Sitting of 4 July 1984

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

    Textiles (Import Penetration)
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of import penetration in textiles for 1983.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): Forty-two per cent.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that Portugal is breaching a number of agreements that had been made with the European Community and that that action is severely damaging British industry? Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider informing Portugal that it will not be made welcome as a partner in the EEC unless it changes its attitude and lives up to the agreements that it has made?
    Mr. Lamont: I am aware of that point. Yesterday, a meeting was held between the Portuguese and the Commission at which it was made absolutely clear that the Commission and the United Kingdom Government view seriously over-shipment of the restraint levels, especially from a potential member of the Community. It was made clear also that adjustment of the restraint levels that had been agreed for 1984 would be necessary to take account of those over-shipments. The Portuguese have outlined proposals for strengthening their export administration, which, it is hoped, will lead to better observance of the agreement. We shall watch this matter closely. Further consultation on this point will be needed later in the year.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the answer by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does my hon. Friend accept that, on the other side of the coin, great problems are being faced by British cotton spinners because of the imposition of value added tax on imports of raw cotton, which will impose additional costs on the spinners at a time when the industry, which is vital to our textile industry, is beginning a recovery?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. He knows that VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The changes announced by my right hon. Friend received full support from British industry.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the textile industry in Leicester and similar places, which is so vital,
    294
    is just starting to pick up again after a disastrous slump, and that import penetration remains a major worry for all parts of that industry? What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to ensure that the arrangements are applied fairly to and by all countries?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Imports have increased alarmingly recently, but at the same time the domestic outlook for the industry is quite good. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, last year output increased by about 3 per cent. In some sectors, such as wool textiles, there has been a marked increase in exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows also that the degree of protection given to the industry is unsurpassed by any other industry. We shall ensure that the multi-fibre arrangement is rigorously observed.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a change in VAT legislation should help British manufacturers to compete more effectively against importers of finished goods?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there seem to be divided views on this matter. I believe that my hon. Friend's view accords more fully with that of the majority of British industry.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that a number of non-EEC importers are using false certificates of origin to evade the quotas? What steps has the hon. Gentleman asked Customs and Excise to take to verify that certificates of origin genuinely relate to EEC imports?
    Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me examples, I shall see that the matter is vigorously pursued. A number of instances have been investigated and, where a case has been proved, action has been taken.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the textile industry is already our most protected industry? Does he agree that the overriding interest of the United Kingdom as a trading nation is to stand against protectionism, and will he ensure that that is done?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sit down.
    Mr. Carlisle: In addition, does my hon. Friend agree that with a Third world we have a duty to provide markets for some of the poorest countries?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Lamont: If I may be allowed to intrude into the argument between the Back Benches, I confirm that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, it is true that the textile industry is our most protected industry. There is also the serious point that our clothing industry, which, with the textile industry, is one of our largest employers and exporters, must have access to the best fabrics and to a choice of materials.
    Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that 42 per cent. import penetration represents a marked increase since the Conservatives came to power, and that the trade deficit in textiles in the first quarter of this year represents an annual rate of £1,200 million compared with only £250 million in 1979? Does he agree that that shows a calamitous fall in output, competitiveness, efficiency and in the jobs available to British people in the textile industry? Does he further agree that the scheme for £20 million capital aid, described as "modest" by the British Textile

    295
    Confederation, is derisory and that it is time that the Government produced a policy so that we may look forward to a thriving British textile industry in the future?
    Mr. Lamont: I have already said that the rise in imports is a matter for concern. It is significant, however, that in the main the increase has come not from the low-cost countries but from the high-cost countries, with which we should be able to compete in design and quality if our industry is efficient. It is because our industry has so often been lacking in those areas that the increased deficit has developed.
    I agree that the scheme for assistance to the clothing and textile industry and for investment in small firms in that industry is indeed modest, but we should recognise the many advantages of trading in this country for such firms. Compared with France, Belgium and Italy, we have much lower interest rates and inflation. That is an enormous competitive advantage for our industry.

    Computer Devices (COCOM Approval)
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether agreement has yet been reached with the United States of America and other COCOM countries about the details of computer devices requiring COCOM approval before export.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): Not yet—but talks are going on at the present time.
    Mr. Ashdown: As the outcome of the talks will have a profound effect on British high technology industry, and as the Pentagon publishes regular briefing papers on the progress of the talks so that the United States industry can comment, will the Minister consider providing a similar service for British industry and others so that they can comment on what is happening in COCOM?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I should be reluctant to say exactly what we hope to achieve in the negotiations, as that would reveal too much of our negotiating hand.
    Mr. Adley: In the course of research for this question, did my right hon. Friend refer back to my Adjournment debate in 1974 on COCOM and the American Government's attitude to it? Does he accept that in many cases the Americans take a very restrictive and self-centred view of the COCOM list and organise things to suit their own industry? Will he ensure that we are more discriminating and intelligent in the way in which we interpret the list?
    Mr. Channon: I certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. I must confess that his Adjournment debate in 1974 has eluded me so far, but I shall make sure that I read it this afternoon. I am sure that, as usual, my hon. Friend was ahead of the times.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a short, highly selective list of high technology items which all countries in the Western Alliance and Japan agree should be kept from the Warsaw pact for as long as is practicable, but that secrecy and possessiveness among countries belonging to the same alliance is deplorable, and that policies that represent a respectable cloak for trade protectionism are equally deplorable?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I must make the point that COCOM works on the basis of unanimity. We must get unanimous agreement before any changes can be made. We are trying to negotate along the lines that my hon. Friend is seeking.
    Mr. Shore: COCOM certainly makes sense, but surely the Minister must accept that it would be far better for Britain to choose and make clear its own decision on which items to ban, rather than have that decision made for it simply because American and other multinational companies are operating through British subsidiaries. Should not the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the future of INMOS, an independent British firm, with independent British transputer capacity? It would be disastrous if that were allowed to fall into foreign hands.
    Mr. Channon: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, INMOS was debated in the House last week. Most impartial observers thought that the right hon. Gentleman had rather the worst of the debate.

    Alvey Programme (Information Technology)
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many collaborative projects have received approval under the Alvey programme for advanced information technology.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Forty-seven projects had received technical approval under the Alvey programme by the beginning of June, representing £60 million out of the £200 million of public commitment to the programme. Of these, 30 were full collaborative projects and the remainder were academic projects with industry monitoring the work. Contract negotiations are in progress on these projects, with the work proceeding on many of them.
    Mr. Hamilton: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Is he satisfied with the level of cooperation between industry, the universities and his Department? What does he propose to do to encourage the expansion of this excellent programme?
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. This is by far the most important research and development programme undertaken in Britain since the war—probably since the development of the jet engine. It is unique because of the co-operation between competitive companies and between companies and universities. I am satisfied that that co-operation is working well. As they are unique, the projects have taken some time to get off the ground. I must emphasise the unique importance of the research and development programme.
    Dr. Bray: What proportion of the money committed to the project will go to small firms and to highly innovative projects which were proposed by universities in the first place? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money will go to support genuinely new projects which would not otherwise have been undertaken, rather than to subsidise large firms to do what they would have done anyway?
    Mr. Baker: I am satisfied that some of the projects that I announced about a week ago would not have been undertaken without the programme. The work on the word processor that can receive voice input and other work of

    297
    that sort, as well as the mobile system of telecommunications, would not have been undertaken without the research programme.
    I do not have in my head the exact figures for small companies, but I shall try to extract them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is tremendous co-operation from our universities, with teams tending to be of two or three people. The Edinburgh artificial intelligence unit, which is a world leader in this area, is heavily involved, as are Imperial College and Surrey and Loughborough universities.

    Computer-aided Design and Test Equipment Support Scheme
    Mr. Sumbergasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will ensure the continuation of the computer-aided design and test equipment support scheme after August.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): No, Sir. The computer aided design and test equipment support scheme was closed in March of this year. There are no plans for its continuation.
    Mr. Sumberg: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is not the scheme's success reason enough to continue it? Is he aware that it is essential for the Government to support, especially in the north-west of England, schemes which will help companies to move into the new technology and away from the old?
    Mr. Butcher: I appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's question, especially in the context of the northwest. However, at some stage we must decide, especially on cash-limited programmes, where pump-priming is legitimate and whether it should end if recovery begins to gather momentum, or whether the schemes should become permanent subsidies to underpin decisions which companies may already be tempted to make as part of their business plans. The shift of spending within the DTI is towards support for innovation programmes generally.

    British Telecom
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the prospectus for the sale of shares in British Telecom plc.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): A week or two before the closing date for acceptances of the offer for sale.
    Mr. Fisher: In view of the fiasco of Enterprise Oil last week, does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's best policy now would be not to publish the prospectus for BT until they have initiated a full public inquiry into all their flotations of public shares? Would not such an inquiry reveal the pathetic, bumbling incompetence of the Secretary of State? Would it not show that the Government's policies have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds—and, in the case of British Telecom, given its size, would cost the British public hundreds of millions of pounds? Is it not the Secretary of State's duty to conduct such an inquiry?
    Mr. Tebbit: As far as I can disinter the half dozen or so muddled questions put by the hon. Gentleman, my answers must be no, no, no and no.
    Mr. Budgen: Are the purchases of BT shares likely to be at a higher, or lower, price as a result of the Government blocking the first application by Rio Tinto-Zinc for the shares of Enterprise Oil?
    Mr. Tebbit: The price offered for BT by investors will be set by their view of the company's prospects. Inevitably, there will be those who will look carefully, and rightly so, at any restrictions which the Government may place upon the maximum number of shares to be held by any one investor. Such limits may discourage some investors and encourage others. Therefore, my hon. Friend's question is difficult to answer.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State accept that because of the happenings over the sale of Enterprise Oil, the only way in which BT can be floated on the market in the present environment is if a substantial discount is offered on the price? Would that not constitute even worse asset-stripping than we have already seen? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman defer the sale of BT beyond the end of the year?
    Mr. Tebbit: There has been no asset-stripping, so the hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise.
    My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy dealt more than adequately on Tuesday with the launch of Enterprise Oil. I have nothing to add to what they said.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospectus for the shares of BT will show clearly that it is worth buying into that company, especially as it will maintain the facilities and service of which we are so proud?
    Mr. Tebbit: The important point about all the privatisations is that underlined on television on Sunday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), that every one of the companies that has been denationalised has performed better under its new private sector ownership than it did in the public sector.
    Mr. Shore: In the light of experience of the various efforts to sell publicly-owned assets—on the one hand Amersham International being 29 times over-subscribed on a fixed price sale, with quick killings for the profit seekers, and on the other Enterprise Oil being a fiasco with 70-odd per cent. of its shares left with the underwriters —does the Secretary of State not believe that he should carefully reconsider the Government's strategy?
    It is not good enough to say now, in the light of that experience, that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to sell BT on anything like the same terms that were available before the Enterprise Oil fiasco occurred. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot postpone or stop the whole operation, would not the best way to proceed be initially to float a very much smaller proportion of the shares?
    Mr. Tebbit: That is an unusually puerile suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. The objective of privatisation is that companies should be taken out of state control and put back into true public ownership.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fiasco of Enterprise Oil—a circumstance in which my right hon. Friend obtained a price for the company which was more than the market believed it was worth. If that is a fiasco, it is the sort of fiasco in which many sellers would like to be involved.

