced planning in a field where planning is more than ever necessary. But planning in almost any form seems to be anathema to the present Government. So the Energy Commission had to go. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill said, we need to plan now. Since then the Government have shown their dislike of the public sector by privatising nationalised industries for the sake of privatisation whenever they could, irrespective of whether or not there was any advantage to the nation.
In the case of gas, for example, there have been great difficulties, and these continue. Let us take Wytch Farm, for instance. As your Lordships know, this is Britain's biggest onshore oil field. It is owned jointly by the British Gas Corporation and BP. The BGC has been ordered to sell its half of the field because, for some obscure reason, through some deep-seated ideological obsession, the Government have decided that British Gas should have no part in oil production. This is what they have decreed.
But the snag arose, as snags do, when bids were well below the corporation's valuation of £500 million, and were even short of independent estimates. Naturally, the BGC does not want to sell its precious assets, which are also national assets, at only £150 million to £200 million. But this is not good enough for the Government when they have a mania for privatisation. Although as usual the Government say that it is nothing to do with them, it appears that explicit orders have been given by the Secretary of State to accept a low bid, so that privatisation can be rushed through at any price.
Why should a public corporation be forced to sell its interest at a figure well below its true value? The nation is the eventual loser from this self-indulgent whim on the part of the Government. Perhaps when he comes to reply, the noble Earl will tell the House a little more about this strange and, on the face of it, rather shabby episode.
The privatisation of Britoil must have been a great disappointment to the Government last November, when underwriters were left with 75 per cent. of the shares on their hands. In contrast, Amersham International, which was sold I think only for

583
ideological reasons, and which should never have been sold at all, was deeply under-valued. Soon after the sale the shares rose rapidly, to the profit of private investors, but not, I am sorry to say, to the profit of the Exchequer.
In the North Sea the oil producers have been complaining bitterly for the last two years at least about the onerous fiscal regime (which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale) and the heavy tax burden, which was such a disincentive to exploration. Nothing was done in 1982, despite very many representations by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association, but happily the Chancellor has at last seen the light; and the concessions in this year's Budget are to be welcomed, belated though they are. They will particularly help the smaller fields, and even at this late hour it is hoped that activity—both exploration and drilling activity—which has been stagnant, will increase again.
With coal (which was dealt with so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with all his great experience) we face a conflicting situation. The miners are working hard and producing more, and I should like to pay a tribute to them. Productivity rose from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. in the last quarter of the financial year. But ironically, and tragically, due to the recession and the Government's mismanagement of our affairs, consumption of coal fell to 110 million tonnes, the lowest level since 1967; and the continuing industrial stagnation will probably lead to a further reduction during 1983–84.
The closure of pits has led to the creation of areas of very severe unemployment, though I concede that for reasons of modernisation many pits have to be closed. Job losses in the industry have averaged 7,000 a year over the past four years. Here I should like to quote one of the conclusions from the second report of the Energy Committee of another place, dealing with the subject of pit closures, which was published on 21st December last. The report states:
"The Department of Energy, as sponsor of the Board and guardian of the taxpayer's interest, must take a more active and less purely responsive role in ensuring, firstly, that the Board has full Government support in any effort it might make to reduce the industry's surplus capacity (especially that with the highest costs), and, secondly, that a new strategic plan is developed for the coal industry at the earliest opportunity.
"This emphatically does not entail interference by the Department in the day to day running of the industry but it does mean a closer involvement in setting the industry's strategic course and in ensuring that it is maintained".
Here I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we should use the energy sources for the purpose for which they are best suited. I hope that what the noble Lord said will be taken on board, read, marked, learnt, and inwardly digested by the Government.
We wish Mr. Ian MacGregor, the new National Coal Board chairman, well. This is of course a political appointment—no more, and no less. Mr. MacGregor has a reputation as a strong man, even, I believe, as a butcher, as I have seen stated in the press. I hope that he will now show that he is a diplomat as well, and that he will establish the same kind of working relationship with the NUM that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had with my noble friend Lord Gormley. I hope, for the sake of this great industry, and the nation, that the
584
Government have made the right choice. Certainly it has been a very expensive choice. It has cost a lot of money in transfer fees, with yet another £1½ million going to the lucky Lazard Frères, in New York. When they have a whim the Government seem to throw money about like confetti!
There is much work to be done in research into exploiting other uses of coal, such as oil from coal, and gas from coal, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. All this work, which is vital to our industrial future, should not be dependent surely on the availability of private capital. A future Labour Government will make adequate public funds available.
As has been conceded, conservation of our energy resources is also essential for the future. The Government believe in conservation by the price mechanism. This is inherently discriminatory, since it affects those in the community who are least able to look after themselves, and who spend a much greater proportion of their incomes on fuel.
Since the last election until, say, last autumn, the retail price index increased by nearly 50 per cent. But the price of gas increased by over 94 per cent., electricity by over 82 per cent. and solid fuel by 72 per cent. This is particularly hard on the energy intensive industries, on the elderly and on pensioners. I wonder sometimes whether the Government have any idea of the suffering caused to the lower income groups and to those made unemployed by their policies. Germany and Italy provide low interest loans for industry to invest in energy saving. The Select Committee of another place has called for a new energy conservation agency or a Department of State even, so that responsibility for conservation is no longer divided among several Government departments. I believe that low energy houses consume between 30 and 70 per cent. less energy compared with similar houses built to current regulations.
The report of the Select Committee on Energy of another place is absolutely scathing about the Government's approach. This is, of course, an all-party Committee. It points out that the Government are not prepared to undertake measures that cost money. They never are. The report goes on to say that since 1979,
"the total energy conservation budget has been reduced by around 20 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1981–821".
The report concludes:
"The reduction appears to the Committee to reflect the Government's fundamental disinterest in conservation, especially where public expenditure is involved".
The report points out, moreover, that contrary to the Government's ideology—this may of course be a bitter pill for the Government to swallow—the market mechanism does not work in the energy conservation sector. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has reported that over 150,000 new jobs could be created if Britain were to adopt a major energy conservation programme. The report also said that such a programme would save £2,800 million worth of fuel a year.
May I ask the noble Earl when the Government propose to publish the Rayner scrutiny report on "How the Government Handles Energy Conservation"? This was referred to by my noble friend Lord

585
Kirkhill. Why has publication been so long delayed? Are the Government reluctant to publish the report because it is critical of Government policy particularly during the run-up to the general election?
Energy conservation has the strong backing of the CBI which, again, has been critical of the way in which the Government have been dragging their feet. The CBI is on record as saying that Government grants to conservation can be justified on the grounds that in such cases the benefits to the community as a whole from conservation outweigh those to the individual. The vice-president of the European Parliament's Energy Research Committee, who is a British Tory MEP, says:
"Among the northern countries within the Common Market Britain now brings up the rear on conservation by a long way".
Those are the words of Mr. Madron Seligman. To rely on the price structure alone is surely not a viable policy. It can indeed be counter-productive since the higher the price consumers have to pay for energy the less money is left for investment by them in measures necessary to conserve energy. This applies whether they are domestic consumers or industrialists.
It is not too late, surely, for the Government to re-think their energy policy, much of which we on this side of the House believe to be wrong-headed and counter-productive.
4.25 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for bringing forward this subject for debate. I must however confess that I am something of a cynic in this matter. Positive policies tend to get set in concrete, and tend to be based on perceptions and forecasts that can prove very wrong. In 1963, when I was an undergraduate at Oxford, I met a very senior geologist with the National Coal Board. A little gas had, I think, been discovered in the southern North Sea but this individual told me that there was absolutely no chance of oil ever being discovered under the North Sea. The little geology that I had been taught led me to think that he might just be wrong. If our energy policy had been based on that perception—it may be the case that some of his input would have gone into such a policy—we would perhaps look a little silly today when we are self-sufficient in oil production.
The Canadians recently produced a national energy policy and plan which most Canadians will I think admit has been something of a disaster and has led to a major flight of capital and capital equipment from Canada. Even more limited policy objectives have been frustrated by recent rapid changes in the energy situation world-wide. The National Gas Policy Act in the United States is probably about to be abandoned. It has in turn created a great many anomalies in the supply and demand for natural gas.
I had intended to touch on the Plan for Coal, but Lord Ezra has perhaps made my point for me. An energy policy is fine provided that you can bend the facts to fit the perception you want. There were indeed figures in the Plan for Coal but, as Lord Ezra has said, the figures are unimportant today. This argues I believe that in the energy scene a pragmatic approach is more important than a positive policy.
586
I should like to touch upon a few positive things that the Government have done. As other noble Lords have stated, the Government have perhaps plumbed the threshold of pain in the oil industry over taxation and sensibly drawn back. I know that the oil industry greatly welcomes the abolition of royalties which now means that the taxation on oil production is strictly related to profits and not to revenues. Fields will not be abandoned early simply because royalty has taken away profits that might otherwise exist as the difference between revenues and the cost of production.
I welcome greatly the allowance of all exploration expenditure as an offset against PRT. I personally believe that the Government did quite a clever deal in getting rid of BNOC at a price at which I should like to be able to float an oil company today. In other areas of energy, the Government have arranged that explorers and producers of gas can now make arrangements outside the control of the British Gas Corporation to sell their gas. I do not know that they will often want to do so. However, the mere ability to do so should keep the Gas Corporation honest and ensure that a sensible price is paid for gas, which in turn will encourage new exploration and production offshore in the southern basin of the North Sea, where, due mainly to the policies of earlier Governments, little activity has taken place for a decade.
On the electricity front, I know of various cases where private enterprise is examining with interest its forthcoming right to generate electricity. On the coal front, the Government have given the National Coal Board Mr. MacGregor. Like other noble Lords, I wish Mr. MacGregor success. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, described this as a political appointment. I am not sure I understand what a political appointment is. I believe that Mr. MacGregor has been appointed because he is a man with a track record, with a thick enough skin to do the job and to grasp some of the difficult nettles within the coal industry. I, too, hope that he will do it as a diplomat and not as a butcher; I am sure that he will.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, touched on the need for nuclear energy to fill the gap after Britain's oil resources have run out. I do not think that we need a policy to make the simple perception that oil will, in due course, run out and we will be left either with importing oil as we did before—if there is any oil elsewhere to import—or on falling back on our coal reserves and, indeed, on nuclear energy.
The word "conservation" is very misused these days, perhaps almost as misused sometimes as that perfectly reasonable little Anglo-Saxon word "gay". I must express some worry that it is not the type of technology which we will be using for our future generation of nuclear power that is necessarily the most important aspect. The word "conservation" goes hand in hand with the rise of the Green Party in Germany and the conservationist movement. The real worry is whether we can maintain a sensible balance between conservation—and I use it in the "green" context—and what is best for the nation. We are in many ways in danger of turning this country into a museum with excessive preservation and conservation. I think that we are still a long way from finding a sensible balance.

587
I should like to put in one small plea on the subject of depletion control. I do not think for a moment that it is a deliberate depletion control, but we cannot conserve resources until we know what resources we have. I believe that in the United Kingdom there is a strong chance that considerable reserves of oil and gas will be found on shore. But the present licensing system is such that it acts as a de facto depletion policy or depletion control in that, for example, it takes something like a year from the time that a company or group of companies apply for a production licence covering an area over which they already have exclusive rights under an exploration licence, for such a production licence to be issued. I am told that the grant of a single production licence involves the issue of something like 3,000 individual documents or letters to so-called interested parties. The matter seems to have got out of hand in the sense that too many Ministers in the past have bought off too many interested parties by saying, "Of course you will be informed".
An oil production licence is pretty much like a game licence. Those of you who shoot go to the Post Office to buy your £9 game licence. It may entitle you to shoot, but if you were to go on to somebody's land without their permission and try to shoot you would get very short shrift. You have to get the permission of the landowner, whoever that may be. Similarly, as regards an oil production licence on-shore in this country, you have to go through all the normal processes of planning control in order to drill a well. So much of the prior consultation before the actual grant of a production licence seems to waste a great deal of the time of hard-pressed civil servants. Probably most of the people who are informed in advance never really take it in. They hardly look at the document and toss it into their wastepaper basket. I would simply like to put in a little plea on behalf of the on-shore oil industry in this country that the process is simplified.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Mansfield: My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Lords who have previously spoken in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for introducing a debate on what to this nation is a very important subject—namely, energy. The subject which he has chosen for discussion this afternoon provides an opportunity for us to ventilate our thoughts on the important question of energy. The noble Lord who has just sat down made a reference to the appointment of Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board. I did not intend to mention that matter at all. All I would say in that connection is that I hope that the incoming chairman will act as sensibly and as objectively as his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has spoken to us this afternoon.
There cannot be anyone either in this House or outside it who doubts or denies the importance and the necessity for energy in our sophisticated, modern society. When I was ruminating on what I was going to say in this debate I had a mood of reflection which I thought I would mention to your Lordships. It is on record that in 1913 the total output of deep mined coal was 287 million tons, 95 million tons of which went for export. That indicates that coal not only met the
588
energy requirements over a fairly long period, particularly at that time and for many years afterwards, but also made a valuable contribution to our export trade.
The figure that I have mentioned is the maximum of all time. It had never been reached previously and it has never been reached since. But I would state here and now that, although that figure seems enormous in the light of present-day figures, there were more than 1 million men engaged in the industry. Since that time and over the past 70 years there have been vast changes in the field of providing energy to meet the nation's requirements. Alternatives have been discovered in the form of oil, natural gas and, more recently, nuclear power.
So far as I see it the position that we have reached is that there is complete unanimity, whether we sit on the Conservative side of the House or on this side of the House, that there must be an adequate supply of energy. The difference arises as to which fuel or which combination of the four existing primary fuels shall be used in meeting the energy requirements of the nation.
It would be appropriate if at this stage I were to relate the contribution of the four basic fuels to which I have referred to the energy requirements of the nation. The total consumption in the United Kingdom in 1981, which is quite recent and the latest year for which I have figures, was 317·3 million tonnes of coal. Of that total the percentages of the four primary fuels that I have mentioned were as follows: the contribution of coal was 37·4 per cent.; oil, 34·9 per cent.; natural gas, 22·7 per cent.; nuclear electricity, 4·3 per cent.; and hydro-electricity 0·7 per cent. The figures I have just quoted are from the Digest of Statistics for 1981 of the Department of Energy.
I recently read a comment on this question of energy that any discussion or document on the policy must be dominated by consideration of the time factor. Or, put in another way, in the form of a question, how long will the known resources of primary fuels last seeing that the need for energy has been, still is and will always be with us? I submit it is a very important question. I propose to say a few words about it.
For instance, take our own indigenous supply of oil, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made reference. The evidence one is able to obtain about this is that the likelihood is that supplies of oil from the North Sea will begin to decline towards the end of the present century. Natural gas too may be declining by about the same time. The rate of contribution from the known resources of these two of our indigenous fuels has not a very long life.
The primary fuel for nuclear power is not indigenous. Like oil pre the 1960s and until recently, uranium was imported over long distances and from politically dangerous areas. I mention that to indicate that oil at that time was like uranium; it had to be imported. So far as one is able to judge at the moment, uranium is not indigenous to our country. Coal is the remaining one of the primary fuels used which has a long life span. I came across some figures put out by the National Coal Board when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was the chairman. These said that Britain has some 46,000 million tonnes of recoverable reserves; sufficient to last 300 years at current rates of production.