    Regional Industrial Development
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will place in the Library a list of all submissions received in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development.
    Mr. Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the responses he has received to the White Paper on regional industrial development.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister confirm that he has received from areas such as the south-west many representations of a high calibre which make sense economically and socially? If that is typical of the country, does it not suggest that an effective programme of regional policy should be maintained by the Government?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper states that the Government intend to maintain an effective regional policy. I confirm that I have received many representations from the south-west and that they are of very good quality.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the representations show less anxiety about the reorganisation of regional policy than about the drastic cuts in it at a time when we need investment and have record unemployment? Will he acknowledge that there is real anxiety that many of our traditionally based industries will be cut off from Government help when they need it most, the consequences of which will be increased unemployment, especially in rural and remote areas? Will he recognise that his revision of regional policy is a disaster for future investment and employment?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know how he can say that the policy is a disaster before we have reached any decisions. With regard to representations, we have received some that urge us to scrap regional policy altogether.
    Mr. Ward: May I remind my hon. Friend that many people believe that regional aid should be scrapped? It distorts management decisions and, in the past, has been used to subsidise, at the expense of taxpayers in constituencies such as mine, developments which would have been undertaken.
    Mr. Lamont: I see that there is as much unanimity on the Back Benches on this question as there is on protecting the textile industry. My hon. Friend knows that at the general election we said that we would maintain an effective regional policy. We believe that much-money has been wasted on regional policy and that we can get better value for money. There is no point in spending huge sums of money shuffling jobs from one area to another.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister describe the precise link between the current review of travel-to-work areas and the definition of assisted areas, which is expected in the autumn? Will he assure the House that any changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas in places such as Bradford, which will reduce the rate of unemployment, will not be used to strip away assisted area status from such places?
    Mr. Lamont: The link is that the travel-to-work areas are the building blocks of the assisted area map. Until we
    300
    have the redefined travel-to-work areas, which we shall have at the end of this month, we cannot redraw the map. I cannot give guarantees about a particular area, because the travel-to-work area is the basis on which all decisions must be made.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), most countries in the Economic Community have substantially more extensive regional policies than we have? Does he realise that many companies are in a state of uncertainty? They are waiting for an announcement and are holding back investment decisions until they know what will happen. Will he tell the House when the announcement will be made?
    Mr. Lamont: I, of course, accept that this matter is bound to cause a degree of uncertainty. We are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It depends upon the revision of the travel-to-work areas. We then have to do the work on the map. We hope to make a decision as quickly as we can in the autumn.
    Mr. Neale: I urge my hon. Friend to refresh his mind on the debate that took place in the House on this subject in relation to the West Country recently. Will he take note of the comment made over and over again by Conservative Members about the need for his consideration to take into account communications, and road communications in particular? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that subject?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Many people feel that investment in infrastructure is one of the most effective ways of helping the regions. It is often much more effective than grants.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the MSC is handling its review of travel-to-work areas? St. Helens council was given only eight days in which to respond to the proposition that the borough of St. Helens should be split into three different travel-to-work areas. That is unacceptable nonsense. Will he give a guarantee that he will reject the proposal when it comes before him?
    Mr. Lamont: Travel-to-work areas are a matter for the Department of Employment, not the MSC. I shall, of course, look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Would it not be better to make the whole country a development area and concentrate our assistance on an industry-by-industry, case-by-case basis, so that we obtain value for money?
    Mr. Lamont: We should not be able to do that and qualify for any money from the European regional development fund. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends take in that point. Nor should we be able to maintain a system of incentives alone for inward investment. That has to be related to regional policy, and that is clearly laid down under the competition rules within the Community.
    Mr. Wilson: Has the Minister noticed, from Scottish representations, the fear and alarm at the idea that this review is no more than an attack on the share of resources for industrial development that Scotland receives? Will

    301
    he, therefore, give an assurance to the House of Commons now that under no circumstances will Scotland's share be reduced, when we have 330,000 people out of work?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not know whether deliberately or accidentally, but the hon. Gentleman interprets everything that is said in the House as an attack on Scotland and its share of resources. Surely the hon. Gentleman should recognise that when such huge sums of money have been spent on regional policy, with no obvious benefit, it is right that there should be a review of how cost-effective that aid has been. We cannot give guarantees to any areas because we must take into account the high rates of unemployment in many areas which at present are not assisted.
    Mr. Harris: When considering those high-calibre representations from the south-west, particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives, will my hon. Friend ensure that any local authority which stands to lose its assisted area status or be downgraded is given adequate opportunity to make representations before the order is laid before the House, as the House will not be able to amend the order?
    Mr. Lamont: It is for hon. Members to represent. The whole purpose of the consultation period through which we are now going is for individual areas and their Members of Parliament to make representations. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not exactly backward at doing that, because we have received over 460 different submissions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the prospect of the implementation of the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper is causing deep anguish and anxiety in Cumbria? Is the Minister further aware that he has no moral authority to come forward with proposals which will effectively terminate regional aid to parts of the northern region and maintain high levels of unemployment which are unacceptable in a modern society? When he reviews all the communications that he has received from his hon. Friends asking for cuts in regional aid, will he remember that what he proposes will keep people on the dole in my constituency, and that is unacceptable?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is just jumping to conclusions. I have made no proposals relating to any area at the moment. We have made it clear that those areas which have a strong case based on the highest levels of unemployment will continue to be assisted. That is the moral authority that we have.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to correct himself? Two decisions have already been taken amounting to cuts of £200 million by the removal of replacement and non-job-creating modernisation schemes from the Government's regional policy. Those decisions were taken in advance of consultation. Will he confirm that none of the documents that have argued for a regional policy have agreed with that decision taken in advance of consultations? Will he therefore review that decision after consultation?
    Mr. Lamont: No, Some people have supported the decision with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I stand by what I said earlier—no decisions about the map have been made.
    Mr. Williams: Do not the questions that have so far been asked show that on the question of consultation the
    302
    Government are getting themselves into a terrible tangle with the House? It is only a matter of weeks before the recess and we still do not know the Government's intentions. Does not the fact that the boundaries order, which is due to be introduced in the autumn, will have immediate effect mean that any debate in the House will occur after the event? Shall we not be dealing with a fait accompli? If the only debate on the details is the debate on the order, hon. Members will have a mere one and a half hours, minus two speeches from the Minister, in which to make their representations. Because of the Government's persistent secrecy in regard to their intentions on the boundaries, any debate before the order will occur in a vacuum, because no hon. Member will know the Government's intentions for his constituency.
    Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that a matter of this importance will be disposed of in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation, but today's questions have revealed that a protracted consultation period results in many hon. Members being determined to make representations for their areas.

    Telecommunications Equipment
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to ensure that British telecommunications equipment manufacturers are not discriminated against in countries whose own manufacturers are at present enjoying increased access to the British market.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government have strongly backed the European Commission's initiative to establish a Community telecommunications policy, and in particular to develop harmonised standards for terminal equipment. British manufacturers are already showing a more competitive stance in a number of world markets as a result of our liberalisation policies.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has not the liberalisation of British Telecom been of the greatest benefit to consumers and to businesses, on which employment depends? However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that many British manufacturers are deeply worrid by the unreciprocated access that overseaas manufacturers have to the United Kingdom market. For example, BT currently distributes a Japanese key system, but British manufacturers have no reciprocal access to the Japanese market.
    Mr. Baker: Of the 365 products that have been liberalised, the United Kingdom content is rather more than 70 per cent. We have tried to ensure that, when foreign equipment is approved, there are commitments to manufacture and develop that equipment in the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said in my original answer. In Europe we must establish a common market in such equipment, otherwise our manufacturers will be at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Japan?
    Mr. Baker: I was about to mention Japan. Very little Japanese telecommunications equipment is sold in the United Kingdom at the moment. For equipment which we have approved we have received undertakings that, if the market takes off, it will be manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that there is much talk about a link between BT and IBM? Is he aware that such a link would massively increase IBM's growing monopoly in the market place? Will the House have an opportunity to scrutinise any such link? What is the Government's attitude to it?
    Mr. Baker: If there were such a link between BT and IBM in a network operation, it would require a separate licence and a consultative period during which views of the House and other interested parties would be taken. We are anxious about that type of development. That is why I took an initiative in Europe to establish what is called an open systems interconnect — a common standard into which a variety of manufacturers can link so that there is compatibility. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point as regards the viability of European industry in the next 10 years.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an estimate of the effect on trade and current national industrial performance of the present coal industry dispute.
    Mr. Tebbit: The whole House will be pleased to know that the dispute has had no effect on the output and performance of the vast majority of United Kingdom industries. Imports of oil, coal and coke have increased and there has been some reduction in steel exports.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that last month, and in May, the balance of payments worsened by about £200 million as a result of additional oil imports? Is it not also a fact that industrial production is being hit by increased energy costs? Will the Secretary of State use all of his tact and diplomacy — [HON. MEMBERS: "And charm."] — to persuade the Secretary of State for Energy that it is in the national interest for him to intervene to bring the dispute in the coal mining industry to a speedy conclusion?
    Mr. Tebbit: Although it is difficult to say how much influence the miners strike has had upon the import of oil and how much of the change in the balance of payments has been due to stockpiling, possibly because of concern about events in the Gulf, there is little doubt that Mr. Scargill—and it is presumably what he wanted to do—has had great success in converting much of Britain's industry and power generation from coal to oil. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all his powers of tact and persuasion to get Mr. Scargill to come to the negotiating table without any preconditions——
    Mr. Ron Davies: He has offered to.
    Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Scargill has not yet offered to do so without preconditions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all the tact and diplomacy at his command to support Mr. Bill Sirs and the steel workers, as well as the transport workers and the 60,000 Coal Board employees still at work, instead of just backing the minority clique of Scargill.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most devastating effect on British trade and industry would be caused by the surrender to, or appeasement of, a violent minority of the mineworkers' union? Will he give an assurance that the Department and the Government as a whole will not encourage any surrender or intervention along those lines?
    Mr. Tebbit: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Such a surrender would also put the miners who are at work—all told, about 60,000 Coal Board employees are working in the collieries—as well as the steel workers, at the mercy of a bunch of most ruthless and violent bullies.
    Mr. Barron: If 60,000 miners are working and 120,000 miners are on strike and the latter, and particularly their families, are being penalised by the Government, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that those 60,000 at work are the majority?
    Mr. Tebbit: I referred not merely to the mineworkers but to the 70,000 steel workers in the British Steel Corporation and the transport workers who are loyally carrying coal to help that industry to survive. Anyway, we do not know what the majority of coal miners think, because Mr. Scargill is scared to hold a ballot.
    Mr. Silvester: Might it be valuable to make an assessment of the amount of coal substitution that has occurred as a result of this strike and the number of orders lost overseas, and to publish the results?
    Mr. Tebbit: It would be prudent to wait until the end of the strike for a final assessment. However, we know that coal for the impressive contract for the supply of coke from Durham, negotiated by Mr. MacGregor, is currently being supplied from Europe. We also know that the ICI conversion scheme is being held in abeyance, that the flood of applications from industry for assistance with converting from oil to coal has virtually come to an end, and that many people are very gloomy about whether it would be right to rely in future on the Coal Board for the supply of coal. I believe that they are wrong and that at the end of the dispute it will be quite clear that the majority of moderate mineworkers who want to work will have won, and that in future miners will behave in the same way as the steel workers are behaving today, and will be determined to ensure that their industry survives by supplying good products reliably to their customers.
    Mr. Benn: Does the Secretary of State think it helpful to describe what, even on his own figures, would be 120,000 miners, as "ruthless and violent bullies", when —[Interruption.] That is the phrase that the right hon. Gentleman used. Does he realise that the future of this country's trade and industry depends on the skill of miners, the overwhelming majority of whom will not accept the Government's policy? [Interruption.] How does he suppose that the co-operation of such people can be secured by such most violent, bitter and unprincipled abuse from the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Tebbit: I have not referred to the 120,000 miners who are on strike in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Benn: Yes the right hon. Gentleman did.
    Mr. Tebbit: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman tries listening instead of making up fairy tales, for a change. Not even in the worst of the scenes of violent picketing have we seen 120,000 miners. We have seen a tiny minority of violent bullies who are bullying the majority of miners and who want to bully 70,000 steel workers into losing their jobs as well. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give some comradely support to Bill Sirs instead of forever licking the boots of Mr. Scargill?
    Mr. Eggar: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that it was not so long ago that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was complaining about high electricity costs for industry? As 80 per cent. of electricity is usually generated from coal, is he not, by opposing the closure of uneconomic pits, arguing for higher electricity prices?
    Mr. Tebbit: Yes, of course he is doing so, but that is because he is the captive of one small union within the whole trade union movement. He refuses to speak up for the steel workers the transport workers and the car workers and all the others whose jobs are now being put at risk.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Having conceded that the miners' strike is having an effect on the balance of payments, does the Secretary of State not think that the recent statement by the chairman of the NCB advising his senior management to continue the strike until the end of the year is completely irresponsible and the action of a mindless bully?
    Mr. Tebbit: No. Mr. MacGregor did not advise his managers to continue the strike. He has advised his managers to seek to persuade the miners who are still on strike to join those who are back at work and he will continue so to do. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman, who has some influence in these matters, were to seek to arrive at a conclusion on whether the miners who are on strike want to be on strike, by pressing Mr. Scargill to risk his authority again on another ballot.
    Mr. Cormack: How many colleagues of the right hon. and wrongly demagogic Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have spoken up in support of the miners who are at work and that significant number among the 120,000 who are intimidated from going to work?
    Mr. Tebbit: I think that my hon. Friend knows the answer to that question— scarcely one of them. They will not speak up for the steel workers, either. Why are they so silent on the steel workers? They always pretended to be their friends. They supported the steel workers' strike which prejudiced steel workers' jobs. Why do they not support the steel workers who are staying at work to save their jobs?
    Mr. Hardy: With all his many faults, the Secretary of State tends to be rather more open in his approach to politics than many of his Cabinet colleagues. In view of his reference to Bill Sirs of the steel workers' union, may I invite him to meet Bill Sirs and his colleagues to consider the doubtful approach that has been adopted by the BSC to the supply of coke and coal to Scunthorpe, because many of us believe that there has been a determined and calculated effort to ensure that there has been as much upheaval in that supply as possible?
    Mr. Tebbit: What the hon. Gentleman says is quite disgraceful. He knows full well that from top to bottom of the BSC — workers and management — everybody is united in the desire to keep the corporation going. They are united in their determination to use the coal, coke and iron ore which is getting into that steel works despite everything that the Scargill clique is doing to try to prevent it and to break British Steel.
    Mr. Shore: May I take the Secretary of State from his natural habitat of insolence and abuse back to the facts? We noted that he said that the strike so far had had no
    306
    effect upon Britain's visible non-oil trade. That being so, will he now address his mind to the reasons why the manufactured trade balance is running at the rate of minus £2,400 million this year so far? What on earth does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Tebbit: There is a question on that subject later on the Order Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could contain their rambling supplementary questions, we might even manage to reach it.

    School Technology
    Sir John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to secure the co-operation of the Department of Education and Science in promoting British school technology.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission have co-operated with my Department in setting up the programme known as British school technology, and all will be represented on its council of management, which Sir Henry Chilver will chair.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that in 1980 the DES launched a microelectronics programme for schools, at a cost of £20 million, which was supposed to run for sax years until 1986? As my right hon. Friend's Department has so far apparently been unaware of that DES programme, can he assure us that full co-operation is encouraged?
    Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that we are only too well aware of that programme. Our micros in schools programme is part of it. The object is to try to instil some practical skills in youngsters at school, because we think that that will help them to get jobs in technology industries. We are having some success with computer studies. About 10,000 O-levels were taken in that subject in 1979 and the number had risen to about 44,000 in 1983. That shows an encouraging shift towards more practical training in schools.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman pitting the development of technology in schools, with which I agree, against the development of medical research? By reducing the money spent on various types of research, the Government aim to save money to use in the development of technology.
    Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that money spent on research by my Department will be greater this year than it was last year and greater next year than it is this year. We attach considerable importance to it. The aim of these programmes is to instil a more technical, practical vein of educatiion in schools. That is important for our future prosperity when those youngsters get jobs.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Minister is encouraged by the co-operation between his Department and the DES., how does he explain the recent Institute of Manpower Studies report, which showed that the number of graduates in computer studies will decline over the next few years from 1,589 to 1,432 and that the number of graduates in microelectronic engineering will decline from 2,129 to 1,887—a reduction of almost 10 per cent. in an area that is crucial to our future development?
    Mr. Baker: I am speaking from memory, but I believe that in the next two years the total number of graduates across the whole range of computer science—including electronic engineering and computers—from universities and polytechnics will be greater than ever before.

    Merseyside (Industrial Contribution)
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide figures indicating the contribution made by industry on Merseyside to the current level of British exports and gross domestic product, respectively, in actual and percentage terms.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The total gross domestic product of Merseyside in 1981 is provisionally estimated by the Central Statistical Office at £4,902 million, or 2·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, excluding the continental shelf region. Figures for exports by Merseyside industry are not available.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that those figures represent a tragedy for Merseyside in general and for the borough of Knowsley in particular, which has one third of the manufacturing base of Merseyside, yet 27 per cent. unemployment? Will the Minister accept that the Regional Studies Association report was correct when it said that the scale of the necessary reconstruction on Merseyside is so great that it is beyond the scope of traditional regional policies and that central Government direction is required?
    Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not agree with the latter point. I also do not agree that, considerable though the problems of Merseyside are, the figures illustrate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Huge amounts of Government aid have been poured into Merseyside and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has not proved effective. That is one reason why it is right to look again at regional policy and to try to find a more effective way of deploying that money.

    Export Competitiveness
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British membership of the European Economic Community has affected the competitiveness of British exports to markets outside the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Channon: Access to a wider Community market has allowed British manufacturers to achieve greater economies of scale. This will have improved the ability of British exporters to compete in all markets.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that, were it not for the stiffer competition that British industry faces in the EEC, it would find it harder to compete in markets outside the EEC?
    Mr. Channon: There can be no doubt that being a member of the Community has been a reason why, for example, there has been anxiety to achieve so much foreign investment in this country. That is because of the access that we have to a domestic market as large as 270 million people.
    Mr. Gould: Something must have caused a decline in competitiveness, because the most commonly used index
    308
    shows a loss of over 27 per cent. since the first quarter of 1979. Is it not a remarkable piece of mismanagement which has allowed what were supposed to have been two great advantages to British industry, membership of the EEC and North sea oil, to cancel each other out so that every penny of the £10 billion benefit to our balance of payments from North sea oil will be needed this year to pay for the deficit in our trade in manufactured goods with the EEC, a deficit which is rising inexorably by £2 billion a year?
    Mr. Channon: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures—I am sure that he knows them — show that we have had a surplus on our trading figures for the last four years. It would be impossible for our trading figures to show a surplus in every product or with every part of the world. That would be out of the question. It is undoubtedly true that British industry is now much more competitive than it was a few yers ago. We are better at performance, quality, design, reliability and at selling our goods abroad.

    Works of Art (Security)
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will instruct the reviewing committee on the export of works of art to take into consideration the physical security of the proposed location of works of art leaving the United Kingdom in tendering him their advice.
    Mr. Channon: The reviewing committee on the export of works of art advises my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts and this problem is for him. I am advised, however, that the committee would give careful consideration to any exceptional circumstances affecting particular works of art.
    Sir David Price: As the Getty museum at Malibu is situated in one of the highest earthquake risk zones in the world, will my right hon. Friend, in the interests of international art conservation, refuse export licences to the trustees of the Getty museum until they move the museum from Malibu to somewhere that is reasonably safe?
    Mr. Channon: I was concerned not long ago with my hon. Friend in a debate on these issues, and I know his views about the Getty museum. He adduces on ingenious argument for refusing an export licence—because it is in an earthquake zone. That is a new point, which I shall see is conveyed to the Minister for the Arts, who will, no doubt, decide the matter on the advice, if any, that he receives from the reviewing committee on the export of works of art.
    Mr. Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be an earthquake in Britain unless the Government, to prevent the dispersal of national treasures abroad, either introduce tax incentives a la Americaine or export controls, as the Italians and French do, to debar the export of works of art and treasures that should be kept in the national custody?
    Mr. Channon: I also recall debating that issue with the hon. Gentleman not long ago. Although I do not agree with the second part of his supplementary question, it is clear that, if he is threatening an earthquake in Britain, we shall all have to watch out.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present assistance given to small businesses.
    Mr. Tebbit: Considerable progress has been made and we shall continue to build on it, but we have not finished with the task we have set ourselves. One of our main priorities is to encourage the development of a strong and successful small firms sector.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Secretary of State concerned about the record high levels of bankruptcies during the period of Conservative rule? How many small businesses which started up under the enterprise allowance scheme have ultimately failed?
    Mr. Tebbit: I do not yet have the figures to show the success or failure rate of the enterprise allowance scheme. It is encouraging to note — I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—that, taking the figures from the VAT returns, last year there was a surplus of about 47,000 start-ups over deaths of businesses. In the four years from 1980 to 1983 there was a net surplus of 118,000.
    Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the managerial advice that is now being given to small businesses through local enterprise agencies is helping to reduce the number of bankruptcies? Would he care to tell the House how many local enterprise agencies are in existence?
    Mr. Tebbit: I should like to give that information to the House, but I happen not to have the figure in my mind. I am given to understand that it is about 200. We had an extremely successful local enterprise week recently, in which more than 400 organisations took part. That is not surprising, because over the past few years the Government have helped small businesses in a number of ways. For example, they have helped them through rate capping, the abolition of metropolitan counties and the GLC, a stimulated flow of equity, the business expansion
    310
    scheme, the stimulation of loan capital by means of the loan guarantee scheme, the promotion of local enterprise through the agencies, a change in the tax climate to provide more incentives for enterprise, and by reducing inflation to less than 5 per cent. I am looking forward with a great deal of interest to seeing how much further we can go in many directions to assist small businesses.
    Mr. Williams: It might be of greater benefit to the House if, in future, the right hon. Gentleman allows those of his colleagues who know something about small businesses to answer questions on them. Is it not manifest nonsense that the Government, who can apparently turn a blind eye to the loss of £1,000 million as a result of the coal dispute, feel it necessary to cut the mere £25 million of support that is being given under the small loans guarantee scheme for small businesses, aid to the one sector of the economy that is actually creating new jobs? Should it not be a matter of shame for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, under the new scheme that has been introduced, they expect to attract only just over half the number of applications that were attracted by the old scheme? This will mean that about 2,000 businesses a year will be denied access to the loan guarantee scheme.
    Mr. Tebbit: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman of my part in looking after small businesses and of my activities in doing so. I visited the National Federation of Self-Employed headquarters at its invitation yesterday. I shall meet the Association of Independent Businesses tomorrow. I shall be speaking to the London region of the NFSE at dinner on Monday. I recently took part in a successful function, together with the BBC, in its Radio Four and Radio Times enterprise award. All these organisations and activities are vital to small businesses.
    I do not accept that the coal dispute has cost £1,000 million. That is a silly and unreal figure. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman think that by causing losses to the British Steel Corporation he will make it any easier to give help to small businesses? Why does he not do his bit to try to get the dispute resolved?