589
The Labour Party recently published a pamphlet entitled Energy. It is a very good pamphlet too. It is objective, it is analytical, and I should like to quote one observation from it:
"Energy is a central issue and one which is here to stay. Man's future depends to a considerable extent on the quantity and quality of energy, and its production and distribution must be of considerable concern".
Having made those general remarks about the importance of the question of energy I want to make one or two observations about the Plan for Coal of 1974. As is well known, this was drawn up by a tripartite body comprising the Government of that time, the National Coal Board, and the unions representing the workers in the industry. I should like to make the observation here that the National Union of Mineworkers is not the only union in the mining industry. There is of course BACM representing the colliery managers, and there is NACODS representing the deputies and shotfirers, and they too, like representatives of the Government and the Coal Board, were also part of this tripartite body in 1974 which drew up an interesting report. Is it necessary for me to say that we have here two noble Lords who were members of that tripartite committee: the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, representing the Coal Board, and the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, representing the National Union of Mineworkers.
They reported on many aspects. Not only on projected outputs; not only on the necessity for research and development; but on social matters as well, and there is one which I should like to mention. The Government of that time made a contribution of £100 million to the pneumoconiotics in their claim for damages at common law. They also promised a contribution of £18 million towards the mineworkers' pension scheme.
Respecting other matters, especially the industry's contribution to energy requirements, I now want to quote from the noble Lord who was then Mr. Derek Ezra and chairman of the Coal Board. This is what he said:
"Coal's major role and new importance in the, entirely changed energy situation facing Britain is clearly presented in the National Coal Board's Plan for Coal. It is the most ambitious forward strategy ever prepared by the mining industry, calling for [huge new] investments, first to stabilise and then to expand the nation's coal mining capacity over the next decade".
In a sentence, the 1974 Plan for Coal was to increase coal's contribution to energy demand. Today there are signs, there are straws in the wind—and perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government to the debate will say something about this—indicating that the present Government are to diminish coal's contribution to energy demands rather than increase it.
I believe that the turning down by the Minister of the Environment of the Coal Board's application for coal mining operations in the Vale of Belvoir was a sign of the abandonment by the present Government of the 1974 plan. Incidentally, the Belvoir episode is not at all praiseworthy for the momentum that was displayed in arriving at a decision as to whether the NCB would be given permission to mine coal in the Vale. From the date of the application in 1978, four and a half years went by before the Minister for the Environment gave his decision turning down the
590
recommendation of the inspectorate's inquiry regarding the application by the National Coal Board to mine coal in the Vale of Belvoir. In announcing his decision, refusing the application, he suggested that the Coal Board might make a fresh application for a modified scheme and it might be approved in the future. I now understand that the Leicester County Council has given its permission for the development of a mine at Asfordby, but the NCB is still not sure as the Minister for the Environment has still to have his say. That was reported in the Financial Times last December.
Further, another straw in the wind was an article in the Observer newspaper by a man named Geoffrey Lear:
"Miners' fears that the Government intends to run down this industry received stark confirmation in the energy projections given in evidence to the Sizewell inquiry (published by the Department of Energy). They show that the Government has totally abandoned targets set for the expansion of the industry and expects nuclear power to boom".
I said earlier that the 1974 plan was to increase coal's contribution to energy requirements. It now appears from what we have read in the press, with no pronouncement yet by the Government, that the 1974 plan has gone. Is it likely to be treated like the report of the Redcliffe-Maud committee on local government?
Not only have the miners made known their opposition to the rumoured reports of the projected growth of nuclear power—which means fewer collieries and loss of jobs—but, no doubt for different reasons, there is a volume upsurge of opinion and hostility to this projected growth of nuclear power. The environmentalists and the Friends of the Earth are very loud in their protestations; but what they fear regarding nuclear energy is likely to happen.
The Labour Editor of the Observer quite recently wrote:
"The Government intends"—
where they get their information from I do not know—
"to drastically reduce Britain's use of coal over the next 30 years to as low a figure as 80 million tons".
Assuming that these reported assumptions become realities and that energy requirements in that span of time will be equivalent to 400 million tons of coal, coal's contribution would be one-fifth or 20 per cent. compared with the figure I mentioned for 1981 of 37½ per cent. The social consequences of this would be awful; the closing of collieries, greatly reduced manpower, men with no other experience except mining thrown on to the road.
On Monday, 18th April, again according to a newspaper report in the Guardian,Mr. Fairhall wrote that a number of local authorities from Cleveland to Cornwall have associated themselves with the Town and Country Planning Association opposing the £1,200 million nuclear power station at Sizewell. They regard it as a high risk venture. The report is a fairly lengthy one, not only detailing opposition to the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposals but proposing a conservation campaign, better use of existing coal-fired power stations, conversion from oil to coal and mothballing coal-fired stations as a reserve.

591
I conclude with a quotation from a letter written by my noble friend Lord Gormley, some 12 months ago. He said this:
"If this country is going to recover from the recession caused by the huge rise in oil prices since 1974, we must surely develop the assets nature has given to us."
There is no better example of wealth than that which can be found in the proposed Leicester coalfield.
4.57 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the first point that I should like to make is that nothing we can do on energy conservation or in using renewable energy sources will produce an immediate and dramatic effect. However, for this very reason we should take all reasonable measures in both directions now. It is unfortunate that the fright we had on energy shortages a few years ago has subsided. Nothing has really changed in the meantime, only that due to the industrial recession there is an oil surplus and the subject is no longer news. There will of course be a period of energy shortage at some future date, if only because the needs of the developing countries will increase and world oil reserves, and our own North Sea gas in particular, are declining assets. I know the argument that reserves declared by oil companies are restricted to what it is commercially necessary to investigate, but this does not really affect the argument—only, possibly, the timescale.
The most cost-effective method of energy saving is undoubtedly improved thermal insulation of both industrial and domestic buildings. The payback time in the cost of energy saving can often be less than two years. I should like to consider the domestic side in some detail. Domestic space heating represents about 18 per cent. of the nation's total energy requirement, and domestic hot water another 10 per cent. At last, in 1981, the Government brought in legislation to improve the minimum standards of insulation for new houses, but the requirements still compare unfavourably with those of our continental neighbours.
It is argued that as our climate is milder than that of much of Europe, lower standards of insulation are acceptable. If we are concerned with energy conservation, not just comfort, this is a fallacy. Although our climate is less extreme, the times during which heating is required are longer. This can be shown in terms of "degree days". For each day the difference is taken between the average outside temperature and acceptable inside house temperature. This is then totted up for all the days heating is in use. By this criterion Edinburgh requires almost as much heating for a similar sized house as one in Bergen; Glasgow more than Zurich and London is similar to New York. This simple method of assessment can be faulted; nevertheless, it gives a reasonable guide.
Because the Government, I am afraid, seem to ignore it, I must give some comparative figures for our own and our European partners' legislation. For roof insulation, our mandatory U-value is 0.60. For the Scandinavian countries, it is no less than three times better. For France and Eire, it is 33 per cent. greater. For walls, much the same applies but the differences are not quite so great. Britain remains one of the few
592
countries with no mandatory requirements for the insulation of floors in spite of the fact that up to one-third of the heat loss in a living room can arise in this way. For a long time the Government's response to pleas for higher insulation standards for new houses has been that market forces will look after the issue. I am afraid, I must say, that this is most certainly absolute nonsense for the present time and the near future at any rate. The private builder and even councils are primarily concerned with price. It will take a long time before the public start to demand higher insulation and it becomes an important selling point. Even then, with the housing shortages, consumers do not have much choice and cannot greatly influence the market.
The real worry is that we are now building substandard houses for a future generation when energy costs in real terms will be much higher and good thermal insulation even more important than it is today. With the exception of loft insulation, filling the cavity walls, if they exist, and expensive double glazing, it is difficult and expensive to improve the insulation of an existing building.
I should like now to discuss briefly renewable forms of energy. I am sure that we should continue with research and development in this field and try out prototypes; but wave power and wind power have the disadvantage of variable output and of environmental problems—quite apart from whether they can be reasonably economic. No one, I think, apart from extremists, would be prepared to double or treble their bills for electricity to avoid nuclear power stations. Allowing for the variability of wave power and wind power, the estimate for providing the same useful output as that of one of the new CEGB 1,500 megawatt power stations would be as follows: for wave generation (which might provide up to a maximum of 65 kilowatts per metre of wave front) 40 miles of wave generators; for wind power, a 2·5 megawatt wind generator now has a blade diameter of 300 feet, and even to equal the maximum putput of a specified CEGB station, 300 of them would be required.
In fact, the CEGB estimate that, taking into account the variable wind velocity, more than 1,000 of them would be needed. They would then provide between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the yearly requirement for electricity in this country. Combined heat and power, if fully developed, could provide a saving of 14 million tons of coal a year. That is equivalent to the consumption of about four of the type of CEGB power station mentioned. The Severn barrage is potentially the most worthwhile source of renewable energy as it could contribute about 6 per cent. of Britain's electricity requirements. There are also six other places in the British Isles where such barrages could be built and together give perhaps twice the output of the Severn Estuary scheme.
Other possible contributions to alternative energy sources are small amounts from burning refuse, solar energy for augmenting domestic hot water and geothermal energy, which is, as yet, an unknown quantity. A rather intriguing possibility is that of using waste heat from refrigerators to provide domestic hot water. It then acts as a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of about 2, which implies that it could provide double the amount of heat used to run the

593
refrigerator—say 700 watts. It should be able to provide almost enough hot water for a small household. I only hope that somebody will look at this and possibly do some research to see how practical this might be.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, there is a certain irony in the fact that we are today debating energy policy when, as far as I can see, the Government have no energy policy, unless surrendering to market forces and privatising sections of our national oil and gas industries, to both of which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has referred with scorn, can be called a policy. Otherwise, the Department of Energy, which, in the present economic climate, should be one of the most active and important departments of state, seems to have become an archive for reports and recommendations some of which never see the light of day once they have disappeared inside Thames House.
In our debate last month on the report of the European Communities committee on the rational use of energy in industry, Members of your Lordships' House expressed concern that the Department of Energy either cannot or will not publish any meaningful comparisons of the cost efficiency of conservation set against spending on nuclear power. But there is reason to believe that the figures are around somewhere and that they indicate that not only are there major benefits to be gained from investing heavily in conservation but also that there is a serious imbalance in favour of the energy supply industries. It seems that from all sides concerned bodies—in reports, in giving evidence and through the media—are counselling the Government to adopt and implement a major programme of energy conservation. The Association for the Conservation of Energy recently claimed not only that such a programme would pay for itself in five years and save £2,800 million of fuel a year but that it could create many thousands of new jobs—up to 155,000 on their estimate. In spite of the comments about employment of my old sparring partner the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, if that is the fact it could be a very welcome bonus to investment in energy conservation.
It was recommended specifically in the report on the rational use of energy that a central agency be created with overall responsibility for energy conservation for the efficient use of energy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that "efficient use of energy" is better than the over-used word "conservation". This department would draw together and co-ordinate the activities and tasks at present inefficiently and ineffectively spread over a whole band of Government departments.
One hardly expects departments of state to move quickly to implement any recommendation, however sensible it may be, however many informed people may have made it or, even, sometimes, however much Government backing it may have. But this particular recommendation for major investment in conservation has been on the table for 10 years. We have to question seriously, first, the degree of interest within the department which is supposed to be informing and advising its Secretary of State; and, secondly, the
594
perception of the Minister himself, who should be able to identify the elements which make up a rational, integrated energy policy. For the almost unbelievable fact is that the conservation of energy, the proper husbanding of the energy resources that we have—and North Sea oil will not last all that much longer—has been, and is being, treated as though, in the words of Mr. Rod Chapman, the Guardian's correspondent, it were "a side-show". Politically unexciting it may seem, but it is not a side-show. The way we use our resources now will have, one way or another, a tremendous effect on the future of this country. With our energy supply policy in disarray, it could make or break us.
That brings me to the specific questions which I hope the noble Earl the Minister will be able to answer before this debate comes to an end. The first, of course, concerns demand—and in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said about the problems of predicting demand, I should like to know whether the department have projections of demand for the next five, 10 or 20 years on which presumably they are basing such plans as they may be putting together.
We are witnessing the Sizewell B inquiry which resumed yesterday. The CND, perhaps naturally, question the connection between the civil nuclear power programme and the production of atomic weapons; but many other people, within and outside the locality, are concerned about safety and they have reason to be. We are in dangerous territory. Just 40 years after we entered the atomic age and Enrico Fermi and his team toasted their success in creating the first chain reaction by drinking Chianti out of paper cups on a squash court where they had built their first unpredictable pile, we still seem to be unsure of exactly what sort of monster we have created.
Although we were the first to exploit nuclear generation of electricity, the United States are now well ahead of us, and they are having their problems. It is one thing for Sir Walter Marshall to pin his colours to the nuclear option, but worrying facts remain. In recent months in the United States the Ohio River plant has been closed down for safety violations after 10 years under construction. The Virginia Electric Power Company has written off 540 million dollars rather than bring its planned nuclear power plant into operation. The Zimmer Plant in Ohio has been closed—and that was only because a private detective, pursuing a matrimonial case, persisted in following up his findings that safety work had not been properly carried out. Then there is the appalling case of Three Mile Island—and before any Member of this House assumes that the opponents of nuclear power generation are cranks, I suggest that he or she reads the proceedings of the district courtroom in Centre Street, Manhattan, on the subject. They are sobering. They led the managing director of the Tennessee Valley Authority to state unequivocally:
"We should be fundamentally re-examining the nuclear option".
Even the man who was the chief scientist at the Ministry of Power when Britain's first nuclear power station was built in 1956, Sir Kelvin Spencer, has warned that development and operational experience have disclosed hazards which were not considered in the 1950s. He even goes so far as to say:

595
"Nuclear generation has become a worldwide economic disaster".
He may be right.
I am not an opponent of nuclear generation of electricity, provided that we have to go along that path to meet future demand and provided that it is safe and will not stack up unacceptable problems for us in the future. But I do want to be convinced that these criteria are met and that those responsible for making projections of demand and proposing the most responsible way to meet the demand they have identified know what they are talking about.
That brings me to the other aspect of the United Kingdom energy scene that I want to touch on in this debate. So far as oil and gas are concerned, I endorse what my noble friend Lord Kirkhill has said. He covered the subject very fully and I shall not weary your Lordships by going over it again. In the context of the rational use of energy, I am concerned about the level of depletion policy and the flaring of gas. But since we seem to be in an area of some uncertainty about the resources available to us and the way we should go about electricity generation, I should like to hear more about coal. We know that, of all our energy resources, coal is the most likely to sustain us, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield has pointed out. North Sea oil may last us into the early years of the next century and gas could go on for rather longer; but coal reserves could see us probably well into the 23rd century. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, set out those figures.
So what are our plans for coal? As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, coal should have a great future. The Government—and this has already been referred to by several speakers—have appointed Mr. Ian MacGregor as the chairman of the National Coal Board; but apart from hacking the industry into the emaciated shape in which this Government likes to see our nationalised industries, what long-term plans have they given him within which to work? The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the 1974 Plan for Coal and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield said that he had reason to believe it was being abandoned. I should like to know whether that is the case.
The other day approval was given for the development of a coalfield beneath the Vale of Belvoir. Selby is about to come on stream, delivering 10 million tonnes of coal a year by 1987. At the same time, we have apparently enormous stocks of coal—as the miners discovered to their cost when they were contemplating strike action. Nevertheless the miners are exhorted to increase output and, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, they rose to the task. Where does all this extra coal fit into the overall energy picture? That is another question I should be glad if the Government would answer. I have always believed that coal is our greatest energy asset and that we should do everything in our power to develop coal technology and make the best use of it that we can. But that means planning and getting the coal element into integrated overall energy policy. What I should like to know is: how do the Government and the Department of Energy see the short-term, the medium-term and the
596
long-term futures of our coal industry? What really is their view of "The Role for Coal"?
This debate—the choice of the Opposition in your Lordships' House—may seem to some less appropriate politically than a debate on some of the crushing social problems which are facing us today and on which the present Government's policies, I believe, threaten the whole basis of a society that has been so carefully assembled by caring people for most of this century. However, this is an important debate and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill initiated it.
The idea, the prospect, of being starved of indigenous fuel is unimaginable. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it is vital that we go for self-sufficiency in fuel. We depend absolutely on our resources of energy and we shall do into whatever future may lie before us. One has only to look around to realise that most of the things we depend on to maintain our way of life would not exist without coal, gas, oil and electricity. Our energy resources are basic to the lives of all of us and it is about time that the Government took the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and addressed themselves seriously, without political dogma and the simplistic ideals of monetarism, to resolving one of the major problems which face almost every country today, and certainly the industrialised countries—that of ensuring that they have the power to keep going. And the fact of the matter is that we seem to have no integrated policy to do any such thing.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate and the House has had the opportunity to hear several of the best informed men in the country who can discuss the subject with authority. I find it, therefore, very hard to know what I myself can profitably say. Much of what I had intended to say has been said by the last two speakers.
I was thinking of talking about the problems of conservation, the extreme importance of improving the standard of insulation of houses, and also the importance of improving the efficiency of motors, and so on, in factories. That is because it is just as good to double the efficiency of a motor in a factory as it is to buy twice as much power. It can be very much cheaper to the community, although, perhaps, not so cheap to the individual factory if power is as cheap as it is today. But this has already been said, and I should like, therefore, to take another aspect of this important problem.
First, I want to point out that the amount of money which is now being spent on nuclear power, on nuclear power research and on the building of nuclear power stations is quite enormous. It has been said by one of the Select Committees of the House of Commons that the nuclear power industry is the worst investment that the country has ever made. This may or may not be true, and I would not wish to argue about it here and now. But I would make the point that it is quite extraordinary that we should be contemplating the building of more power stations at the enormous expense of, probably, about pound;1,500 million each when we are at the same time not prepared to put in a proper pipeline to collect the gas which is being flared-off in the North Sea.

597
Is it true—perhaps the Minister can answer this question—that the amount of power which is being flared-off in the form of gas, which has to be burned to get rid of it in the North Sea, is as great in total as the whole of the power which is now being generated by nuclear power stations in this country? If anything even approaching this is true, it seems to me that our priorities are wildly wrong and should be reconsidered. It is important that every cubic foot of gas which can be saved should, in fact, be saved.
Of course, we have the problem, too, that when we get it ashore most of the mains leak, and half of the power which comes in at the top end, as it were, never reaches the consumer, because the mains have become porous with time. This is another problem to which the Government should address themselves, but which so far they have neglected. What I am trying to suggest is that we would be doing much more to improve our national position than we are in fact doing were we to divert funds now being spent on new nuclear power stations on to some of the simpler problems to which, for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred a moment ago.
I should like to suggest, also, that there are many other ways of saving fuel and making more efficient use of the fuel we have. For example, we could do much more than we have been doing on the improvement of fluidised beds for furnaces, which would make it possible to use inferior quality coal and all sorts of rubbish to generate power and heat up the countryside. I feel that the idea of combined heat and power production has been oversold. The reason why I think that is because such plants are being taken out far more often than they are being put in. There is the famous case of the Battersea power station, which is probably the first and one of the most significant of all combined heat and power stations in the whole world—and look at what has happened to Battersea! On a smaller scale—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the House allow me to comment on that? I believe that the Battersea station has been closed down because its life as a power station has come to an end, not its life as a combined heat and power plant.
Lord Bowden: Nevertheless, my Lords, the unfortunate fact is that it was a very good heat and power plant and it is not being used any more to provide that combination. I had once to deal on a trivial scale with a combined heat and power plant in Manchester which generated a small amount of power and provided heat for the university. We had to scrap it for the very same reason, that the turbines were getting worn out and it would not have paid to renew them. When I discussed this idea with people in this country and abroad, we came up with the idea that it is not usually worthwhile to install a combined heat and power plant unless you can build it from the very beginning to cover a very substantial area.
To put in steam pipes is very expensive indeed. It is very much cheaper to supply the heat in the form of gas down a pipe, which is much the cheapest way of providing heat anywhere. But if you cannot do that, it
598
is often cheaper to provide electric power and then make more extensive use of heat pumps. They can be used as a sort of adjunct to a refrigerator, but they can also be used in their own right and they can very materially increase the efficiency of the process. By the time you have used a heat pump at the end of the electric mains, you have probably got up to an overall thermal efficiency of nearly 60 per cent., rather than 30 per cent., which is very much better. In some countries, a heat pump is often used as a source of heat in winter and as an air conditioning plant in summer. This combination is economic and is more likely to be worthwhile installing than any of the combined heat and power plants which we have so far heard of in this country.
I have often thought about the combination of a heat and power plant, but by the time you have installed scrubbers to get the smell out of the gas which is coming from the chimney it can be a very expensive and rather unrewarding task, unless you are building a new city and designing it from the very beginning around such a plant. In fact, very large district heating is uncommon these days. If the original district was planned in a casual sort of way and if most of the individual plants providing heat were built separately by the owners of the houses or factories, it is not usually economically possible to take them out and install a centralised plant, as is necessary if the combined scheme is to work. This has proved, over a period of many years, to be the economic Achilles Heel in what would otherwise be an extremely important idea.
What I plead for is that the Government should realise that it is not enough merely to support nuclear power. It is acutely important that every other available technique should be used as often as possible, and whenever it is practicable, because very often the work could be done at about one-hundredth of the cost of a nuclear power station and it might produce a result which, over at least a small area, was of comparable importance. It is just as important to be able to live in comfort because your house has been thermally insulated as it is to be able to live in comfort because you are burning a great deal more coal. It is also just as important to be able to work your factory better because you have installed more efficient motors, or perhaps have installed hydraulic drives and have improved the load factor, as being able to use much more electric power provided at great expense by the central authorities.
Therefore I plead with the Government always to remember that it is not sufficient to consider just one type of fuel or one source of power. It is acutely important that every form of energy should be considered. Every possible method by which the efficiency of everything which we use as energy can be improved should be considered. This may make it unnecessary for us either to mine coal, our principal resource, in large quantities, or to burn oil, or, most important, to flare-off gas. I should be most grateful if the Minister could tell us what is going to be done about the new pipeline to collect gas in the North Sea and bring it ashore so that it can be used to supplement the other sources of fuel that we have in this country.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for instigating this debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, who was due to speak before me, is not in his seat. I believe that he would have had a major contribution to make but I understand that he has been delayed in his journey from the Channel Islands.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, mentioned combined heat and power, a subject which has been mentioned more than once this week and often in this debate. It surprises me that the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Combined Heat and Power is not available to us today. We are not allowed to see it until Thursday. I do not quite understand why its publication has been delayed. It would have been most helpful to those of us who are taking part in today's debate. It would also have been most helpful to those of us who took part in the Committee stage of the Energy Bill.
The Rayner Report has also been mentioned. This is another report which has not seen the light of day. We are unable to see it officially. Nevertheless, as a member of Sub-Committee F, I have had an opportunity to see it in order to take part in the subcommittee's report on the rational use of energy. Then the Armitage-Norton Report on the industrial use of energy is still not available to us as parliamentarians. And the Select Committee on Energy's Report on Energy and Buildings is also not available to us. These reports have been sitting around for a considerable time. We are trying to discuss energy and to debate an Energy Bill and amend it in Committee, yet for some reason best known to the Government these reports are being withheld from Members of Parliament. I am not quite clear what this means; but in terms of the general election, which has been mentioned today, it seems to be a total waste. If there is to be an early general election, the people who contributed to these reports will find that their efforts have been wasted. There seems to be an unduly long delay in Government thinking when they instigate a report, when it is all put together and made available. Sometimes, therefore, they look extremely dated when eventually they are published.
Nevertheless, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate and to follow up a number of the essential points, of a non-political kind, that have been made not only by my noble friend Lord Ezra but by many other noble Lords. First, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who is not in his seat, made the valid point that the use of energy has been very considerably reduced. If I recall correctly the figures which he gave, the noble Earl said that the figure has gone down to 336 million tonnes of coal equivalent and could possibly go down to as little as 300 million tonnes of coal equivalent. When it reaches this figure I presume the noble Earl thinks that there will be 6 million people unemployed. Meanwhile, with 3 to 4 million people unemployed, there is obviously a great reduction in energy consumption. One of the reasons is that industry is virtually at a standstill in most parts of the country, despite what the Government and certain aspects of the press have said. The engineering and the industrially related companies to heavy industry are waiting for Government policy to change.
600
Investment is needed in heavy industry, in the coal industry and in the railways. However, such an indication has not been forthcoming from the Government. Obviously there is a lack of energy use when workers are looking at stationary machinery. I hope that the noble Earl will be patient with me. I am not just being critical but I hope constructive in what I have to say.
The alternative which has been mentioned by other Members of your Lordships' House is investment in conservation. The noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, who is also no longer in his seat, seemed in my view to confuse conservation and preservation. These are two entirely separate matters. Conservation does not mean maintenance of the status quo. It means the efficient use of energy, the rational use of energy, and so on. There are many other phrases to describe it. The noble Viscount made remarks about the Green Party in Germany and some of their friends. The supporters of the Liberal Party would not be too keen on what he said. The noble Viscount clearly misunderstood the representations which are made by those who are proud to say that they are conservationists.
One of the ways in which to get a Government report on to the Library table is to withdraw it and then to put a restrictive notice on it. I have in my hands from the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy the restricted report by the energy policy unit of the Department of Energy entitled Investment in Energy Supply and Energy Use. A copy of this report was made available by the House of Commons Select Committee to the Library of the other place. I have made a copy available in the Library of your Lordships' House so that noble Lords may see this very important paper which was unfortunately suppressed by the department, because it has not been officially released. But I am fortunate enough to have a copy and I shall be pleased to quote certain parts of it because I believe that it is relevant to what some noble Lords have said.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, asked why we should invest all this money in nuclear power stations. If one compares the investment of £1.3 billion which is needed to build a nuclear power station and the investment of £1.3 billion in the conservation industry, I believe—and this report makes it quite clear—that the end result produces a favourable answer in terms of investment in conservation. For instance, 155,000 new, long term jobs would be created by such an investment. My right honourable friend Mr. David Steel mentioned this figure in a speech on this subject which he made outside Parliament only a month ago. The Association for the Conservation of Energy say that if £24 billion were spent over the next 10 years an immense saving, of 11 per cent. or more, of the total present delivered energy consumption in the main sectors of our economy, would be achieved. The figure of 11 per cent. is taken from the Department of Energy's energy policy unit report. It works on an investment of only £20 billion over 10 years.
I am asking the Government to consider yet again what I call lateral thinking. There are social needs as well as merely economic needs when one is considering investment in power stations. As my noble friend Lord Ezra said, it is not just a question of building