Scottish Development Agency
3.33 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether an investigation or review of the overseas operations of the Scottish Development Agency is presently in progress and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)rose——
Hon. Members: Where is the Secretary of State?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly for hon. Members to start yelling at a Minister who has not even opened his mouth.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for which Minister answers a private notice question.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It cannot be a point of order for me.
Mr. Home Robertson: This is an insult.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order.
Mr. Home Robertson rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) addressed his private notice question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Whatever else the Under-Secretary of State may be, he is not the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Junior Ministers very often answer questions on behalf of their Secretary of State.
Mr. Buchan rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall begin to regret that I granted this private notice question.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I can guess what the hon. Gentleman is about to say.
Mr. Buchan rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's unspoken question is that I am not responsible for the fact that the Secretary of State is not here to answer the question. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is here.
Mr. Buchan: That is not my point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the Scottish Office does not consist only of the Secretary of State for Scotland; it consists also, quite properly, of junior Ministers, one of whom is responsible for industry. Why is the Secretary of State not present? I believe that he is attending on the Queen today rather than on the House of Commons. As that is so, why is not his deputy with responsibility for industry here? They cannot both be paying service to Her Majesty the Queen. The Minister responsible for industry in Scotland should have been here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is still not a point of order for me.
Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, my right hon. Friend is detained by official engagements in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why my right hon. Friend is not here.
When in 1982 additional overseas inward investment offices in the United States of America were established for Locate in Scotland and other United Kingdom bodies, it was agreed that these arrangements should be subject to review in mid-1984. That commitment is being fulfilled and Ministers are currently awaiting a report from a group of officials in which the Scottish Office is represented. A statement would not be appropriate until this report has been received and considered by Ministers, and decisions taken, but my right hon. Friend has made clear his views on the success of Locate in Scotland, most recently in his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 June.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that this is the review that was referred to in the original response to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs two years ago. What are the terms of reference for this inquiry? Do they include the existence and future operations of the overseas offices of Locate in Scotland? At what level is the Scottish Office represented on this inquiry? Will the Minister make it clear beyond argument that the Secretary of State will fight tooth and nail to stave off any threat to an operation that has been one of the few successes that the Government have been able to point to in their dismal record in the Scottish economy?
I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to this next point. Would it not be deplorable if there were any attempt, in Government or Whitehall, to undermine Locate in Scotland's efforts to attract jobs and investment? Would not any such effort be misguided and misconceived? Why would it be inappropriate to comment at this stage when I understand that already this morning the Secretary of State has said in Scotland that he cannot imagine that its offices will be axed? Is that the Secretary of State's position, and, if so, will he accept that it is not enough to say that in passing? We want categorical assurances that this inquiry is not a prelude to another doleful chapter in the Government's record of economic failure in Scotland.
Mr. Ancram: I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to Locate in Scotland. That is a substantial change from the grudging acceptance of its successes that we have received from Labour Members over the past three years. As I said in my answer, the review is being carried out at official level, and the Scottish Office is represented. Obviously its results will come to Ministers for consideration, and until then, and until Ministers are aware of the nature of the review, it is not possible to comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the review is about. As I said earlier, it is in fulfilment of the original statement that the arrangements for Locate in Scotland offices in the United States of America, and the offices of other United Kingdom bodies, would be reviewed in mid-1984. The review to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that promised review.

313
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his position clear in the statement that he made to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 June, when the hon. Member for Garscadden was present. My right hon. Friend said:
"In its short life Locate in Scotland has already established an excellent track record, and ther is no doubt in my mind that our decision to establish a one-door approach, designed with the paramount requirements of the customer in mind, has been a key factor in making Scotland competitive in the international market place for mobile investment projects."
Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend accept that it would be inconceivable for the four offices in the United States to be closed in view of their outstanding success in bringing high technology industry to Scotland? Will he ensure that the announcement is made as soon as possible to remove any uncertainty that has developed from newspaper reports?
Mr. Ancram: The report from officials is due shortly. Obviously it will have to be considered by Ministers, and the decisions of Ministers will be announced in due course.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the success of the operation. My right hon. Friend told the Scottish Grand Committee:
"Inquiries from overseas investors are up by 40 per cent. Visits to Scotland by overseas customers checking out the location are up by 60 per cent. and the number of new companies deciding to come to Scotland is up by 70 per cent."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 25 June 1984; c. 56.]
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to consider that when Locate in Scotland was first established three or four years ago it was done against the opposition of the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry?
Does the Minister agree that there is considerable jealousy among certain English regions at the success of Locate in Scotland in bringing in about £410 million of major electronics investment work, with more to come? Is it not the case that there is now a sustained attack from those regions, exerting pressure on the Government, and from people such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who are also attacking the system of regional grants which have benefited Scotland in the past?
Will the Minister pledge, on behalf of the Scottish Office, that in no circumstances will Locate in Scotland be dismantled, and that no offices will be shut?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, should not base all his statements on a speculative story in one newspaper. The purpose of the review is to try to increase inward investment for the United Kingdom as a whole, and Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of evidence showing why it was wise for firms to invest in Britain, and specifically to locate in Scotland? Will he acknowledge that at last the different varieties of Opposition have seen the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's establishment of the LIS bureau? But will he point out that not only has the work of the bureau itself been important; there are his other policies, such as the specific targeting of investment incentives to groupings in which Scotland has particular expertise?
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Much can be learnt from the success of Locate in Scotland.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Under-Secretary of State accept that we are in a dilemma?
314
On 25 June we had a clear and positive statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the success of the bureau. Now the Under-Secretary cannot refute, in the name of the Secretary of State, a speculative story that suggests that the offices are in danger. Will he kill the story right now and say that all the powers of the Scottish Office will be brought to bear to ensure that the offices continue?
Mr. Ancram: I repeat that the review of the officials is not yet complete. Obviously I cannot make a statement on the review until it has been completed and Ministers have had a chance to consider it.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland, which is directed by one of my constituents, has been prodigiously successful in co-ordinating the efforts to attract industry to Scotland? Is he aware that there would be justifiable anger in this House and in Scotland if the operations of LIS were to be curtailed?
Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend and all of us at the Scottish Office are fully aware of the importance attached in all parts of the House — and, indeed, by the Scottish people as a whole — to the continuing success of our efforts to attract investment to Scotland. The purpose of the review is to ensure that, in co-ordinating the efforts that are made across the United Kingdom, the best possible result is achieved.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister press upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the forthcoming discussions, that he should tell his ministerial colleagues south of the border that it is inconsistent for the Government continually to preach about the need for Britain to enjoy international competitiveness and even to consider an option which would lead to a diminution of international influence for the Scottish economy in trying to achieve that competitiveness? Does he agree that, were the closures to take place, it would indicate that, having already done so much damage to Scotland at home, the Government now intend to do even more damage abroad?
Mr. Ancram: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman who represents the SDP-Liberal alliance, has come—also rather late in the day — to welcome Locate in Scotland after the grudging acceptances given in the past to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is speculating on the outcome of a review that has not yet been completed, and I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Is my hon. Friend aware that Locate in Scotland has been especially successful in attracting oil-related industries to the Aberdeen area and the Grampian region? Does he agree that the scheme has been a success and that it is part of the Conservative party's duty to sustain rather than stop success? Will he support LIS? Does he agree that it is ironic that Opposition Members, who on successive occasions — certainly for as long as I have been a Member—have poured cold water on the achievement of LIS, should now number themselves amongst its most excited and excitable supporters?
Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend that ironically the conversion of Opposition Members has been aroused by the speculative article in a Scottish newspaper,

315
although they could not be aroused earlier by my right hon. Friend's remarks. I reiterate that my right hon. Friend has made it clear on every possible occasion that he is pleased with the success achieved by Locate in Scotland.
Mr. Bruce Milan: As the Under-Secretary of State has said that it is acknowledged that Locate in Scotland has been a tremendous success, why should its structure be called into question? Why should its handiwork be damaged by speculation about its future? Why cannot the newspaper story be killed off by the hon. Gentleman giving a complete assurance that the activities of Locate in Scotland will not be damaged? We should be emulating in other parts of the United Kingdom the success of Locate in Scotland instead of trying to clip its wings, as some elements in Whitehall and some Tory Members would like to do.
Mr. Ancram: I, too, regret the uncertainty that has been created by the newspaper report. Obviously I cannot place a deadline on decisions that will be taken as a result of the review. The right hon. Gentleman was fully aware, because of the statement made two years ago, that the review would take place.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I and other members of the Select Committee were especially interested in Locate in Scotland offices? We welcome the fact that the review is to take place, because it will show clearly that those offices have been successful. We as Conservatives welcome success. We shall support success, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the confidence that he has expressed in Locate in Scotland. I share that confidence. I am sure that he realises, as I have explained to the House, that such a review is designed to improve inward investment and in no way to destroy it.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: For some years before I became a Member I worked in industrial development. Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that the people involved in the business of attracting investment and jobs to Scotland are appalled at the suggestion that such a responsibility could be carried out by officers of the consular division of the Foreign Office, which even the Glasgow Herald, in its kindest words, said
"are not especially noted for their expertise in handling foreign industrialists."?
I regard the consular division as having the qualities of Midas in reverse — turning everything it touches into dross. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the success of Locate in Scotland has been to the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom economy, because it has attracted jobs that might well have gone to places other than in the United Kingdom? This service must, therefore, continue.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is speculating on the outcome of the review. I have already made it clear that I am not prepared to speculate on that until the review has been completed and considered by Ministers.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Under-Secretary of State admit that the uncertainty would not have arisen if the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland had been accountable to a directly elected Scottish assembly? Instead the Secretary of State is just a dumb puppet in a Cabinet with not nearly enough
316
clout to take on the likes of the Prime Minister and her leather-jacketed henchmen in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Ancram: I should be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's remarks if I had ever heard him champion LIS in the past, but all that we have ever heard from him have been stories of doom and gloom about the Scottish economy.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Under-Secretary of State referred to decisions by Ministers. Will he confirm that any decision about the future of LIS or about any matters concerning the SDA will be taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Ancram: I thought that I had made it clear in my original answer that the review covers all the agencies dealing not just with the SDA but with other parts of the United Kingdom. Like all other matters in Government, it will have to be considered by Ministers.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the justified anger of Opposition Members at the fact that it was left to the Glasgow Herald to reveal this matter? Will he also remind the Secretary of State of his earlier boasts on behalf of LIS, and will he give an assurance, as was reputed to have been given on a previous occasion, that if LIS cannot be retained he will resign?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the matter being disclosed by a newspaper, but I have made it clear that the review at this time was known about. The review has been planned for some years and is now taking place.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that lack of confidence inevitably leads to further lack of confidence? Will he make it clear today that the rumours are without foundation? If he cannot do that, will he accept that this is a resignation issue, not just for the Secretary of State for Scotland but for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and junior Ministers at the Scottish Office?
Mr. Ancram: The situation described by the hon. Gentleman has not arisen, so his question does not arise.
Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that his reason for not giving an answer today is as spurious as his history because we all know that there was much opposition to the review in the committee, led by Iain Sproat and supported by the Minister now responsible for industry in Scotland? Moreover, in saying that we must wait for the review, is not the Minister leaving it to civil servants to make decisions for Scotland? If LIS is as successful as he, the only question that arises is not whether it should be abolished but whether it should be expanded, so will he now deny the rumours forthwith?
Mr. Ancram: I do not know what kind of reviews the hon. Gentleman has presided over, but the claim that background work carried out and reported to those who are to decide itself constitutes a decision is a strange extension of that concept. That may be how the Labour party works, but it is not the way in which anyone else works. The

317
review is taking place and it would be wrong for me or any other Minister to prejudge the outcome before Ministers had considered it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the business of the House. I have no doubt——
Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises while I am on my feet. I shall say to those hon. Members who have not been called that we shall no doubt return to this matter in Scottish questions in a fortnight's time.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the guidance of the House, will you tell us what degree of urgency is required for a private notice question? Does any item of news about Scotland qualify if the Opposition think that the Secretary of State will not be able to be present?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is querying my judgment in these matters. I weighed the decision to grant the private notice question.

Foreign Secretary(Moscow Visit)
3.53 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my visit to Moscow. On 1 and 2 July, I had five hours of talks with Mr. Gromyko and a substantial discussion with Mr. Chernenko.
I looked upon the visit as one step in our long-term policy of promoting a better understanding between East and West, with the aim of increasing security at a lower level of arms.
I wanted first to give the Soviet leadership a clear account of our views and to hear a direct explanation of theirs. I wished, too, to explore possible areas of common interest which might provide opportunities for cooperation and negotiation.
I have to tell the House that I detected no significant change in the Soviet position on the resumption of nuclear arms talks. The Russians displayed continuing scepticism about the West's commitment to an improvement in East-West relations, and to progress in the arms control negotiations in Vienna, Geneva and Stockholm.
On the basis of recent extensive consultations within NATO, at the London Summit and at the European Council, I made it plain to the Soviet leaders that Western Governments were sincere in their desire for a better understanding between East and West and for agreements on arms control.
I told them that people in the West could not understand the Soviet refusal to resume nuclear negotiations. Sooner or later those problems would have to be settled by negotiation. The longer the Soviet Union stayed away from the negotiating table, the more difficult the problems would become and the more the dangers and the costs would rise.
The recent Soviet proposal for talks on arms control in outer space, and the American response, naturally featured in the talks. The Russians described the American response as negative and hedged about with preconditions. After specific confirmation from the White House, I was able to tell the Soviet leaders that that description was mistaken. The US position was that there were no preconditions. I urged them to set the matter beyond any doubt through confidential discussions with the Americans, and to do what was necessary to ensure that the talks opened in September.
I emphasised to Mr. Gromyko the widespread and deep concern in the West that the Soviet Union were failing to honour their human rights commitments under the Helsinki and Madrid agreements. This represented a real obstacle to the creation of lasting trust between East and West.
I raised the cases of Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner, Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky, Father Gleb Yakunin and Mr. Anatoly Koryagin as important examples of the. Soviet Union's failure in that respect. I urged the Soviet Union to deal positively with these and other cases.
I also referred to a number of cases of particular interest to Britain. Those were mostly concerned with family reunification. We looked to the Soviet Union to respond much more positively to requests for exit visas.
I raised a number of other bilateral questions. I stressed in particular the importance we attached to increasing

319
trade. British exporters should be given a good opportunity to bid for contracts. I also raised the question of better telephone and other facilities for our business men and journalists in Moscow. I extended an invitation to Mr. Gromyko to visit Britain in 1985.
Mr. Gromyko and I were able to discuss a number of international questions, which included the Iran-Iraq war, the Middle East, Southern Africa, Poland and Afghanistan. I stressed in particular the need for Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and a peaceful settlement, as called for in five successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.
In my call on Mr. Chernenko I concentrated on East-West relations and arms control. I told him that we found it impossible to understand the almost automatic rejection by the Soviet Union of Western proposals. I urged him to recognise that all Western Governments were earnest in their desire to see a resumption of negotiations on nuclear arms questions, and to see the Soviet Union return to the negotiating table without delay.
The visit provided a useful opportunity to expound and carry forward our long-term policy towards the Soviet Union and on the East-West relations generally.
I did not go to Moscow with any expectation of rapid results. I was not, therefore, surprised by the disappointingly negative nature of the Soviet response. They remain apparently unwilling to make a fresh appraisal of the seriousness of the West's approach.
I hope that my visit will lead to more discussions and exchanges with the Soviet Union. It is important to sustain the search for improved relations between East and West on a realistic and long-term basis, and for real progress to be made on arms control. Neither we nor our Allies intend to take no for an answer.
Mr. George Robertson: Having heard the Foreign Secretary, we must share his disappointment at the negative outcome of his visit to Moscow. Those of us who have visited the Soviet Union recently know how relations are chilling and how dangerous that is for the whole world. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited Moscow as part of a process of bridge building — a process that must increase and accelerate.
However, what could have been a major opportunity to rebuild the dialogue appears to have been squandered, and the visit has become only one more opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be snubbed and dismissed. That should be no surprise to us because, rather than concentrating on establishing and exploring acknowledged areas of common concern to both the Soviety Union and the West—such as the Gulf war, the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations and the chemical warfare negotiations — the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have adopted the role of cheer leader for what even Mr. Walter Mondale described yesterday as posturing and game-playing in the United States election campaign.
We all know of and deplore the unreality of the Soviet position on refusing to return to negotiations on missile reductions. But that position will possibly exist until there is a United States President running the country rather than stomping the country. Why, therefore, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow himself to become bogged
320
down in the details of a wrangle over the anti-satellite talks, especially as the United States position becomes increasingly confused? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's "no preconditions" explanation on Monday was at clear variance with Washington's explanation on the same day.
The Foreign Secretary has told us that he said that after specific confirmation from the White House, the United States position was that there were no preconditions. Today's edition of the International Herald Tribune makes it quite clear that on Monday United States officials clearly said that they would feel free to raise the issue of a resumption of talks on nuclear medium-range and strategic missiles in any September talks in Vienna. Therefore, we must ask whether confirmation was sought in the White House from the same official who assured the Foreign Secretary that there was to be no invasion of Grenada.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he raised the question of the Iran-Iraq war. Did he actually develop that point, as the Soviets have already signalled concern akin to ours about the way in which the conflict could spread? Was that not a real area about which to get dialogue under way?
Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman raise the question of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations? This country is a full member of that forum, unlike other negotiations. Genuine and concerted progress could be made in that area. Is Britain dragging its feet on the banning of all tests for good reasons or because the West wants to go ahead with further nuclear tests and does not want negotiations to interrupt that programme?
We welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of human rights in the Soviet Union, which we regularly raise from both sides in this House. On the cases that he mentioned, does he feel that there is any possibility of a softening of attitude by the Soviet Union?
Finally, on this important issue, which is of vital concern to us all, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about the next step after Moscow? The Secretary of State for Defence has already changed his position from confronting the Soviet Union to analysing it, and the evil empire rhetoric of the Prime Minister has apparently been wiped from the history books. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now do to prevent the present iciness of relationships turning into a nuclear winter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although it was put some time ago, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remark, when he welcomed my visit to Moscow. However, I seriously regret that he could not sustain the seriousness of his opening observation when he recognised, from his experience, the deeply chilling atmosphere with which we all have to contend in trying to rebuild a bridge of confidence between the East and the West.
It was precisely for that reason that I discussed a number of matters of common concern, including the Gulf war. It was possible to establish some community of interest between the Soviet Union and ourselves on that matter. We also discussed human rights, about which I know the whole House is concerned. However, I regret that there was no sign of a positive response—but that is no reason for not raising the matter.
The hon. Gentleman fell into an error of his own making in suggesting that I went there to play my part as

321
a cheer leader for the United States. The message that I was trying to get across in the Soviet Union was precisely the same message that President Mitterrand, Foreign Minister Genscher, Foreign Minister Andreotti and all the Western leaders have tried to get across during recent weeks and months, having considered the issues both separately and jointly in the context of the Western Alliance. Are all those people to be branded as cheer leaders for the United States?
The reality is that the West has been trying, by every means it knows, to get across to the Soviet Union the sincerity of our commitment to the search for peace. Because the exchange with the United States about arms control in space arose shortly before and during my visit to Moscow, that matter attracted a great deal of attention. The bulk of my discussions, however, were devoted to other issues. Surely, in the interests of the West and Britain, it was right for me to press the Soviet leaders on their attitude to their outer space proposals. Their attitude is either confused—in which case they should clarify it, as I suggested—or negative, in which case that should be exposed.
My aim—and I make no apology for it—is to help ensure that the September meeting in Vienna on outer space arms control, proposed by the Soviet Union, takes place. I would very much like the support of Opposition Members for that cause. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Gentleman has on this occasion, rather uncharacteristically, put forward a party political performance that fell short of the importance of the issue. Opposition Members should join us in pressing the Soviet Union on the need to return to talks, rather than seeking almost instinctively to undermine the credibility of proposals put forward by our allies.
Sir Frederic Bennett: I appreciate the sincerity and purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to Moscow, and also appreciate every word that he said and all the points that he raised, but presumably the Soviet Government were aware of the British Government's views on all the issues, with the possible exception of the new American talks on outer space. Why is it that, as far as we know, every word of real importance that he issued while he was in Moscow was censored and never reached the people whom, presumably, he went to Moscow to address? As I said, the Kremlin already knew the British Government's view. Did that censorship extend to the satellite countries so that only the Kremlin knows what it already knew before my right hon. and learned Friend made his visit?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that I could share my hon. Friend's optimism about the extent to which the Kremlin leaders understand the foundations of the western position. The paradox is that there is such a gap between their proclaimed intentions and their understanding of the seriousness of our attempt to come to terms with them. For that reason, it was important that I should expound plainly, clearly and repeatedly to both Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko exactly what we sought and why. I emphasised to them that I was putting a case that had already been put by a whole series of other western leaders. That, in itself, makes the visit worth while.
Of course I join my hon. Friend in regretting that large sections of my speech were censored or not reported in some of the Soviet press—[Interruption.] Opposition
322
Members may interrupt frivolously, but surely they would wish the case that I was making on human rights and Afghanistan to be reported in the Soviet press. Sadly, that did not happen. However, I had the opportunity to make a speech before an audience of several dozen senior Soviet leaders—members of the Soviet Government. I assure the House that the speech will be read by many beyond that. That is an additional justification for my visit.
Of course we wish for freer communications, but the important point is that we should continue to try—as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) recognised, and I give him credit for it—to get the case across consistently on all sides.
Dr. David Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the lessons of the chilling reception about which he spoke is that there should never again be a seven-year gap between visits of British Foreign Secretaries and Soviet Foreign Ministers? Will Mr. Gromyko come to this country next year on a return visit? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that in future, in good times and bad, there will be continuing contact to assure a more orderly relationship between the West and the Soviet bloc?
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what was said about the comprehensive test ban negotiations? These are the only major negotiations to which Britain is a party with the United States, and considerable progress has been made in them. The Foreign Secretary did not mention chemical weapon discussions, which were to be a British initiative. What discussions did he initiate about them?
In view of the substantial revision of the NATO estimates of the Warsaw Pact forces, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he thinks that it is possible to make progress on mutual and balanced force reductions? We welcome the fact that discussions on satellites in outer space are likely to take place, and we hope that they will take place in Vienna in September. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that they are no more than a continuation of what took place between 1977 and 1979, and that in this and many other areas we are now seeking to put the clock back to the level of dialogue which existed in 1979?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the need for sustained contact between the East and the West. He will appreciate that since he held my office there have been serious actions by the Soviet Union which have done little to improve the prospects for good contacts between East and West. I refer to the invasion of Afghanistan and to the problems in Poland. Those and other actions have cast a real and serious blight over East-West relationships.
I have already mentioned all the topics to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I emphasised the need for progress on chemical weapons talks. I referred to the comprehensive test ban proposals and to the importance of their verification.
I emphasised the seriousness with which the West made proposals about the MBFR talks, but received the not uncharacteristic response to the effect that our proposals, although built on eastern proposals, were seen as killing time. That shows how far we must go to carry forward our search for arms control agreements.
Regarding contacts, I remind the House that during the past 12 months the Prime Minister and I have visited