601
more large power stations but of looking at future demand and the needs of the people in the year 2000 and after. Therefore it is somewhat surprising that the gas industry wants to spend £20 billion on the gasification of coal. This is admirable, but I wonder whether this is the moment for the gas industry to spend that amount of money on gasification. Earlier this year we heard in a debate that our gas reserves may be considerably more plentiful than was first thought. This is why I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I believe he quoted the brown book figures. These are what I call the low field figures. Many oil and gas companies consider them to be a little on the pessimistic side, in view of the new discoveries which may be made as a result of the exploration programme which has been initiated by the Government and which will take place over the next 12 months. These figures may have to be revised upwards—and there is no question of their having to be revised downwards.
This returns me to the question of combined heat and power. Whether or not combined heat and power from reconditioned urban generating stations could take over the space heating market which the gas boards presently have and control it after the year 2000 is a question that has yet to be answered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for this debate because he has focused attention on conservation. We have not heard from the Government as to how they view conservation. Indeed, the reports we have not been allowed to see—such as the Rayner Report—are highly critical of the Government and of Government departments in their attitudes and methods of implementing conservation policy; they are complicated, diverse and in many ways ineffective. That is basically what was said in the evidence we had from Sub-Committee F, as it was in the Rayner scrutiny.
Will the noble Earl say what the Government are going to do and what precisely is the view that the Government take towards conservation in the energy equation? Is the noble Earl prepared to say that if £1.3 billion were spent on conservation in the widest possible sense—on the conservation industry, on installations (of the kind the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke about), and on simple and semiskilled jobs—this would produce 155,000 long term jobs? Does he not agree that that would be more beneficial in many ways than ordering a power station that we may not need?
Finally, I should like to switch back to a subject again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—that of alternative energy sources. The noble Lord mentioned windmills, wave power, and so on. I felt that the noble Lord did not give these alternatives as much credibility as those of us who are closely concerned with them believe exists. Of course there is not much sunshine in this country, and to produce photovoltaics is one way, and a quick way, of ending up in the liquidator's hands. However, there is a large export potential for solar heaters, for windmills, and for wind and wave energy in the developing world.
I have put this suggestion before in your Lordships' House and I am quite happy to put it again. There are often small companies involved in the manufacture of these items, run by enthusiastic young people who
602
wish to see some of their products being sold in the developing world. These companies do not have the infrastructure, the sales force or the finance to sell their products abroad. The Overseas Development Agency does have this power.
When we give aid or credit to developing countries, I feel that a percentage of that aid should be specifically earmarked for what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I, call passive energy systems. If the country receiving aid does not order a windmill or a water turbine that is British-made, then that earmarked credit should not be switched to the purchase of a diesel engine. This is one way of ensuring that alternative energy can be made to pay and can make a major contribution in some parts of the world where it is most necessary. The Intermediate Technology Group and many other organisations know exactly where these markets are. I should like to hear the noble Earl say that more enthusiasm and lateral thinking in his department will be helpful.
Finally, I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who asked whether windmills would be sited offshore in the Wash. I should like to ask in turn, what is to happen to all the oil and gas platforms when they are defunct? These platforms are situated offshore in permanently windy areas and will remain there to rust and become scrap. We could possibly look into the new use of these platforms in the operation of wind turbines. These platforms are already there, and they are already unsightly. So to those people who say that windmills look nasty because they are constructed from lots of steel and stick out of the sea I would reply, "What else are oil and gas platforms at the moment?" When the oil and gas is defunct, why should we not consider installing wind turbines on these platforms? This would not make them any less unsightly but this development could make quite an energy contribution in certain areas.
These are just one or two suggestions in what is proving to be an interesting debate and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl the Minister has to say in his reply.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for having raised this issue of energy, which is so important to the nation. Without adequate energy of the right kind, and at a reasonable price, our ecomomy could not function. There is another factor which is of vital importance, and that is long-term confidence in the securing of supplies. We certainly need an overall and comprehensive strategy with the long-term aspects in mind. I know the importance of energy and energy strategy because for nearly 15 years I had the honour to represent Newark in Nottinghamshire, which is an area with six coal mines, some oil interests and power stations in a part of the East Midlands which has deservedly won the title of the powerhouse of the country. I was pleased also to hear the contribution of my noble neighbour, who represented Mansfield for many years, too.
There have been a number of debates recently in your Lordships' House: one on pricing policies, one on conservation in industry following the Select

603
Committee report, and many Questions. Such detailed examination is important, but even more vital is the need to see energy needs and the ways of accommodating them within an overall policy. Energy policy is so important that even when discussing aspects of it, as we are today, in what might be termed a piecemeal fashion, we should try to see them as being part of a larger energy backcloth in order to get true perspectives.
Energy is one of our essential public services. It is so vital to our national life that it should not be a matter for political differences. There should be some agreement that energy should be under public control, if not public influence, and that this should be so whether or not there is a mixture of provision by the public and the private sectors. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, criticised this Government quite frankly for expecting private enterprise to provide enormous sums for investment in energy production.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, that was not quite what I was saying. I was saying, in respect of the gas-gathering pipeline, that it was absurd to expect private enterprise to put risk capital into a public utility for public utility returns without a Government guarantee.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, that is precisely the point I was making, and I am glad to have the noble Earl's clarification. The whole point behind the case for the principle of public ownership is that one cannot expect the private sector to risk enormous sums of capital and other resources in providing these essential social services. Therefore, the public sector has to come into it. If the case for the private sector is that we want industry to stand on its own feet and not to be interfered with by Whitehall, then we must recognise that even sending a cheque as a public subsidy is a form of interference. One cannot have it both ways. If the public are going to put their money into the private sector, surely there should be some say-so as to how this money is spent and what policies are pursued in its spending.
The debate in which we are engaged concerns the need for a positive energy policy and for conservation of energy. The two go very well together. The dictionary reminds us that the word "positive" means:
"explicitly laid down, definite, admitting no question".
We all want positive policies, but one is entitled to ask: how does the Government's record on energy match up to that definition? In a number of the speeches made today there has been an element of uncertainty about the future. Within a few weeks of taking office, even without thinking about it, the Government set about disbanding the Energy Commission—a well-proven body of people representing all sides of the industry, including the producers, commerce and industry, the consumers and the unions, as well as the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the unknown factors which those concerned with energy production have to take into account. But there are aspects in respect of which the Government could remove uncertainties with their policies. The Energy Commission, a body
604
set up in 1977, was of course concerned with the Energy Act 1976. Those who had been concerned with the policies and performance of one of our most important basic services, on which the economic health of the nation depends, were given the boot, they were dispersed. On 26th July 1979 Mr. David Howell said:
"While I intend to consult widely on the formation of energy strategy and on energy matters generally, I do not believe that the Energy Commission is the most effective means of achieving this consultation. I have, therefore, decided that it should be disbanded."
In the recent debate on energy conservation following the report of the Select Committee, I asked the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who was to reply and to whom I had given notice, what had happened to the Energy Commission and what has taken its place. The Minister did not reply to my question then and he has not done so since. I ask him: if he knows what is going on and what body is doing the work of the former Energy Commission, and doing it more effectively, which was the suggestion in Mr. Howell's statement, will he be good enough to tell the House? And I think it had better be a very good reply.
So the word "positive", in the terms in which we are debating this Motion, and which I am sure all noble Lords will accept as essential in relation to energy policy, does not apply, of course, to Government policy. Following on what I have just said, one asks who has a say in the running of the industry apart from the Secretary of State, because no one seems to know. I feel sure that noble Lords will agree that confidence is a vital element in any successful energy policy, as is knowledge of what is going on and also being satisfied that the policy being pursued is a wise one.
Confidence is also essential to ensure investment of the massive sums of money which energy production and distribution demand; there can be no doubt about that. Let us look a little more closely at the Government's record. There is not one aspect of energy policy being pursued by the Government so far which has been untouched, where there has not been some change or some uncertainty. Noble Lords who sat here during the many days of the debate on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, now an Act of Parliament, will realise the difficulty which Ministers had—and I am not being personal about this—in giving adequate replies to the technical questions which were asked by noble Lords in all parts of the House.
The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which fought its weary way through many sessions of both Houses, is now law, and those who are concerned with these two vital industries are still asking many questions as to what the Act means both for them and for their industries. So the uncertainty continues. The Act sells off these two industries to private enterprise, not because there is merit in it—because the Government have given no case for the merit—but because of doctrinaire reasons. The proposed sale of gas showrooms was opposed on all sides. That has been put off to a later date. But how much certainty is there in that, and how can the British Gas Corporation plan for the future?
After the sale of Britoil it will be a relatively small trading company. Britoil's shares, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, have been sold at very low

605
prices, despite the warnings of those who know, despite the predictions of the City, despite the predictions of the media. They had to be sold by Government order, no matter the low price they would fetch. Now, of course, Wytch Farm, the oilfield owned and developed by the British Gas Corporation, has been ordered to go for disposal because the Government policy outlined in the Act says that the Gas Corporation shall not be able to develop any oilfields which it discovered, inevitably, as a result of its search for gas. There are rumours that the bids are very low. I believe we have a right to know whether the Government will withhold the sale if the price is too low, or whether they will, for doctrinaire reasons, ensure that the public are to lose millions of pounds on the deal by selling at any price. Can the Minister tell us what is happening with Wytch Farm, because this is a very important matter of concern to Members of all parties.
The development of our oil and gas resources in the North Sea and elsewhere is, of course, to the credit of both the public and the private sectors, whose exploration and technical superiority have made such progress possible. And, of course, it also brings in substantial revenue. A recent visit which I made with some of my noble friends to a gas platform in the southern North Sea made us realise all the more how much is involved both in investment and in the use of human resources. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has made several references to this sector tonight.
The Government claim that nationalised industries are inefficient and costly to the taxpayer, and raise prices unreasonably. But it is the Government which have ordered these industries to get a greater return on their capital. It is the Government which have ordered rises in energy prices 10 per cent. above the current rate of inflation. Then the Prime Minister turns round and says it is the nationalised industries which have put up prices far more than the private sector. This is the kind of hypocrisy which does no credit to those involved in this important industry.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, perhaps I could just ask him one question. He has used the word "hyprocrisy". Would he not agree, as regards Britoil, that that exploration company is enormously advantaged by being freed, on the one hand, from Treasury control in its activities, and, on the other hand, being freed of fiefdom to the oil firms?
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl might recall what he said a few moments ago. I thought he agreed with me when I mentioned about the uncertainty of those investing massive sums in the industry. We have to rely, of course, on the private sector in future to decide what is profitable rather than what is socially essential for the national interest. You cannot have it both ways. Those who are involved in the risk investment in the private sector have to look at the income rather than the job which the investment has to carry out, as in the case of the public sector. One thing the Government will not recognise is that such industries are so important that their responsibilities, the supply of energy and so on, make it essential that their main overall concern must be the public need, first and foremost. In providing those social services
606
they often have to do unprofitable things for which a public contribution is necessary.
The Government have done in privatisation what few businessmen would do, and that is to hive off the profitable parts, leaving the public sector to carry the rest with no profit offset to balance the loss-making areas. Soon we shall be told that the private sector is thriving and doing well, having been released, while the public sector is still hag-ridden with losses, which of course are inevitable when you are carrying out social responsibilities. Even more important, they have lost the element of public control which they inherited, and which I am sure must be restored.
We are, of course, in a recession, and this means that our economy is running at a greatly reduced pace with low economic growth. At the present time, with nearly 4 million unemployed, the demands for energy are greatly reduced. The question arises as to what energy needs will be in the next five or 10 years, and indeed in the long-term, and how they will be met. With no Energy Commission, with a fragmentation of our energy producing resources, the Government have no idea how they can be met, apart from the inevitable pluses and minuses in the oil price situation. So, significant changes in energy policy and costs can have economic consequences at a time when, in getting out of a recession—if we are—we are facing competitors in Europe and from elsewhere. So pricing is vital, influencing our policies in relation to various types of fuel and energy options. In the short term there are rises and falls but, of course, we must have regard to the longer term.
There are at least two problems facing us in energy policymaking, among many others. One is that which I have mentioned, meeting the needs of a growing economy. The other of course is what to do in a time of emergency, because when we talk about defence we have to recognise that our energy resources are vital. It is interesting that when we were facing the Falklands' situation—unpredictable as it was both in the immediate and medium term with no awareness as to what escalation may occur and what our energy resources would be—at that very time we were debating in this House the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill which would dissipate our resources and hand them over to the private sector at a time when we might have wanted greater public control.
At that time the Government were rightly commandeering shipping, transport and other equipment when the demands of the Falklands were paramount. As I said, even at that time Parliament was discussing legislation to take vital oil and gas supplies and development out of the hands of the nation in order to privatise, with the priority for profit rather than the national interest. Indeed, if that had been the criteria the Falklands campaign would not have even been started, much less pursued. Moreover, your Lordships have recently debated the Select Committee report on energy conservation. That report, formulated by Members of all parties, had some strong things to say about the Government's conservation policy. I make only brief reference to this. In paragraph 49 it says:
"Where opportunities for energy saving are identified, and new investment is required, the investment is often not undertaken."

607
It goes on to say:
"Evidence from many other of the Committee's witnesses confirmed this, and indicated that the current recession and uncertain prospects for recovery strongly discourage energy saving investment, even, when a short pay back period of one or two years is predicted."
It says that,
"A surprising number of companies are not confident of staying in business long enough to reap the benefits. An analogy given to a member of the Committee by a senior businessman was that when the ship is sinking one does not bother overmuch about how efficient the engines are."
That is not only a devastating comment on the Government's economic policy but on their energy conservation policies as well. I think the Minister might take this opportunity of telling the House what the Government's plans are to have a central authority to influence energy conservation. Britain has considerable energy resources, as noble Lords have mentioned. They are the largest in the European Economic Community and in 1980 were valued at well over £14,000 million. Although we have such good resources, we still must do much more to conserve and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, make more efficient use of what we have.
I want to end in a constructive way by talking about future energy policies. One of the first things that we must do is formulate something like the Energy Commission, which was disbanded by this Government, and get together a representative body of people representing all interests; not least to ensure that everyone realises that it is everyone's business. This is needed to advise on the preparation and annual review of a comprehensive energy plan. We simply cannot go on in a divided, piecemeal way with the wrong objectives.
The main industries should get encouragement but we should not overlook the role of other smaller resources—to which my noble friend Lord Kirkhill referred—or other forms of energy. We need to review renewable resources. Coal must get a greater priority. There must be the establishment of tripartite machinery and the preparation of a new plan, updated for the coal industry. I believe these points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield. This must be done in consultation. Old plant needs to be replaced with coal-fired stations.
We must ensure that everyone can afford adequate heat and light in the home. In many towns and cities there must be consideration of combined heat and power schemes. Conservation and greater efficiency needs to be part of a massive programme, led by insulation of housing, with more incentives to industry and with the programme managed by a new energy conservation agency. There will need to be a continuing nuclear programme review and reassessment, taking into account all the factors concerned—environmental and energy needs as well.
The new Britoil must be brought back into public ownership and combined with BNOC to create a powerful national oil corporation with powers to engage in related activities. The need is there for proper influence or control in the interests of Britain's vital energy interests, and that should be obvious.
608
The nation, which has benefited from oil and gas revenue, must make even more of it in the future. North Sea oil this year is helping Britain to the extent of £14,500 million, but it is not enough to pay the unemployment benefit which is greater than that—I believe about £15,000 million—for the nearly 4 million men and women put out of work through the Government's economic policies. That money should, of course, be used not to pay people to do nothing but to finance economic development, including that of our fuel and energy industries, to get Britain into business and competitive once again, usefully employing those 4 million people. The next Labour Government, which may be only a few weeks away, must ensure that energy is a matter of national importance and of national concern and that it pursues energy strategies which will get maximum public support to ensure maximum co-operation.
Finally, I conclude with a tribute to all those engaged in our vital energy-producing industries. Their work provides Britain with the powerhouse, the heart, which does not need the transplant that Government policies are trying the inflict on it. Given wise policies, that heart will beat stronger and sounder and will rejuvenate a Britain which has been so jaded and lifeless as a result of the Government's policies in the past few years.
6.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I was going to start by saying that this debate has not been very political but I think that I have to withdraw my words. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his opening remarks and for suggesting this debate today. I was widely in agreement with the main thrust of his speech. I have only one criticism of this debate and that is we have covered such wide ground that it is almost impossible for me to do justice to all the various topics that have been raised.
While listening to the radio this morning in my bath I heard Joe Bugner, the boxer, speaking. He taught me a good lesson on how to save energy. He said that he saves energy now that he is 33 and no longer a young man by knocking out his opponents earlier. I feel slightly knocked out myself today.
In my remarks I want to suggest that there is a widespread misapprehension which has underlain much of the approach of recent administrations to energy. This misapprehension has given rise to the proposition which I have heard on a number of occasions since taking up my present post, which is that the Government do not have an energy policy. In order to discuss this proposition in context I should like to recall some of the facts about our position in the world energy scene. In 1982 the United Kingdom produced more oil than any other country in the world apart from Russia, the United States of America, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
With regard to gas we are also in a remarkable position. The development of North Sea gas has made the United Kingdom the world's fifth largest producer of natural gas. With the renewed interest in exploration for gas in the Southern Basin and elsewhere, which is illustrated by the response to the

609
eighth round of licensing, significant additional gas reserves could well be found to supplement our remaining proven recoverable reserves.
The facts on coal are not so new—a number have been given out today—but are just as impressive. It remains a massive national resource of major long term importance to this country. I have the estimated operating reserves down here as 7 billion tonnes. I know that other noble Lords have quoted different figures, but that is the one that I have been given. That of course is enough to sustain current rates of production for 60 years at least. Total economically recoverable reserves could be very much higher.
As for nuclear power, Britain was fortunate in having early access to nuclear technology. In taking the lead in developing "atoms for peace", it constructed the first commercial nuclear power station at Calder Hall, and that, my Lords, was now some 27 years ago. We have nine Magnox stations working. We have seven advanced gas cooled reactors: two in use, two being commissioned, two under construction and one half-way between construction and commission. This is a good record, although some of them may not have come on time. I really do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, can call this high risk. They have a magnificent safety record. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, took us on a tour of the United States and told us of all the disasters that there have been there. But we are in the United Kingdom, and we have a very good Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It is first-class. I believe that it is one of the safest industries that there can be. We have a 100 per cent. record.
In combination, Britain's access to indigenous oil, gas and coal, and to civil nuclear technology, place it in a remarkably favoured position in the world energy scene. The question is: what is the correct policy response to that situation? In the past the argument has gone somewhat as follows, to put it simply. Energy was a vital national resource of strategic importance. So that it was essential for the Government, on the one hand, to control the exploitation of our natural energy resources in the national interest, and, on the other, to plan their integrated development. Government must forecast demand and plan the supply to meet it. Therefore, our energy resources should be exploited by state corporations under Government supervision.
Of course the North Sea has been an exception to this. Here the need effectively to tap the expertise of the world-wide industry made substantial private sector involvement unavoidable, and it is only right to pay tribute to the quality and commitment of those companies involved. However, even here a state corporation, the British National Oil Corporation, was to play the major role, and the activities of the private sector were to be closely regulated and constrained by Government and their agent, BNOC.
Against this background it has often been asked why, with all its energy wealth, is Britain in such poor industrial and economic health. It is clear that the British economy inherited by this Government had suffered from years of mishandling, part of which has been what I might call the "destructive consensus" on energy policy. This consensus has been broadly based on the argument I have already outlined. It is a
610
superficially attractive argument; but it is sadly—I might even say tragically—wrong.
One reason for this is that energy forecasts are invariably inaccurate. When Government take over from markets the responsibility for matching supply and demand, the consumer always suffers. And when ownership is by the state, efficiency and sensitivity to customers are liable to be casualties. In the case of coal, for example, losses are being made that no private company could possibly sustain. The British coal industry is a major burden on the taxpayer and consequently a drain of the economy when it should be just the opposite. That is no criticism of those who work or have worked in the industry, including the distinguished noble Lords here. I shall come later to answer some of their points. It arises rather from the inflexibility and reduced responsiveness to commercial conditions characteristic of a nationalised monopoly.
While the electricity and gas monopolies have not made these kinds of losses, it is clear that they have been slow to respond to market pressures. Few would argue that investment decisions taken by the electricity industry have been the best, or that its record in building power stations to time and cost has in the past been satisfactory. As far as gas is concerned, it is clear that the corporation's attitude, as by far the major purchaser of North Sea gas, has stifled private sector interest in exploring for new fields; and that the underpricing of domestic gas severely distorted the energy market and damaged industrial consumers of gas.
In sum, the result of the "destructive consensus" has been that Britain has consistently failed to make the most of its opportunities in the energy sector. That is not to say that our energy resources have made no contribution to the economy. Of course they have, and do. But it is to say that, given Britain's remarkable good fortune in its energy endowment, it is at least disappointing that these resources have not been developed in a way that resulted in a more healthy economy than the Government found in 1979.
This Government fully accept the importance of energy in the economy. Indeed, it is because of the importance of energy in the economy that the Government aim to release the energy sector to the greatest extent possible from the shackles of state control and planning in order that it can develop its full potential contribution to economic prosperity in Britain. Where industries remain in the state sector—whether temporarily or permanently—it is clearly essential that they should operate as much as possible as commercial bodies taking full account of market conditions and financial constraints. Only by the rigorous application of such principles can there be any prospect of at least partially avoiding the debilitating effect of state ownership. To this end the Government have agreed financial targets and external financing limits with the industries, and are setting them agreed formal objectives.
Better still, however, than the manufacturing of substitutes for market forces, is the opening up of the state-owned industries. In the North Sea, the exploration and production activities of the British National Oil Corporation have, as we all know, been moved into the private sector as Britoil, whose

611
prospects look bright. In general, the Government are committed to letting oil companies proceed with the development of the North Sea on the basis of their own judgment of the market place and with the minimum of interference.
The Government have given assurances on the exercise of their depletion powers—in particular that there will be no production cuts before 1985 at the earliest—which are designed to give companies the confidence to embark on new developments; and we expect the significant fiscal concessions announced in the Budget to give a strong new incentive to investment in the North Sea. As a result of these measures, I detect a strong breath of optimism in the oil industry, and this in turn will come to the aid of the onshore industries supplying the North Sea market. In particular, we should all be heartened by the renewed interest the oil companies are taking in what were previously only marginal commercial prospects.
As for gas, higher prices now being offered by British Gas to producers, together with the measures taken in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act to break the British Gas Corporation's special gas purchasing privileges and open the market more to competition, have resulted in renewed interest in exploration for and development of gas resources, particularly in the Southern Basin where, for example, 17 exploration and appraisal wells were started in 1982 compared with a total of two in the preceding four years. In electricity, the Energy Bill which had its Committee stage here yesterday will open the way for increased private electricity generation. It will also encourage area boards to participate in economic generation of combined heat and power.
In all the energy industries the Government are examining carefully the extent to which there are irreducible natural monopolies, and the necessity for state ownership in those cases. Even where regulation is clearly necessary, the conclusion that that entails state ownership is simply a non sequitur. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate on energy conservation recently, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again. That debate on a report by the Select Committee on the European Communities highlighted the contribution increased energy efficiency can make to reducing industrial costs and, as a result, improving profitability.
A number of noble Lords spoke about CHP. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who is always quick to ask me why we have not got a report at any particular time, asked me why we had not released the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on CHP. It is being released tomorrow. I am afraid that it is up to them and not up to us. I may say, incidentally, that a copy of it did come on my desk as advance notice. I carefully did not read it in case I gave out some secrets which I should not do. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, also addressed some remarks to CHP. He will know that we are at present studying the Atkins Report on this. We are not sitting on the matter. I have seen the progress report. It is a very complicated report. After considering the report of the Select Committee of the other place and this report, we look forward to making a response soon on CHP.
612
A number of noble Lords, including the originator of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, spoke strongly in favour of the Energy Efficiency Office. I should like to say that I, too, am in favour of it. This question comes back to the Rayner Report; and this debate will help considerably with Government progress on that particular topic.
A number of noble Lords spoke about alternative sources of energy, or the renewables. I should like to say that the Government have decided to go strongly towards research in both wind and geothermal, as well as to keep passive solar and tidal in their minds. They have at the moment rather put wave to one side as not being an economic proposition. However, when we come to bio-mass, I believe that this is of incredible interest. The Government are watching it carefully, and are monitoring some experiments which are now going on.
The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Bowden, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, asked about gas flaring. There are technical and safety reasons why it is not possible to stop it completely. However, the three noble Lords will be encouraged to know that since 1979 oil production has risen by 24 per cent., and flaring has been reduced by a third. That is quite a positive step forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, also spoke about nuclear programmes, and I was very happy that he did. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, quoted from the party document on this subject. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will try to persuade his party not to stop Sizewell and scrap the Tory PWR programme. The Labour Party is on record as saying that the need for a continuing programme based on the British AGR will be reassessed when they are returned to office. I believe that when the right honourable Member of another place, Mr. Benn, was in office, he put his name to the kind of policies which we are now carrying forward. I think that it would be a great pity to have a stop-go situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, illustrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, also talked about coal liquefaction. A formal agreement between the Department of Energy and the National Coal Board is expected to be signed within the next few days, covering the definition phase of the 2½ tonnes per day coal liquefaction project. This definition phase will last about a year and cost about £1 million, to be shared equally between the department and board. The work will cover process design and preparation of tender specifications for detailed engineering, procurement and construction. If all goes well, the construction phase could begin in mid-1984.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, spoke about coal gasification. The British Gas Corporation has recently won further support from the European Commission for operation of its 5,000 tonnes per day slagging gasifier, now under construction in Westfield. This technology for the manufacture of substitute natural gas from coal is now being offered with commercial guarantees and offers significant improvement in capital cost and thermal efficiency relative to established technology. The Gas Corporation's research and development programme, currently costed at about £500 million over the next 20 years, is aimed at providing a full portfolio of technologies by

613
the end of this century; that is for the production of substitute natural gas from a wide range of available feedstocks.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale spoke about future oil and gas developments, and gas gathering. He also made what I thought was a very nice slip of the tongue when he used the word "revenge", rather than the word "revenue". It is difficult actually to predict when companies will come forward with plans for future developments, but we think that proposals for up to 17 oil and gas developments might be submitted over the next two years or so. The Government are determined to encourage the development of new fields in order to maintain high levels of production from the United Kindom continental shelf into the 1990s and beyond. So far as gas gathering is concerned, companies have been seen to come forward with gas gathering schemes, and I am confident that they will continue to do so. This will help to achieve the Government's objective of ensuring that United Kingdom continental shelf Gas is brought ashore in an efficient and timely manner.
I understand that Shell and Esso's FLAGS line and its associated Western leg pipeline are now on stream. The Northern leg pipeline is due to start supplying gas to St. Fergus via FLAGS this year. Further proposals include the feeding of North Alwyn gas into the Frigg system, and a new line from Fulmar. This latter will be well placed to collect gas from accumulations along its route.
I am sorry that I am jumping from subject to subject, but that was how matters were raised in the debate, and so it is very difficult for me to do otherwise. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale then went on to speak about a fast reactor programme. The fast reactor is of course a vital technology for the future, and from our recent debate on this issue noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to maintain a substantial development programme based on Dounreay, in order that the country can have access to the technology when it is needed.
In his policy statement which preceded the recent debate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy made clear that in common with most other leading fast reactor nations, we now believe that the series ordering of fast reactors will begin in the earliest part of the next century, and thus will be on a timescale longer than we had previously envisaged. We should therefore have more time in which to develop further the technology and before undertaking the construction of a first full-scale reactor in the United Kingdom. The development programme will be geared to this timescale. I can also tell my noble friend that my right honourable friend is currently considering the advice that he has received from the industry about the precise nature of the nuclear programme. I can endorse that, because I have actualy seen the papers.
This evening we have probably talked about coal more than about any other subject. So I should like to turn to the Government's strategy on coal and tell your Lordships how that stands. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, that I hope that he is happy that we are going ahead with Asfordby. The Government have given the go-ahead. I think that the noble Lord was under the impression that the
614
Secretary of State for the Environment had not given the go-ahead. In fact he has.
The Government have I believe shown beyond peradventure their faith in the future of the coal industry. We believe that coal has a vitally important role to play in the United Kingdom energy sector, provided that it can be supplied to consumers reliably and at a competitive price. The National Coal Board has a potential major role in meeting the nation's longterm energy needs, provided that it can produce coal efficiently and at prices which are competitive with those of other fuels, including imported coal.
We want the NCB to progress as soon as possible towards a sound and viable financial footing. The massive level of financial support to the industry is indicative both of the industry's serious financial problems and of the Government's commitments to its future. The board and the industry as a whole will know what the problems are, and what needs to be done, including a steady improvement in productivity and competitiveness, as a basis for winning new markets. The Government are providing constructive support for coal through the Coal Firing Grants Scheme and by providing exchange risk cover on ECSC loans for coal conversion projects.
The market for coal is also lower than expected. In 1982 United Kingdom consumption was about 111 million tonnes—about 16 per cent. lower than in 1973. This is a much smaller drop in demand than that faced, for instance, by the petroleum industry over the same period—which was 32 per cent. But it combines with a lower than expected rate of pit closures to create a growing imbalance between supply and demand. The board therefore faces several related problems—increasing stocks, heavily loss-making capacity, and almost total reliance on Government funds for investment and to make up operating losses. These problems will be the same, whoever is the chairman. The objectives which will be given to the new chairman, Mr. MacGregor, are the same as those which have been given to Mr. Siddall. Perhaps I may pay tribute to Mr. Siddall. With the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, present in the Chamber, we are rather apt to forget that there is a present chairman of the board who is also doing a very good job.
We had a discussion on the appointment of Mr. MacGregor when he was appointed. I would remind the House that he is both a Scot and a metallurgist, and I should also like to remind the House that in 1977 he was appointed by the Labour Party as a deputy chairman (part-time) of BL. We have the utmost confidence that he and the coal industry will work well together.
I should like to say a few words on the coal-firing scheme and the ECSC coal-firing loan scheme. This underlines our confidence in coal for the future. The coal-firing schemes have provided positive and constructive help to the coal industry at a time of high coal stocks and to industry and to commerce with their fuel costs. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in March, the closing dates on both this scheme and the ECSC scheme have now been extended to the end of the year.
My noble friend Lord Torrington spoke about onshore petroleum licensing. We are pleased with the