323
Hungary, and the Soviet Union at the time of President Andropov's funeral. I have seen Mr. Gromyko four times since last September.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman got nowhere.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member may jibe as cheaply as he likes that we got nowhere. If he expects four visits to break the ice and the log jam, he is more foolish than I thought him to be. The Government and all other Western Governments must undertake this long-term exercise on behalf of the world. The Government are committed to that search.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition's response today, which falls far below the level of events, is deplorable? Does he further agree that his steady and persistent presentation of the West's case in Moscow can have done nothing but good and must earn him the gratitude of the country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it easy to agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. James Lamond: The Foreign Secretary's statement consisted of a list of matters that he raised with Mr. Gromyko, but he did not tell us of any replies he received, which would have been of interest to us and would have filled out our picture of his visit. Did Mr. Gromyko point out the Foreign Secretary's impudence at asking the Soviet Union to disarm while this country is arming itself to the teeth, ordering new Trident missiles and refusing even to allow those missiles to be counted in the West's armoury?
When the Foreign Secretary raised the issue of people on hunger strike in the Soviet Union, did Mr. Gromyko draw his attention to the fact that the Government allowed 10 people, including a Member of this House, to die on hunger strike in Northern Ireland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not even the Soviet Foreign Minister raised that last point with me.
Regarding arms control, I pointed out to the Soviet leaders that during the past four years the Soviet Union has continued to deploy a growing and massive number of intermediate range missile warheads in the direction of Western Europe. Throughout that period, the West was prepared to continue the search for arms control agreements. Even today, when the number of Eastern intermediate range missile warheads in Europe exceeds 1,300, the United States warheads amount to only 25.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What did Mr. Gromyko say?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will come to that.
I pointed out that, in those circumstances, it was sensible for the Soviet Union to be prepared to return to nuclear arms control talks without conditions, as the West was willing to do. However, Mr. Gromyko remained sceptical and unwilling to appraise or reappraise the case that all Western leaders have consistently made. That is the tragedy and the sadness of the gap that must be bridged. My case was the same as that put forward by many Western statesmen before me.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that too many people expect too much too soon from summit conferences and foreign ministerial visits? Despite the carping of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is not present and is no doubt carping elsewhere, does the Foreign Secretary agree that that gentleman and his cohorts have no more to offer now than they did at the general election when they were roundly defeated on the subject? Will he accept congratulations on trying to raise the level of our bilateral relations with the Soviet Union? Will he also utterly deplore being criticised for trying to bring the United States and the Soviet Union to the conference table? Will he continue his efforts?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept both the congratulations and the advice of my hon. Friend. I agree that too often too many people expect too much too soon from summit meetings. On East-West negotiations, many Western Foreign Ministers and Heads of State have gone to Moscow to make the same case, but we are receiving too little too slowly.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: If the Foreign Secretary wishes the House to consider as sincere his effort to build bridges, should he not first dissociate himself from the Prime Minister's remarks made on four occasions in the past 12 months that the Soviet Union is an evil and vile society and that the Soviet leaders such as Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko are thoroughly untrustworthy? Is it not time that the Foreign Secretary was big enough to say. to the world that Britain wishes to get rid of the past and to start some fresh bridge building with a purpose?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the opening point in the hon. Gentleman's comments, nor do I think that it would be fruitful for either side to begin combing the rhetoric used. For example, if I were to start with the quality and tone of the speech made by Mr. Gromyko to me on Monday, I believe that that would be regarded as profoundly unhelpful to the prospect of restoring trust.
The important point is to put aside the unattractive long-range rhetoric which comes from the Soviet Union. That is what I was seeking to do during hour after hour of talks. I was saying, "Why not come to the negotiating table? There is no virtue in leaving the main negotiating table with an empty chair marked 'Soviet Union'."
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the subsequent business and the ten-minute Bill, I shall allow questions on this important statement to continue until 4.30 pm.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his frankness in Moscow, especially on the subject of human rights, was welcomed warmly by many of us who feel that it is a delusion to believe that there can be any detente or progress in East-West relations unless the Soviet leaders are made to understand the abhorrence with which civilised Governments all over the world regard their continued ill treatment of dissidents, the abuse of psychiatry, the refusal to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate, and their refusal to implement their own signatures on the Helsinki accord? Also, will my right hon. and learned Friend say what emerged from his exchange of views on the subject of Poland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Regrettably, I received no response from Mr. Gromyko on the points that I made on Poland which were about the importance of restoring a reasonable dialogue and relationship between the people of Poland and the Polish Government. I am sure that the House agrees that the way in which a country fulfils its obligations to human rights is important for its international appearance and reputation. In my public speech, as well as privately, I made it plain that the Soviet Union was not seen to be acting on that matter in accordance with its obligations. I said that deeds counted more than words, and that unless there was an improved performance, it would be difficult to build a foundation for long-lasting confidence between East and West.
Mr. John David Taylor: What was Mr. Gromyko's reply to the Foreign Secretary's invitation to him to visit the United Kingdom in 1985? Was there any discussion on the possibility of a visit by the Prime Minister to Moscow? In view of Afghanistan's request this week to the EEC that it should allow Afghan planes to fly once again into Europe, what was the Russian response to his request that there should be a withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Mr. Gromyko made it clear that he would be considering my invitation with his colleagues and would be responding in due course. I believe that that is a fairly customary response to such an invitation.
I did not talk about an intended visit, either way, by Mr. Chernenko or by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. At present there are no plans for that. Most surprisingly, there was no reply from Mr. Gromyko about Afghanistan; he moved to a new subject. The subject of airline rights was not raised.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Apart from the regrettable censorship of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement in Moscow, did he ask the leadership of this super-power why it was frightened to allow Her Majesty's ambassador to make his moderate Queen's birthday broadcast? Will he consider asking our broadcasting media to offer the equivalent time to the Soviet ambassador to put his views to the British people if the Soviet leaders allow the British voice to be heard in the Soviet Union?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the last point. I did specifically raise the subject of the refusal to broadcast Her Majesty's ambassador's speech. Other ambassadors have been faced with similar experiences. I drew attention to the need to improve freedom of communication both ways and, above all, from the West to the Soviet Union and its people.
Mr. David Winnick: It is right that human rights issues should be raised with the Soviet leadership, although it is always better that it should be done by those with clean hands. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman be taken seriously in Moscow when it is plain that much of this country's defence and foreign policies are but an extension of United States foreign policy? It is clear that in many ways the Foreign Secretary is acting as a kind of errand boy for the United States President.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member has repeated, once again, the least substantial point of those that have been made about my visit. I have already said that my talks
326
covered the whole range of East-West issues. On the central point, I was carrying the same message as that carried by the leaders of all major Western European countries in recent months — that they, like we, are sincere in the search for a better relationship, and that the United States leadership, and President Reagan in particular, is equally sincere. He has made it plain on many occasions that he would like nothing better than to achieve a breakthrough towards more effective arms control.
The approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman underlines once again the extent to which too many Opposition Members pay lip service to our alliance while in their hearts lies the policy of neutralism and nonalignment which is founded on nothing but antagonism to our principal north Atlantic ally.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Although it was a useful visit in that it succeeded in highlighting the completely negative approach of the Soviet regime, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that few people in this country will be prepared to roll out any carpet for Mr. Gromyko unless there is some evidence that he will come here with a more open mind on the subject of arms control, multilateral disarmament and the recognition of human rights?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I want to offer any precise forecast about the number of carpets that would be rolled out for such a visit.
It is important that meetings between the leaders of East and West should take place in the West as well as in the East. It is important that an increasing number of Soviet and Eastern leaders should have an insight not just into the conditions in which we live in the West but into the way in which people in the West feel about these matters. That is the basis upon which one must judge this approach.
Mr. Russell Johnston: On the subject of the effect of rhetoric, does the Foreign Secretary agree that his visit to Moscow has at least convinced him that aggressive rhetoric is counterproductive in the admittedly difficult search for improved relations between East and West?
At the beginning of his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that he went to Moscow to explore possible areas of common interest which might provide opportunities for co-operation and negotiation, but we were not told subsequently what matters gave him any encouragement. Were there any?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In earlier answers I identified some of the arms control negotiations where it might be possible to find scope for progress—for example, the Stockholm talks, the conference on disarmament in Europe, the talks on chemical weapons and, although it was not encouraging, the Vienna talks on MBFR and a common position on the approach to the Iran-Iraq war. There were other matters upon which views were more widely divergent.
I believe that those who speak for and advise the West have for a long time shown an awareness of the need, as the hon. Gentleman put it, to avoid aggressive rhetoric. There is, of course, no mischief in making it plain, as is done on both sides of the divide, that we have a way of life in which we believe, and that there is a way of life in

327
which others believe which is not acceptable to us. I believe that there is a limit to the sensitivity that Soviet leaders can feel about this when they consider the kind of language that they use so frequently. It is important for them to understand that hours of speeches have come from Western leaders saying, "We want nothing better than to see you come back to the bargaining table without conditions." Without that there is no chance of convincing each other, which is what we want to do.
Mr. Dennis Walters: When my right hon. and learned Friend was discussing the middle east, did he raise the subject of the possibility of holding a conference early next year in which the parties directly involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute would participate with the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain and France, aimed at trying to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We discussed the possibility of a conference on the middle east. We did not go into the participation at such a conference. The proposal was raised by Mr. Gromyko. I said that we did not think that the time was yet ripe for such a conference, although it might have a part to play. I was principally concerned to discover how far the Soviet Union would be willing, in our joint search, to produce a more united approach than the Arabs and to discover how far the Soviet Union would be able to bring her influence to bear on Syria to produce greater coherence on the Arab side.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that any progress between the Soviet Union and the West is bound to be piecemeal and done step by step? There will be no landslides. How is it that when the Soviet Union has offered to discuss missiles in outer space, in spite of saying that the West will not make any preconditions, the Foreign
328
Secretary and President Reagan set down a monumental precondition? They have said that all missiles must be discussed when the Soviet offer relates to missiles in outer space. Why do we pretend that we are offering no conditions when we have imposed a monumental one?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was happy to think that the hon. Gentleman was offering words of wisdom in the first part of his question, but I am not happy to agree with what he said in the second part. The United States response was unconditional. The United States said that it was prepared to respond to the Soviet invitation to discuss arms in outer space. The United States also sought the opportunity to discuss other nuclear weapons. It does not seem a monumental obstacle to the chance of progress to suggest that the entire agenda, as opposed to only part of it, should be on the table.
Mr. George Robertson: The Foreign Secretary accused me of bringing party politics to the House. I shall take that as a compliment.
With regard to the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations, the Foreign Secretary said that he raised the subject in Moscow but he did not mention the subject in the statement. As this is a crucial matter in which Britain has a role to play, can he say whether he mentioned it and what the British stance is?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not mentioned every item of all of the many arms control debates that are taking place and which came up in our discussions. I have already explained that solutions to the complex problems of verification are important before we can have the prospect of resuming negotiations effectively. I was not complaining that the hon. Gentleman indulged in party politics in the House. On these matters, I sense a wide common feeling in the House that we should try to promote dialogue between East and West. Uncharacteristically, he demeaned his approach to that important issue.