615
continued interest and the high level of activity onshore. The Government have issued 94 exploration and 47 production licences, including 9 awarded last month. The number of exploration wells drilled over the last three years is 9½, 17 and 10 respectively—a total of 36½ wells compared with 19½ over the previous six years. I have, of course, noted his plea about easier licences. I feel, however, that licences need to get all the necessary permissions including planning permission for their operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me about the present position on Wytch Farm. The Secretary of State met the full board of the corporation on 30th March. He explained that the Government had considered carefully with their advisers the advice put to them by British Gas and that it was both commercially justifiable and in the national interest that the corporation should take forward negotiations with the Dorset bidding group. He instructed the corporation to proceed accordingly. It undertook to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned the value of Wytch Farm. This is, of course, a matter of argument. The BGC put forward in 1981 a value of £450 million. The noble Lord will no doubt be aware that the independent firm of Wood Mackenzie more recently put forward a figure of £141 million to £213 million. The Government see no reason why a state corporation should be involved where the private sector is fully capable of taking its place.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to the statutory requirements for the insulation of new houses. He quoted figures that indicated that United Kingdom standards were some way behind those of other European countries. The United Kingdom's minimum efficiency standard for roof insulation is, I believe, twice what he quoted, if I have his figures correctly. It is a U value of 0.35 rather than 0.60 to which reference has been made. One has to bear in mind that the lower the U value the higher the efficiency. A number of improvements to building regulations came into force on 1st April 1982. This underlines the difficulty that arises over comparisons of like with like across the Channel.
I wish to mention to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, the paper, Investment in Energy Use as an Alternative to Investment in Energy Supply, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred. The paper was published by the department. The noble Lord will find that it is an unprecedentedly thorough analysis and is now lying upon the Table of the House. It was prepared in particular as a contribution to discussion at the Sizewell inquiry. It undertakes an economic analysis of the extent to which investment in energy conservation can be seen as a substitute for investment in energy supply. I believe that the Select Committee in another place has commented favourably on the paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, also asked whether the department published projections of future energy demand. Yes, indeed. The department published projections of future energy demand as part of its evidence to the Sizewell inquiry. The Government recognise the need for such projections for planning purposes. They are not blueprints. Energy
616
demand will be decided in practice by energy consumers in the light of their developing circumstances and market conditions.
I should like to mention another paper to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. It is the analysis of generating costs, published on 28th February by the CEGB. In this it estimates that the generation costs over the whole lifetime of the CEGB's most modern nuclear station—that is, Hinckley Point B—are less than those of either of its most modern coal-fired station or of major coal-fired stations commissioned between 1965 and 1977. I have looked at the paper. It is very complicated. I leave the synopsis there. If the noble Lord has not seen it, I shall be happy to ensure that he receives a copy.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also asked about the employment potential of energy conservation investment. Investment in energy conservation measures has a potential to provide jobs through increased demand for conservation material and equipment. There is also scope for employment through implementing the measures themselves, although, in private homes, much of this work is done on a do-it-yourself basis. However, to the extent that spending on energy conservation displaces spending elsewhere, the overall employment implications will depend on the employment intensiveness of the displaced spending. I am not convinced that there is evidence that investment in energy conservation is significantly more employment intensive and likely to create more new jobs than other forms of economic activity. The case for energy conservation investment must depend primarily upon its cost effectiveness and its contribution to improving the efficiency of the United Kingdom economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me about the Energy Commission. I must apologise for the fact that I did not reply to him last time. It is because he speaks just before me and his questions are rather apt to go the bottom of the pile. I believe that the noble Lord replied to himself. The Government are no less committed than their predecessors to ensuring proper consultation on energy matters. However, the Government do not believe that a body such as the Energy Commission is the most efficient way of achieving this. We believe that direct consultation with those concerned on particular issues in the energy field is more likely to produce the required results. In addition, since its inception, the Select Committee on Energy in another place plays an important role in this regard, as does the Committee of your Lordships' House.
I think that I should now start to close my remarks as I seem to have been speaking for a long time. Some noble Lords opposite have advanced policies, a number of which I recognise from paragraphs on energy matters in the Opposition's document, The New Hope for Britain. I do not think that they will be surprised that these paragraphs inspire in me an entirely opposite sentiment from that of hope. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, outlined a policy for Britoil, putting it back into public ownership and combining it with BNOC to create a powerful national oil corporation with full powers to engage in all aspects of oil-related activities. The policy states:
"We will restore to the new corporation a minimum 50 per cent. stake in all fields discovered since 1975 and, in line with our

617
objective to bring North Sea oil into public ownership and control, the public sector will have a dominant role in all future oil and gas exploration and development in the North Sea".
That policy, if implemented, would return us to, and well beyond, the position prevailing when the Government took office. In turn, for the reasons I have made clear, this could only lead to further mismanagement of British energy wealth as has happened in the past. By contrast, this Government's approach to the energy sector is to allow the market to allocate the resources involved with the minimum of interference from Government or other distortions. In our view, that is the approach that is likely to lead to the most efficient allocation of resources.
Energy pricing is one key to this approach. Energy should be priced at proper economic value. Another key is to allow market forces to operate more freely by removing from the state sector activities that do not need to be there. The Government provide information and advice on efficient energy use and help the market to operate properly on the demand side. I believe that this approach is a rational way of ensuring the proper managing of our energy resources.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, as I look around the Chamber and see noble Lords settling in for the next debate, I judge that the present debate has now lasted long enough. I believe that it was worth while instigating the debate in your Lordships' House not least because it allowed those of us who are critical of the Government's energy policy to state our case. It has also enabled the noble Earl the Minister, especially in the earlier part of his reply, to develop the extreme case of the present Government; namely, that consensus is to be undermined, that the nationalised industries are to be destroyed and that the caring and compassionate society mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, is to be set on one side.
Notwithstanding, I pay tribute to the Minister for the careful detail of his later replies. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cyprus and Turkey
6.40 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, To ask her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative to end the confrontation between Cyprus and Turkey.
My deepest memory of Cyprus is at a time when both the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots lived in friendly harmony. I still have in my mind a vivid picture of families of both communities resting in the heat of the day in the shadow of trees while their children played around them. That harmony was destroyed during the war for independence. Mr. Winston Churchill had promised Cyprus self-government at the end of the war because of the help which its people gave to the allied cause. That promise was not fulfilled and the Greek Cypriots—82 per cent. of the population—decided on a war for independence. In that war EOKA, acting for the Greek Cypriots, made its aim union with Greece. Because they did so, the minority Turkish Cypriots were in
618
opposition to those aims and the British Government, in conflict with the Greek Cypriots, favoured, quite naturally in that situation, the Turkish Cypriots. Indeed, their auxiliary police force was almost entirely manned by Turkish Cypriots.
Since then the situation of antagonism has escalated to the final invasion by Turkey in 1974. I am not saying that there were not wrongs on both sides. President Makarios amended the constitution which was adopted at the Zurich and London conference, and in certain respects I think was unfair to the Turkish Cypriots. But I have no doubt that historians will say that by far the greater blame rested upon the leaders of the Turkish Cypriots and the Government of Turkey; the withdrawal by the Turkish Cypriots from any partnership; the threat of setting up a new state and the threat by the Turkish Government of actual invasion.
We are now in a new situation. Only last week the President of Cyprus and the Prime Minister of Greece met in Athens and decided to appeal to the international community for action. They will be initiating a debate shortly in the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is to that debate and the British attitude in it, that I want to refer. Before I do so, by way of preface I want to look at the record of the United Nations and of the British Government in Cyprus since the invasion of 1974 took place.
I take first the record of the United Nations. Five days after the invasion took place, the Security Council met. In their resolution they expressed concern that the situation would create a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean. They called for a cease-fire; they demanded an immediate end to foreign military intervention; they requested the withdrawal, without delay, from Cyprus of foreign and military personnel; and they called on Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace. They could scarcely have been more definite: the demand for the withdrawal of the Turkish forces and an immediate cease-fire.
On 20th July, the very day that the Turkish Government sent 40,000 troops into Cyprus backed by air and naval forces, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared its view. It added two points to the resolution which I have already summarised from the Security Council. The first was very significant: the recognition of the non-alignment of Cyprus—an issue which will become important as I hope to indicate later. Secondly, a return of the refugees to their own homes.
The Turkish invasion came to occupy 40 per cent. of the territory of Cyprus. Approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots were hounded from their rooms and their houses so as to make room for the Turkish soldiers who came in. Although the Turkish Cypriots amount to only 18 per cent. of the population, 40 per cent. of the territory still remains in Turkish hands. The United Nations asked for immediate withdrawal; 10 years later that is still the position. There has been no action. Indeed, the United Nations recognised the partition of Cyprus by establishing the Green Line between the two forces. Afterwards there have been these endless talks of the United Nations' initiative which have got no further, largely because of the Turkish Cypriot obstruction.

619
One is compelled to ask why the United Nations failed in this way. It is not because the United Nations is a failure as an institution. It is because of the composition and the membership of the United Nations. From the very beginning the West has not wished to alienate Turkey. It has not wished to do so because Turkey is a member of NATO; because of its strategic importance against the Soviet Union on the very border of the Soviet Union, and with American bases there.
The West throughout this story have also been concerned to make Cyprus itself a base of NATO—British troops and bases there. The whole policy has been aimed not at non-alignment but on winning Cyprus to the Western side. There was the Acheson American plan by which there was to be a partition. Northern Cyprus to be made a part of NATO Turkey; Southern Cyprus to be made a part of Greek territory—and Greece was then a member of NATO. That is the United Nations' record.
I turn to the record of the United Kingdom. Twenty-five years ago the British Government guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus. In the agreement of Zurich and London in 1959 Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom did so. They also undertook to prohibit any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, the partition of the island. Our guarantee could not have been more definite than that. But when Turkey invaded Cyprus, the United Kingdom representative took the view that we need not carry out that guarantee, because we were associated with the two countries, Turkey and Greece, within it. I find it an extraordinary logic which says that, when one of three guarantors itself repudiates the guarantee which it gave, other guarantors should not act independently.
The Zurich and London agreement gave the United Kingdom permission to act independently. It said in Article 4:
"In so far as common action or concerted action may not be possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present treaty".
Therefore, Great Britain would have had every authority, as a guarantor, for acting at that time.
Why has it refrained from doing so? Again, I must say that it is because of concern for Turkey as a member of NATO. Here there are 40,000 troops and 200,000 people moved from their homes. I cannot help contrasting it with what Britain did in the Falklands. When an invasion threatened 1,200 people there, all our forces went into action. In Cyprus, when 550,000 Greek Cypriots find their country invaded, there is no action whatsoever. I submit that international action according to a guarantee is just as binding as any national obligation. We gave our pledge to the world. We have failed to keep it.
I turn in conclusion to the discussion which will take place in the United Nations. I would urge that in the United Nations a decision should be made to end this intolerable situation in Cyprus. I suggest that those who believe in freedom should urge the General Assembly to ask the Security Council, first, to insist on the withdrawal without delay of Turkish military
620
forces and equipment—a demand which has been made now for 10 years; to insist on the return to their homes of the ousted refugees. Perhaps there could be a United Nations tribunal to which claims could be sent and which could adjudicate.
I suggest that there should be pressure for a constitutional settlement by renewed discussions. If the pressure of the Turkish military presence was withdrawn, I believe that an agreement could be reached. What if Turkey continues to refuse these proposals? I would suggest in that situation that Turkey should be warned that economic sanctions will be taken against that territory unless it fulfils the demands of the United Nations. In its present circumstances Turkey would find it very difficult indeed to meet economic sanctions. It may be said that that is too much to ask, in view of the military strategy which Turkey provides for the West, in that United States bases are there. I put it to this House very seriously that this principle must be faced. The West says that it is armed in defence of the free world, but Turkey is among the most repressive countries in the world. It arrests political opponents, tortures them in prison and executes them. With all its military advantage should we not remember that Turkey is alien to freedom? On the other hand, freedom demands that we act on behalf of Cyprus. When the Government go to the United Nations debate, I beg them to stand for this principle of freedom.
7 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I must declare a personal interest in this subject. It was on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that I signed the Treaty of Guarantee in Nicosia. Reference has just been made to that Treaty of Guarantee, guaranteeing the independence, territorial integrity and security of the new Republic of Cyprus, and going on to prohibit the partition of the island, indicating that if there was not agreement between the three Governments of the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, then, yes, one could act alone, but could act alone solely for the purpose of restoring the situation which was brought about by the treaty.
Having signed the treaty with the authority of Her Majesty's Government I have naturally watched subsequent events in the island of Cyprus with dismay and with shame that we should have given an undertaking and have failed so shamefully to carry it out. There is now the situation in the island, to which I have returned once or twice, which is intolerable. It is a beautiful island cut in two. The people are unable to move from north to south or from south to north, and growing up—this distresses me most—is a new generation of people in Cyprus where one side does not know the other.
When I first went to Cyprus many years before, I knew that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots lived and worked happily together in a hundred villages and in every main town. To go back, as I did in the middle of the EOKA rebellion, was to me a terrible experience, but I had the comfort and the satisfaction of remembering the days when the world was at war but Cyprus was at peace. As I have watched events in subsequent years since I signed the treaty, increasingly I have had a sense of shame—fury, it may be—that our

621
country, with the responsibilities arising from 100 years of adminstration of the island, should not have taken the action which the treaty requires to search for and to find a peaceful solution.
Now we have a situation which is unbearable, with children growing up on each side of the line never even seeing anyone from the other side, and never learning each other's languages as they used to before. We have created, by our own inaction, an antipathy and an enmity which was not there before. That makes it increasingly difficult to find any possibility of a settlement and a solution.
We must turn for a new initiative. The opportunity may arise in the debate which is to take place early next month in the United Nations. We, with others, have been told for some time that there is nothing we can do because discussions are going on between the two communities. They have been going on for a long time, and it is clear that they cannot succeed. I read the press from both sides of the line in Cyprus, and it is one of the most disturbing and miserable experiences to read that there appears to be no possibility of the resumption of the friendship of the past. It is now a miserable and shameful state of affairs which has continued for far too long.
I do not think it is possible for us here to say exactly how the settlement should be worked out. It is necessary that the communal discussions should continue, but they should continue against a background of an international insistence that there must be a restoration of unity in the island. There has been some suggestion that people of international prestige might, either singly or as a group, discuss with both sides and come back to the United Nations to report. It is possible that a single representative of the United Nations might be given the task, as has been known in some other instances; someone of international reputation may make a contribution. Exactly how the initiative should be undertaken, not only by our nation but by all the countries of the United Nations there represented, is something that I hope our representatives to the United Nations will determine; and I hope that, with the maximum support from all those open to argument, we shall find a way to escape from the shameful consequences of our own inaction.
I should like to say a word on a wider issue. The new Secretary-General of the United Nations has been speaking, since he took over his duties last year, of the alarm—it is much more than alarm; it is fear—that the whole purposes of the United Nations are being destroyed largely by the failures of the principal members, the permanent members of the Security Council. He points out that they have special privileges under the charter and they surely have an absolute necessity to work together for agreement. That is what the charter provides. We have seen very little indication that there is any willingness in the United Nations of the principal permanent members to work together, even though that is their task. That is their sacred trust, as he called it, which is now being denied. Furthermore, he said that, where we do agree, surely there should be definite action to follow it up to make it effective.
Let us look at the examples that we had in our minds at this time—and, yes, it was more than 10 years ago
622
that I signed the treaty. Look at the situation in Namibia, where, again, there has been a decade of delays since a United Nations decision. It was in 1967 when we had a unanimous resolution on the Middle East, on which no action has been taken. Now we are getting to a state of affairs in which, even when there are unanimous decisions—and it was unanimous on Cyprus, as it was on Namibia and the Middle East—we let a decade go by with no determination to make them effective.
The Secretary-General says, in words which are striking enough, that he fears that it may be that "we are close to a new international anarchy"—those are his words—if we refuse to work together. The Security Council has spent a lot of its time engaged in abuse between East and West. They refuse to work together to try to find the answer to whatever the danger may be. Then, even when there is agreement, they refuse to do anything about it. This is a situation where people blame the United Nations. I hear slighting references to the Security Council and to the failures of the United Nations; but it is not the failures of the United Nations but the failures of the members, and, principally, of the permanent members, of the Security Council, who are engaged in mutual abuse rather than in the search for solutions.
We now have an opportunity in this country, because we had a special responsibility. We were in charge of Cyprus for 100 years, and we have long ties of, yes, friendship with both sides. In my own experience I like to think of the part which Foreign Minister Zorlu, of Turkey, and Foreign Minister Averof, of Greece, played. They were the people who made the agreement of 1960. What courage they showed, and what wisdom and energy! Would that we could see it again. I remember the scene in Nicosia that I referred to, when Bishop Makarios was on one side and Dr. Kutchuk, the leader of the Turks, was on the other, when we signed the treaty and looked forward to a happier, more prosperous Cyprus. I hope that that vision can be revived, and I hope that our country can play a leading part in bringing that about.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I hope that I shall be constructive and I want to say how much I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has just said about Cyprus. I think he has made a most impressive speech and has put the situation into a very good perspective. Having said that, I must attack the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his attack on Turkey. It is so easy to start from 20th July 1974, the day that the Turkish Army went into Cyprus, but I believe that the real blame for what happened then rests with the British Foreign Secretary at the time, who was approached repeatedly by Mr. Ecevit, the Turkish Prime Minister, who begged him to come in and stop the insurrection which had happened five days earlier. Your Lordships may remember that between 15th and 20th July a man called Sampson started up this insurrection in Cyprus, kicked out President Makarios and very nearly killed him. We rescued him, I think, just in time.
There was absolute slaughter—Greek slaughtering Greek and Greek slaughtering Turk—for five days. During that time Prime Minister Ecevit begged our

623
Foreign Secretary to make a joint approach to stop what was happening. I believe that if our Foreign Secretary had agreed to do that the whole operation could have been stopped by the use of possibly no troops at all other than the troops that we already had in Cyprus. However, our Foreign Secretary refused and so Turkey had to go it alone.
When they landed, among other things, they found—and I have only learned about this from my last visit to Cyprus at the beginning of this year—more than 30 large Russian tanks opposing them on the Greek side—E.34s, I think. What were they doing there? What hopes would the Turkish Cypriot population have had if they had been used against them? I think that that in itself shows up the problem that existed there.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned the recent meeting between President Karamanlis of Greece and President Kyprianou of Cyprus; but he did not say anything about a speech which was made by President Papandreou on April 7th in Athens at a dinner given for President Kyprianou. I want to quote one paragraph from a translation of a report by ANA news agency which came out on 11 th April. This report—and I cannot say how accurate the translation is—says:
"It was natural for the Greek people of Cyprus always to have their eyes averted to Greece and to want to unite with her. This reasonable desire became more intense and bit by bit took on the form of a liberation struggle from the time Greece became an independent state. That struggle passed through many stages, the most critical of them, however, and the most dramatic was the one that began after the Second World War and continues still".
Those words by President Karamanlis of Greece cannot give any encouragement to the Turkish Cypriots to go back to any form of association with Greek Cypriots which would allow them to come into each other's areas.
Since 1974, the Turkish Cypriots have enjoyed complete security. I believe that the number of murders which have taken place in the north of Cyprus since that date can be counted on the fingers of one hand, or certainly not more than two hands; whereas before then they were being slaughtered right, left and centre. They are not going to give up their security easily. Neither are they going to give up the homes that they have taken over in the north, however much Lord Brockway may say that the 200,000 refugees in the south have a right to them. The Turkish Cypriots were kicked out of more than 100 villages between 1963 and 1974 and during that time they were not allowed to build any more homes because Archbishop Makarios said that building materials were a strategic matter and they could not have them. How can we expect people who were treated like that for 10 years before the Turkish army came in to give up the homes and the security they have now? My Lords, they will not. I do not know what the solution is to be, but I do think that Her Majesty's Government, as the third guarantor, have a very strong responsibility to take part in any solution.
There have been intercommunal talks and, surprisingly enough, there has been agreement on four little things—four little matters. There will be a neutral flag; there will be a new national anthem; both languages will be recognised, and foreign affairs will be
624
handled by a federal Government. There is a very small element of agreement there; but it is something, and it is something which has not been publicised very much. Certainly, before going to Cyprus this time I had not heard of any of these things having been agreed, and it is a great pity that even such little agreements are not publicised.
However, I feel that they are not going to get very much further. There is no real incentive, other than on the part of the Greek Cypriot refugees, to give up the situation that they are in at the moment where they are recognised as the Government of Cyprus. They get all the advantages. They are doing extraordinarily well economically—far better than the Turkish Cypriots—and any final agreement between the two sides would probably mean that the Greek Cypriots would have to give up some of the advantages they now have.
Therefore, to my mind, any solution has to come from outside. I do not think the United Nations is going to be very much help. Between 1963 and 1974 United Nations troops were on the island: they did not prevent this kicking out of Turkish Cypriots from a hundred villages; they did not prevent the slaughter of Turks by Greeks during that time. Even though British troops were there as part of the force, they found themselves powerless; and I cannot see the Turkish Cypriots accepting a United Nations force to come in in place of the protection they now have behind their own armed forces. So I ask the Government: is it not time that Her Majesty's Government took a strong part now in trying to bring about a final solution to this problem?
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I intervene only briefly in this debate, and I should like to say how glad I am that my noble friend Lord Caradon referred to the signing of the treaty, because I was there in the Ledra Palace on that day. I hoped, as did many others, that the agreement would bring peace and progress to that lovely island. On one side of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, sat Archbishop Makarios, and on the other side sat the Turkish leader Dr. Kutchuk. We all of us on that monumental day felt that there was progress and there was hope. It has been very disappointing that our hopes on that day have, up to the moment, been disappointed.
I want to say quite briefly that there does seem to be among some of your Lordships the feeling that it is impossible for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to get on together. That is absolutely wrong. I have friends on both sides. Soon after I was in the lovely island of Cyprus where the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was signing the treaty, I went to Rhodes. Rhodes is even nearer to Turkey than is Cyprus and we met together with Turks and Greeks. There was absolutely no inbuilt animosity. That is something which we must destroy in our minds, because there are some people who seem to think that there is an animosity which cannot be dealt with.
I want to ask one or two questions. Most of these debates on Cyprus are concerned with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots; but Cyprus is an island where many nationalities live together. There are many British citizens who live in Cyprus, and I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord the Minister

625
about many of the United Kingdom citizens who live there. In many cases, they are men and women who have worked in what used to be a colony, who were used to a warm climate and who have retired to Cyprus. Many of them had their homes demolished during the Turkish invasion. I appreciate all that the noble Lord has done to try and organise some recompense for British citizens who were deprived and who suffered in Cyprus as a result of the invasion. Many are still without any recompense for the destruction of their houses, for having been wounded and suffered hardship. I do not want to go on about this too much, because the noble Lord well knows that I am in correspondence with him about this. But it seems to me that it would not be asking too much of Her Majesty's Government, as a member of NATO, to ask another member of NATO to accept the responsibility for United Kingdom citizens in Cyprus who have suffered from violence and from the invasion.
I have to ask why it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to support the Greek Government in its suggestion that the Turkish army should withdraw from Cyprus and that Greece would be prepared to pay for a United Nations force to take over in that part of Cyprus where the Turkish forces are now acting. It seems to me that absolutely unacceptable that one NATO country should accept the invasion of another Commonwealth country by the Turkish army.
Why can we not bring this subject to the United Nations and suggest that if the Turkish people in their part of Cyprus feel in danger—which in my view they need not feel—a United Nations force would do better and would be more conciliatory than a Turkish armed force?
I do not want to go into details of the effect of the Turkish soldiers in Northern Cyprus, but I have been there and I know that many of my Turkish Cypriot friends do not gladly accept the Turkish soldiers in their part of the island. Moreover, there are many instances of friendliness—long-held friendliness—between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. I have been to places in Cyprus where a Turkish farmer puts his melons over the wall and a Greek farmer puts his milk back over the wall. There are many instances of personal friendliness, and it would be a great pity—I say this with all respect to my noble friend Lord Spens—if anyone in your Lordships' House were to suggest that there is an absolute barrier, because that is not true.
The last point which I want to raise is of a dream, and I do not apologise for bringing a dream before your Lordships. I have always hoped that there might be a university in Cyprus, because we could then bring together the richness of the Islamic culture, the Hellenic culture and the Roman culture. I know that there are difficulties with the American University in Beirut, and it would be absolutely marvellous if we could start a university in Cyprus.
One goes around Cyprus and one sees in Salamis the Greek columns, and one sees in Curium the marvellous amphitheatre. Then one moves around and sees the Turkish mosques. One can then go to Famagusta and see the Phoenician walls around that city. It seems to me that Cyprus is the most international, inter-cultural—if one may coin such a horrible word—place that there is.
626
May I remind your Lordships that there were many Cypriot subjects who joined our forces in the last world war, many of whom lost their lives. There is a great connection between this country and that lovely island, and I should be very happy if, so long as Cyprus remains part of the Commonwealth, we tried to extend and strengthen all the ties of culture and friendship. And if NATO is to mean anything, it cannot mean that one NATO country can have its forces sitting on the territory of a British Commonwealth member.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I know that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for initiating this debate and for the constructive and comprehensive speech with which he opened it. We have also listened with respect to the speech of my noble friend Lord Caradon, who played so central a role in the island's history at a crucial moment. Again, my noble friend Lady Jeger is, as all of us know, a friend of Cyprus. Her knowledge of the island is considerable, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government will have noted very carefully the interesting proposal she made for a university in Cyprus, and also the point she made about United Kingdom citizens there.
Having listened to this short debate, there is one thing on which we can all agree; namely, that it is taking far too long to achieve a satisfactory and stable solution to the problem of the island. As we have heard, it is nearly nine years since Turkish forces invaded the island and drew the Attila line. That was an indefensible action which was duly condemned by the United Nations, and the line that the Turkish Government then drew across the island bore no relationship to the relative Greek and Turkish populations in Cyprus. As my noble friend Lord Brockway has reminded us, it was a cruel invasion and 200,000 Greek Cypriots were driven from their homes, while others have disappeared without trace.
There is, of course, a Turkish Cypriot argument as well, and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has rehearsed it with great fairness. As I understood him, the argument is briefly that the Turkish-speaking minority were never accepted as equal partners; that they were, so it is argued, second-class citizens; and that, when the Greek junta overthrew President Makarios in 1974 with the intention of declaring enosis, and because Britain failed to act under the Treaty of Guarantee, Turkey had no alternative but to take military action. That is the Turkish case. However, this does not excuse Turkey's action. It certainly does not excuse the brutal ruthlessness which followed the occupation; nor does it justify the extent of that occupation. But it is what the Turkish Cypriots believe.
Partition itself does not really resolve the basic political problem. Partition is always an admission of defeat, wherever it takes place. In spite of all the efforts to find a solution, we still have partition nine years later. One of the dismal aspects of partition is that, with the passage of time, although it starts as a temporary expedient, it acquires all the appearances of permanence. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it becomes to unravel it.
I believe that we have come to a point in time where a solution might now appear to be possible. We have