Locate in Scotland
4.32 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, I think that the House will feel that, in view of our exchanges on the private notice question on which he was called and, since, as the Minister said, no decision has been taken, it would not be appropriate to raise the issue under the Standing Order No. 10 procedure. Indeed, it would be an abuse of that procedure.
Mr. Wilson: Normally, I would accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, but because of the statements made by the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland, I wish to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 10. The fact that there has been a question and answer session on the subject allows me to be brief. Your granting the private notice question suggests that the matter is urgent, specific and important.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Minister said that the Government's object in the review was to bring investment to the United Kingdom as a whole and that the United Kingdom includes Scotland. With regard to the future of Locate in Scotland, we are dealing with an organisation the prime duty of which is to bring jobs to Scotland. There will be uncertainty especially if, as the Minister said, the review will be conducted during the recess.
This is not an easy or light matter that can be shrugged off. We have not heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland or from the Minister who is responsible for industry in Scotland. Because of that and because of what the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland said, I ask that, notwithstanding the fact that we discussed the matter earlier, you consider an application under Standing Order No. 10. The issue is crucial, bearing in mind the large number of unemployed people in our country.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the future of Locate in Scotland in the light of the statement made by the Minister with responsibility for local government."
I have listened to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret to say that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Statements
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter as a Scot and am not referring adversely to the fact that we had a prolonged period on a Scottish question—35 minutes, I believe. We then had an infinitely shorter time — about 20 minutes—on a much more major issue. I am sorry to have to say this so bluntly, but I question your judgment in regard to the times alloted to the two issues.
Mr. Speaker: I was about to say, "I can shoot the hon. Member down", but perhaps I shall refine that and say that we started the private notice question at 3.33 pm. There were points of order before we got on to it. We then went on to the Foreign Secretary's statement at 3.53 pm, so we have had a good 40 minutes on the statement. In view of the business before the House, I do not think that that is at all unreasonable.

Prevention of Intimidatory Picketing
4.36 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place upon police authorities the duty to reclaim as a civil liability from the union involved any additional costs incurred in consequence of police having to attend any site when the number of pickets is in excess of six; and further to amend the law so that the loss of employment resulting from refusing to take part in a strike shall be considered to be unfair dismissal.
I am sure that the violence we have seen recently on television has made us all deeply anxious about what is happening in our country. Law is the condition of civilised life and respect for it enables men and women to enjoy their civil rights in freedom. If there is a right to strike, there is also a right to go to work. Picketing is lawful only when it seeks peacefully to persuade. To do that one needs no more than six pickets—not 60 or 600 and certainly not the 6,000 that we have seen at places such as Orgreave. What we have seen in the past few weeks is not picketing, but an attempt by force to prevent others from doing what they have a right to do. It is intimidation and an attempt to substitute the rule of law with the rule of the mob.
It is time for us to give quiet, serious and dispassionate consideration to how such intimidatory picketing can be curtailed. The code of conduct that accompanied the industrial relations legislation of 1980 and 1982, which was agreed with the Trades Union Congress, states that there need be no more than six pickets at any site. That makes sense. The legitimate purpose of picketing is to advise fellow workers that an industrial dispute is in progress. One does not need more than six people to make it clear that a strike is on and that a picket line exists. When one starts to get way in excess of six pickets and stones, bottles, smoke bombs and other missiles are thrown at people who want to go to work, the only reasonable inference is that people are there not peacefully to persuade, but to bully, threaten and intimidate and to try to prevent people from going to work with implied, and often actual, threats of physical violence. It is mob rule on the rampage.
Ironically, the long-term victims of such mob rule will be trade union constitutionalists as they attempt to contain hotheads with union rule books made worthless by so-called direct action. It has been said that the present situation could be resolved if the National Coal Board availed itself of the legislation to control secondary picketing. But that is to misunderstand the law. One cannot force a private body to seek private relief in the courts for the public good. If one wants to protect the public good, one has to give a public body the right to seek the necessary relief. It must be for Parliament to protect the public good. Until now, one of the results of restraint in the use of industrial relations legislation has been that it has imposed on the criminal law the task of protecting the rights of those who want to work, with more than 1,200 people, for example, being charged with the offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, and with local police authorities incurring well over £50 million of additional costs as a direct result of the need to police the mass picket lines to enable people to get to work.
I believe that there is a way in which the activities of those trade unions that seek to intimidate and bully can be curtailed, and that is why I seek the leave of the House to
332
introduce a Bill that will help to prevent intimidatory picketing. Its provisions are simple. It will give local police authorities the right to reclaim as a civil debt from a union the direct cost attributable where it has been necessary for police officers to attend a site at which the number of pickets has been in excess of six, which is the number set down in the present code of conduct on picketing.
In practice, the presence of more than six pickets at any entrance to a workplace would, on the face of it, be considered intimidatory, and if a senior police officer believed that because of the presence of more than six pickets intimidation was likely to take place and that the presence of two or more police officers was required to protect those wishing to go to work, the direct costs of such extra policing could be claimed as a civil debt from the union with whose policy the pickets were supposedly trying to acquaint those going to work. It would be a defence that the union concerned had taken all reasonable steps to limit the number of pickets to six.
Such an approach would have a number of advantages. It would oblige any union involved in intimidation and violence directly to meet the costs of the police in protecting other citizens because of that union's violence. It would hit the pockets of unions that allowed or encouraged their members to intimidate or use violence. The police authorities would never be a party to the industrial dispute and, thus, their intervention could not affect relations between the union and the employers. Unlike an injunction—which is a mandatory order of the court—there would be no question of anyone being able to seek to become a martyr and go to prison because, if the union did not pay the necessary compensation, the court would simply have the power to take union assets in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
I believe that giving police authorities the opportunity directly to recoup from the unions involved the direct costs of having to deal with intimidatory picketing will go a long way towards bringing the heavy mob under control and stopping the mob action that we have recently seen.
I thus hope that I have the support of the whole House in introducing this Bill. I also hope that the Government may consider its provisions worthy of inclusion in future public order legislation, because Parliament must take every step necessary to protect the right and freedom of the individual to go to work, free from violence and free from intimidation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Michael Hirst, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Andy Stewart and Mr. Richard Tracey.

PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATORY PICKETING
Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to place upon police authorities the duty to reclaim as a civil liability from the union involved any additional costs incurred in consequence of police having to attend any site when the number of pickets is in excess of six; and further to amend the law so that the loss of enployment resulting from refusing to take part in a strike shall be considered to be unfair dismissal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[2nd ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
ESTIMATES DAY
  Estimates 1984–85

    Class IX, Vote 8
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum not exceeding £342,548,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Home Office on prisons (including central administrative staff) and associated stores in England and Wales, and the Parole Board.—[Mr. Hurd.]
    4.46 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
    That Class IX, Vote 8, be reduced by £1,000 in respect of Subhead A6(1) (Academic, physical and religious education of prisoners including the cost of seconded teachers; library services; vocational and construction industry training; recreational expenses).
    It is a fine thing that we are to have a debate on this important subject, and I pray tribute to the Liaison Committee, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who first initiated such processes with the Leader of the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who has seen these important matters through. Consequently, we can debate Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee.
    I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who has kindly allowed me effectively to introduce the debate, thereby waiving his own privilege as the current Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. He invited me to do so because I initiated discussions on this whole subject in the last Select Committee.
    I also pay tribute to Mr. Christopher Price, a former Member of Parliament, who may be in the precincts of the Palace, for the marvellous lead that he gave the Committee during the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Select Committee was moved to conduct a parliamentary investigation into education in prisons. It was the first time that the House had undertaken such an investigation. Incidentally, we had the excellent support of Sidney Heaven OBE, whose background is recognised internationally. Indeed, I also pay him a warm tribute for all that he has done and continues to do in advising our Committee.
    We acted on noble precedents. In 1729, General Oglethorpe induced Parliament to inquire into the horrors of the Fleet and Marshalsea prisons, and founded that line of idealists and practical reformers that continued in John Howard, Elizabeth Fry and many others, who saw prisons as a means by which offenders might be led back into the community of good and useful people from whom they had been temporarily expelled by their own actions.
    We were also conscious that we were looking into an area where public money is spent on a large scale. In 1980–81, the cost of keeping a prisoner in a dispersal prison was £19,262 a year, rising by about £3,000 a year. In the same year, the average cost of keeping a prisoner in a local prison was £8,770 a year, rising by about £1,000 a year. If the rises have continued at the same rate, the
    334
    sums for the current year must be £28,000 per prisoner in a dispersal prison and about £12,000 per prisoner in a local prison. Those are substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
    The Committee fully acknowledged that there were very positive aspects to the present situation, on which we must congratulate the Government and all those involved in the prison department. Wicked and dangerous men and women committed to prison are kept in security where they can no longer menace society. There is now in progress a better building programme than there has been for a century, and that is excellent. There is also provision to improve the establishment of prison officers still further. The independent prison inspectorate, established in 1980 by the then Home Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, in an act of great political courage, publishes regularly full and honest accounts of the state of our prisons. Last, and most apposite, the prison education service has developed into an organisation with professional standards and great potential. That is due in no small measure to the tireless efforts and commitment of Alan Baxendale, its first chief education officer, to whom I pay a warm tribute for all that he has done and continues to do and for the manner of his doing it.
    Yet the Select Committee is profoundly disturbed by what the inquiry revealed. Prisons, with education playing its appropriate part, should be influencing the prisoner, while he is serving his sentence, to mend his ways and to become a contributing member of society. I have been a visitor of prisons for many years. I have been all over and have thoroughly looked at prisons of every kind, not only at their education service, although that is what I want to concentrate on today. The evidence proves that prisons are having the opposite effect. In particular, the efforts of the prison education service to help the task of the prison service are being seriously frustrated.
    All sources of information give the same picture of prisons. I quote, not from some sensational journal, but from the sober reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. He said:
    "In local prisons, many prisoners are locked up for 22 hurs each day with nothing to do for weeks on end; in a Training Prison, to give one example, 200 men out of 745 were locked up all day with nothing to do; other prisoners, recorded as at work, have in reality very little to do."
    I ask for reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the situation is no longer deteriorating. It is imperative that he be able to give the House today reassurance that that serious deterioration has been arrested.
    In 1981 the chief inspector spoke of the
    "rapidly diminishing"—
    I repeat, diminishing—
    "possibility of access to recreational, educational and other facilities."
    In 1982 the chief inspector told us:
    "the problem is as bad, if not worse, than in 1981."
    The Select Committee was not indifferent to humanitarian objections to the cruel stupidity of such a regime. We had to face, however, and had no wish to avoid, the consideration that prisoners are under-sentenced for crimes, many for hurting and most for robbing their fellows. Some clearly felt that it was just that they should be imprisoned in punitive conditions.
    We considered that conflict of opinion seriously and carefully. We had before us evidence from bodies that we could not possibly ignore — prison governors, prison officers, the Association of County Councils, the Society