627
comparatively new Governments in Greece and Turkey. President Kyprianou has been confirmed in office once again, and Senor Perez de Cuellar is deeply concerned to work for a settlement. What, therefore, are the chances? We shall be interested to know the Government's reactions from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he comes to reply. Perhaps I may be allowed to make some brief comments.
We should first recall the "evaluation" prepared by the former United Nations Secretary-General, Dr. Kurt Waldheim, and presented to the intercommunal talks on 18th November 1981. I regard those talks as fairly basic to our discussion, because they are still continuing. They have been going on now for five years. They clearly need a new stimulus of the kind that my noble friends Lord Brockway, Lord Caradon and Lady Jeger, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, have suggested. We need some new ideas on the table. The Waldheim "evaluation" provided a basis for detailed negotiations. I think myself that they were, if anything, more favourable to the Turkish Cypriots than to the Greek Cypriots, and perhaps the noble Lord will let us have the Government's current views on the Waldheim proposal.
When he visited Cyprus last year, the Greek Prime Minister, Dr. Papandreou, said on the question of intercommunal talks that the political leadership of both Greece and Cyprus agreed that the negotiations should proceed within the context of the "Waldheim ideas", although he was not optimistic about the outcome since they were being held,
"in the dynamic military presence of the occupation forces".
This is also President Kyprianou's position. There is, however, in spite of all the difficulties, some flexibility—a desire to come to terms, but a natural resentment of the powerful Turkish presence on the island, which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Jeger. They are also conscious that, in the inter- communal talks, the Ankara Government play a dominant role behind the scenes—a far more dominant role than anything the Athens Government play. This is constantly in their minds. I am sure that many noble Lords noted the detailed statement made by the Cyprus Government and published in The Times on 6th April.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am following what the noble Lord is saying with great care. However, would he not agree that the principal obstacle to any kind of settlement is the probability, as things are, that if the Greek Cypriots obtained complete domination over the island, to the extent that they could hold a plebiscite and determine to join Greece, this would cause very great trouble in the future? Indeed, it is precisely against this possibility that the Turks have reacted so strongly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, those of us who know Cyprus and have studied the history of the island over the last 20 years know that there are suspicions and apprehensions on both sides. For the noble Lord, whom I have known for a very long time, to say that a settlement is impossible merely in view of suspicions is to take far too pessimistic a view. I am trying, perhaps because I am a natural optimist, to
628
make what I believe to be a constructive case for a possible settlement. In that context, I do not believe that the noble Lord's intervention was particularly helpful.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a very good case. However, I did not say that a solution is impossible. I said that there is a high possibility that if what I said happened—namely, that the Greeks obtained entire control over the island—it would sow the seeds of trouble. It is that possibility which weighs most strongly with the Turks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord has made is very much in everybody's mind. The fears of the Turkish Cypriots to which he has referred are certainly well known. The fears of the Greek Cypriots are also very well known. At this moment the Greek Cypriots have far more to fear from the Turkish presence than have the Turkish Cypriots from the Greeks. Therefore we must look at this problem as objectively as we can in an effort to reach a settlement.
I was referring to the statement of the Cyprus Government which appeared in The Times on 6th April. This statement gives the Greek Cypriot case. One must read it as such. However, the statement also contains some important pointers. For example, this sentence from the statement in The Times should be noted:
"the Greek Cypriot side accepted something which was unthinkable before. Federation was accepted as a basis for a solution. Cyprus is too small for a federal system and yet that was accepted [by the Greek Cypriots] so that a solution of the Cyprus problem could be facilitated".
In other words, I submit to your Lordships that the Greek Cypriots make a very substantial concession when they say that they are prepared to negotiate on the basis of federation.
They go on to argue that the Turkish leadership does not want federation; what they want is a separate state. I hope that this is not true and that the Turkish Cypriot community are genuinely anxious for a permanent settlement, based on some form of federation. If that is not a possibility, the island is in for a long history of partition, with all that that implies. If we are to have a permanent settlement, some new infusion of confidence is essential. After years of partition, Cyprus now merits a new initiative. The Turkish Cypriot response is, I understand, less clear than the Greek Cypriot position. Mr. Denktash has suggested that there are two choices: a bicommunal federal republic or, alternatively, two republics joined by a nonaggression pact. The first option provides a possible meeting ground with President Kyprianou. If both sides say that under certain circumstances federation is a possibility, successful negotiations might take place on that basis.
The intercommunal talks should concentrate on this. It is obvious that here again the United States can be helpful by talking seriously to the Turkish Government. The United States must not be seen to have more sympathy with an authoritarian, right-wing, military government than with a democratically elected left-wing government. We have a practical interest in and a historic link with Cyprus, as all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned. I hope we

629
can also help to mount an initiative ourselves. Nor should we overlook the presence there of the United Nations peace-keeping force of 2,348 men, including 761 from the United Kingdom, costing over 100 million dollars a year to finance. For the time being this force must stay there, for obvious reasons. I should be glad to have the reactions of the noble Lord to that point.
The cynics say that nothing can be done; but if nothing is done the island will stay as it is, with two armies, two economies and all the paraphernalia of two states—with airports, customs and two national and linguistic cultures. It also preserves a partition which goes against the very laws of nature. The agriculture is in the south and most of the water is in the north.
There is a solution. It is, I believe, a perfectly reasonable one. On their side, the Greek Cypriots could accept a fairly flexible federal arrangement, in which the Turkish Cypriots would have extensive powers in their own sector and a veto on certain aspects of federal government policy. These points should be negotiable. In return for this, the Turks should make territorial concessions, accepting an area which more nearly conforms to their population. The Greek Cypriot case is very strong, but here again I concede immediately that the confidence and consent of the Turkish Cypriot minority is a crucial ingredient in any final agreement. We must all recognise that fact.
My noble friend Lord Brockway referred to the appeal made last week in Athens and the prospect of a debate in the United Nations early next month. These are very important initiatives. I believe that they are extremely hopeful. They provide a new objective.
I hope the Security Council and the United Nations Secretary General will grasp this opportunity. If they do so, they should be given the full, constructive support of Her Majesty's Government. I hope therefore that the Minister can assure us that this will be forthcoming.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for drawing the attention of the House once again to the situation in Cyprus. It is right that we should continue to be reminded of the situation in Cyprus because, despite the relative stabililty of the last eight years, the divisions between the two communities remain. Every single speech which has been made in our debate this evening has concentrated upon the divisions as well as, in some cases, the hopes for the future. While there has been no fighting during this period and while parts of the country have become more prosperous, these deep and tragic conditions are unacceptable. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said, a generation is growing up on both sides of the Green Line in Cyprus which has never known its opposite numbers. As time goes on, a solution will be more difficult to find.
I acknowledge that in Britain we have long-standing ties with the people of Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth. We are linked by treaty. There is a large Cypriot community here. I assure the House that the British Government are aware of their obligations towards the people of Cyprus. For some time now the United Nations Secretary-General has
630
been making efforts to solve the Cyprus problem. Intercommunal talks, under his auspices, between representatives of the two Cypriot communities have been going on in Nicosia for many years. The present round started in 1980 and has been running continously since then. The British Government remain convinced that it is through these talks that an eventual settlement can be reached.
I should like to pause here to amplify what I mean, because I am not saying that just for the sake of something to say. The Government believe very deeply that it is only by agreement between the two communities that a settlement can be made to work. Accordingly, we do what we can to help the progress of the talks. We are in regular contact with the parties concerned and with United Nations.
I would like to take this opportunity, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to tell the House what has been happening in the talks recently and to examine the prospects for the future. In November 1981 the United Nations Representative in Cyprus, Dr. Hugo Gobbi, launched what was known as the "evaluation" of the then Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim. The evaluation was a thorough document which analysed the areas of agreement and disagreement between the two communities. In the case of the areas of disagreement, the Secretary-General sketched in some ideas as to how these could be resolved.
For nearly 18 months the representatives of the two communities, guided by Dr. Gobbi, have been discussing the "evaluation" very thoroughly. I will not pretend that there has been dramatic progress, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, there has been some progress. But this does not take away from the fact that the discussion over the last year has been the most thorough analysis of a future Cyprus constitution ever undertaken by the two communities since Cyprus became independent and the original 1960 arrangements broke down.
Dr. Gobbi himself has described the discussion as the "first reading" of the problem. It was certainly the essential groundwork for any agreement. Moreover, the atmosphere at the talks has been good. This has been due to the interlocutors themselves representing the two communities, and also due to the patience and skill of Dr. Gobbi.
Now that discussion of the evaluation is virtually complete it is time to ask where we go from here. The Government believe that there is a growing realisation that, following President Kyprianou's re-election last month, there now exists a chance for progress towards a Cyprus settlement which will not be repeated for many years. Indeed, the Cyprus Foreign Minister said in a television interview just after the presidential elections that the time was now ripe for movement on the Cyprus problem within the framework of the intercommunal talks. What is needed is for both communities to have the determination—and the goodwill—to seize the opportunity which is presenting itself. I believe that we must all do what we can to make sure this period of opportunity is put to the best possible use, and give maximum support both to the parties and to the Secretary-General.
The Government very much hope that United Nations will feel able to inject some new ideas into the intercommunal talks, to build on the work done in discussion of the evaluation, and to offer prospects of

631
real progress towards a settlement this year. If such ideas are injected, it will be a tragedy if the parties do not make use of them. I would like to put it on record that the British Government will place their weight firmly behind a realistic attempt to make progress this year, but it is reasonable to ask, how is this progress to be achieved? First, this will be achieved only by the parties themselves working towards agreement under United Nations auspices. It follows that no one should do anything which might either cut across the efforts of the Secretary-General and his representatives or render it more difficult for the parties to come to an agreement.
In handling the debate which will undoubtedly take place at United Nations soon, the parties must ask the question about their actions: will they bring a Cyprus settlement any nearer, or will what we say push a settlement further away? It is important that all the parties at the UN should not simply try to score propaganda points off one another, but avoid souring the atmosphere for the inter-communal talks and shortening the period of opportunity which the Government and many other people believe exists. United Nations resolutions are often valuable, and Cyprus has not been debated at the General Assembly for some time. But what are really needed are not resolutions or new mechanisms but goodwill and determination. The inter-communal talks are now poised to make further progress and it would be a tragedy if the momentum were to be lost.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked whether we will launch an initiative. I do not believe that an initiative would be right at the moment or that it would help in the search for a settlement. Indeed, it is a little difficult from the debate this evening, which has been enormously interesting in so many ways, to find out exactly what kind of initiative the noble Lord had in mind. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made a suggestion for an initiative which I shall come to in a moment. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, which otherwise was of enormous interest, simply referred to "an initiative" and did not describe the lines on which the initiative should be taken.
I do not cavil at that because I believe that to take an initiative at the present time would be enormously difficult to define, let alone carry out. Neither the Cyprus Government nor the Turkish Cypriot Community have asked us to launch an initiative. We have memories of the reception given to the last such initiative in 1978. The reason why outside initiatives are unlikely to do very much good is that in the end agreement must be reached by the parties themselves. As I have said, I believe the key to this is agreement and action towards a settlement by the parties involved.
Lord Brockway: The initiative that I suggested the Government should take, my Lords, is action during the debates in the United Nations for the proposals which I made. When the noble Lord the Minister says that there has been no request to the Government to take the initiative, does he not remember that only last week the President of Cyprus and the Prime Minister of Greece both appealed for international action and expressed the hope that a debate in United Nations may bring that about, by the initiatives of Governments which are sympathetic?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is saying that the debate in United Nations should underpin United Nations work on the island, then of course the Government most certainly agree with him; but if by any chance the noble Lord is saying—which I do not believe he is, but I sometimes believe that other people may be saying it—that there should be an initiative entirely separate from that of the United Nations, then I believe that that would take anybody making such an initiative back to square one. I see from the nodding of the noble Lord's head that we are at one on this and that both the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the Government believe that United Nations efforts can build on the basis of the efforts that have already been made, and that we should rely on the work of the United Nations' representative in Cyprus—but we should also be ready and vigilant to try to underpin that work wherever possible.
I should like to say a brief word on the question of confrontation between the Cyprus Government and Turkey, which I do not believe it is right to see as being the core of the Cyprus problem. The problem is a complex one. It involves the two communities and inevitably involves also Turkey and Greece. Attempts to find a solution to the problem have been bedevilled over the years by supporters of one community or the other seeing the problem from one angle only. Of course, the presence of foreign troops in the Republic of Cyprus is an aspect of the Cyprus problem—a tragic one—and any comprehensive settlement must include the withdrawl of those troops. We ourselves have voted in the past for appropriate United Nations resolutions calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Republic of Cyprus. But there are many other aspects of the problem, and it really is wrong, I think, to take only one of them in isolation if ever one hears the matter being argued in that way.
In giving all the help we can to the United Nations efforts, we are, I assure your Lordships, constantly impressing on the parties the need to make progress this year. We are also playing our part by being the largest contributor of men and money to the United Nations' peacekeeping force in Cyprus. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, paid tribute to UNFICYP's sterling work in keeping the peace between the two communities—work which I agree with the noble Lord must continue while it is still needed. It is a measure of the success of UNFICYP that there has been only one fatal intercommunal casualty on the green line in the last 8 years, but, of course, that is no cause for complacency or reason why we should abandon our efforts to bring about a lasting solution to the Cyprus problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me two specific questions. The first one was whether more cannot be done so far as claims for dispossessed British residents are concerned. I would pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her concern, as I have seen in the correspondence I have had with her, and for what she is doing actively to try to see that this aspect of these difficult problems is improved. My reply is that we have worked very hard to persuade the Turkish Cypriot authorities to settle outstanding claims by British citizens, and indeed it is not too much to say that under pressure from us the Turkish Cypriot authorities have set up a claims commission and

633
claims are being settled, albeit not as fast as we would like. My answer to the noble Baroness—and I think it is an answer I have given before is that we are keeping up the pressure.
Then the noble Baroness suggested the introduction of a United Nations force to replace the Turkish troops. Here I would simply say that Turkish Cypriot security concerns make it unlikely that Turkish troops could withdraw in advance of progress towards a settlement, which brings us back to the importance of the intercommunal talks. If I may say so, I think this was a point which was underlined by the interventions of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
There is one last matter I should like to deal with, and again it arises from Lady Jeger's speech. It is a positive but small thing which can be done to bring the people of the two communities into contact with each other. That is to look at the situation so far as a university is concerned. The young people of the two communities of course traditionally mixed by coming to British universities, for there is no university in Cyprus, and this led the noble Baroness to make a plea for money to set up a university there. We are, as the House will know, trying to deal with this problem in a rather different way.
I make no secret of saying that I realise that Cyprus was hit by our decision to charge overseas students the full cost of their tuition, and that is why we were very glad to be able to announce last month that £1 million is being made available in each of the next three years to help Cypriot students to continue to come to the United Kingdom. We have also made it clear—and I should like to do so again—that the benefits of this money will be made available to students from both communities. We have now worked out most of the details of how the scheme would operate and we are putting the finishing touches to it. I am very glad that I had the opportunity to have a word about this with the Minister of Education from Cyprus when he was visiting this country very recently.
If I may sum up, I believe that progress towards settlement of the Cyprus problem is possible this year. I believe that an increasing number of people on both sides accept that proposition. What is needed is determination and flexibility. The British Government stand ready to do anything that the United Nations, or the parties concerned, would consider might help bring about a solution to this long-standing and tragic problem.

Matrimonial Homes Bill [H.L.] Mental Health Bill [H.L.] Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL BILL
  HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL BILL
  CARE PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL REPRESENTATION
  CARE PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL REPRESENTATION