    335
    of Education Officers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, and many more.
    We scrutinised the published reports and statistics of the prison department, Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons, and relevant publications of the Home Office. Our detailed examination of that vast mass of evidence, all written with great care, for which we were grateful, and all emanating from sources which commanded our respect, revealed that none of those authoritative bodies in any place in their evidence gave the smallest sign that the present unpleasant regime of confinement in idleness deters men and women from committing new crimes after their release, and so returning to prison.
    Mr. Tom Cox: I have listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. What he has just said to the House was ably backed up by the ex-governor of Wormwood Scrubs prison, who resigned from the prison service after an extremely distinguished service because he was so fed up with the lack of help from the Home Office. He refused to be in charge of what he called a human dustbin.
    Mr. Greenway: What the hon. Gentleman said is true. The former governor of Wormwood Scrubs appeared before the Select Committee and said such things. We took a serious view of what he said. On the other side of the coin, some were more optimistic. None the less, I am taking a serious view and I note the point that has been made.
    On the contrary, the regime of confinement in idleness does much to ensure that a prisoner cannot go straight after release. That is the worry to the House and to society. The convicted criminal who wants to go straight needs much more than good intentions. He has to be capable of strenuous effort and great perseverance in the face of disappointment, as has every member of society. His friends, and probably his family, may well be criminals. He has to reject them and find new friends. He has to find a new place to live and a new way of earning a living. That needs great strength and stamina. Every bit of evidence that we received on the matters and every official report that we read, emphasised that confinement and idleness rob all but the very strongest of that strength and perseverance, indeed, of the very will to exert themselves in any way except, alas, one.
    It also emerged forcefully in the evidence that prisoners kept locked up and idle for long periods may be pushed towards violence and riot. Official reports tell us not only that prisoners locked up and idle, as many now are, are likely to become violent and recidivist, but confirm that they are becoming so. The official reports of the prison department and of the prison inspectorate for 1982 tell us that the prison population is becoming more recidivist and that violence in prisons is "commonplace" and "horrifying" — their words, not mine. They say that there is "very great concern" over the increase in arson in cells.
    I suppose that there is a certain bureaucratic neatness about a series of reports that begins by forecasting disaster and goes on to chronicle the disaster as it comes to pass. But one could wish for a happier sequence of records.
    336
    The Select Committee observed education in prisons primarily in relation to the heavy and serious problems of violence in prisons and recidivism arising from a lack of occupation. Idle hands make mischief. That is not a new expression and one can put it as simply as that. Although prison industry did not lie within our purview we looked at it because the pattern, nature and even quantity of education provision will be different if prisoners have a chance to do a day's work in industry. We were forced to the conclusion that prison industry was not likely to alleviate the problems of idleness to any lasting extent. Out of a total of 305 workshops 210 were working at less than half capacity in 1981 and producing a trading deficit of £9,700,000. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons expressed no hope of improvement.
    Does prison education really offer purposeful occupation to prisoners? We had to consider representations from some quarters that it does not, that it is, sometimes at any rate, a soft option, a skive or a trick to get out of a cell and gossip over a book. We were not naive and I do not want to be naive in what I say to the House. We know that for some people education can be a skive. That is the way of the world and all people are human. We saw in the evidence no reason to doubt the genuineness of the efforts that students put into study. They work hard and, as one who was a schoolmaster for 23 years and held senior positions, I can confirm the genuineness of the effort that we saw.
    Everything that we learned lead us to suppose that, in the conditions of conviction and imprisonment, men and women who choose to study—we are talking about a voluntary activity — are motivated to work very hard indeed. At one end of the scale, an illiterate prisoner will probably progress between two and five years in reading age in 12 weeks of daytime tuition. That is pitifully slow progress. At the other end of the scale, the success rate of prisoners taking public and vocational examinations is about 90 per cent. As a member of the council of the Open University, I know that a number of prisoners are taking OU courses with considerable success. They and their mentors should be congratulated.
    We recommended that prisoners undertaking a course of education should be paid at the same rate as prisoners working in industry—about £2 to £2·50 a week. Some see that as a radical recommendation, but I ask the House to see it in the context of the broad picture that I am presenting.
    Two facts show that prisoners realise how much value there is in prison education. First, the report on the riots in Wormwood Scrubs in 1979 says that one of the main causes of those riots was the closure of the education block. Secondly, during the riots at Hull prison, prisoners protected the education block from damage, to show the value that they attached to it. Those were tremendous demonstrations of prisoners' feelings. It would be instructive to compare the cost of a major prison riot with the annual cost of education in prisons.
    The first task of the prison education service is to bring prisoners who will take advantage of education to the end of their sentence with the spirit to grasp, on release, the opportunity to rejoin the honest and contributing part of society. That must be the aim of the service and of society.
    Of course, that is only a start. The after-care agencies, such as NACRO, have a major part to play. That is why our first and second recommendations dealt with

    337
    collaboration between the prison education service and the after-care organisations, particularly in their education work.
    The Committee saw and was immensely encouraged by a living proof of the success of the partnership of education and after-care. One of our witnesses, Pat Doyle, had followed the familiar path from school truancy to petty crime and on to ever longer prison sentences. After the shock of her last conviction and sentence, she said:
    "Enough is enough. I cannot go on like this."
    She turned, as others turn, to education to help her to get on to a new course of life. Her prison teachers helped and, towards the end of her sentence, teachers from the North London college came into the prison to start working with her, so that she would not be among strangers, if she continued to study after her release. When the Committee saw her, she was well on her way to an independent and useful life. We were impressed by Miss Doyle and her approach to life after her education in prison.
    The Committee's report goes far beyond assertions about the vital importance of education in prisons. It recommends that prisoners should be given a right of access to education. We found that the present system of "administrative discretion" —a Home Office expression — is unsatisfactory. We looked at the results of administrative discretion and we do not like them. Administrative discretion sets no minimum standards and imposes no obligation, either on the state or on its employees, to reach minimum standards.
    The first consequence of that is waste; there is a worrying amount of waste in educational resources in prisons. On our visits, we saw much productive work in prison classrooms, but we also saw much under-use of resources—desks not being used, space not being taken up for education and so on.
    In one prison, we saw a fine education centre and talked to many potential students with clear educational aims, but we were shocked to see no useful work done throughout a whole day, because of muddle in the movement of prisoners. That will not do.
    Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is quite forthright about waste. In written evidence, he spoke of
    "a regrettable waste of educational manpower and resources".
    In oral evidence, he spoke of
    "a significant amount of wastage in a number of establishments".
    He gave specific examples in reports on individual prisoners.
    I give two clear examples. The new education centre at Leeds prison stood idle for a year before it was used for classes, and the new purpose-built education centre in Brixton prison was not used for education for a much longer period. Regrettably, if there is "administrative discretion", some will use their discretion to do very little. I should justify that remark. Education in prisons is provided by local education authorities and the nature of their participation typifies the feeble—dare I say "wet"? —nature of "administrative discretion". They are invited by the Secretary of State to "make arrangements" for education in prisons. They need not do so if they do not wish to. The result is that some local education authorities provide
    "the essential administrative service but little else".
    Those are not my words and they are not even the words of the Select Committee. They are the words of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. The teachers' organisation NATFHE is blunter. It says that in most cases
    338
    the local education authority is a "shadow", a mere employment agency. In such circumstances, those who want to use resources to the full, to provide a good service and to make progress can be, and sometimes are, frustrated.
    The Committee recommends that the system of administrative discretion should be ended by a prisons regime Act which not only specifies minimum standards, but lays down an aim for the penal system that can be paraphrased as not only secure detention, but the encouragement of all possible progress towards rehabilitation.
    It is clear from our evidence that there is no unanimity of aim in the prison service. It emerges in the suspicion with which different branches of the service seem to regard each other. The governors are on guard against the "empire building" of the education service. The prison officers think that educational facilities encourage prisoners not to conform to the prison regime. Education officers clearly feel threatened by their multiplicity of bosses and want it to be laid down in writing to whom they are responsible. They do not know where they stand.
    Those divisions, resulting from uncertainty of aim, are exacerbated in the prison education service by a structural organisation straight out of "Alice in Wonderland".
    Basic and academic teaching is in the hands of teachers employed by the local education authority who are professionally and operationally responsible to the education officer. He, however, is professionally responsible to the local education authority, but operationally responsible to the governor.
    Teachers employed to teach vocational subjects are employed not by the local education authority, but directly by the Civil Service. They are operationally responsible to the education officer, who is not employed by the Civil Service, but professionally responsible directly to the Home Office education branch—unless, that is, they teach a subject connected with the building industry, in which case they are responsible to the directorate of works.
    With such a structure, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that our evidence showed a marked lack of unity in the education services in prisons, with no real cohesion. As we know, cohesion in education is essential if there is to be a proper structure and if progress is to be achieved. The civilian instructional officers wrote to the Committee:
    "We are not inclined to be answerable to an Educational Officer who is not a Civil Servant".
    Some of them were, but they said that they were "not inclined to be".
    Education in prisons operates effectively only if all branches of the service support and collaborate in it. That depends on the services of the prison officers at a basic level, such as escorting prisoners to classes. We were saddened to learn, for instance, that evening classes—vital where men have daytime work in industry—are often severely curtailed because the existing system of staff attendance provides few prison officers to support classes after 5 o'clock in the evening.
    From the evidence before us we had to conclude, as the Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded, that the allocation and deployment of uniformed officers was poorly organised. What concerned us most, however, was that questions about their numbers and deployment as posed in

    339
    the May report in 1979, and raised repeatedly since then, and last raised in the chief inspector's 1982 report, have still not been answered.
    The figures show that between 1947 and 1981, the number of prisoners increased by 174 per cent. and that the number of prison officers increased from 2,400 to 17,000, an increase of 600 per cent. Yet they still work, on average, 15 hours a week overtime. It is all very puzzling. It is also puzzling to reflect that, within that new situation, prison officers often do not have time to accompany prisoners to education classes.
    Our concern and recommendations did not stop at a query on prison officer working practices. In our view, the aim of the whole prison regime should be to encourage the rehabilitation of the prisoner, which in the broadest sense is a task of re-education. We saw on our visits encouraging examples of prison officers and education officers working together in active concern for the progress of the prisoners in their charge. It was an exciting experience to encounter such collaboration and unity, and we made recommendations to encourage that still further.
    Most of all, however, we believe that we cannot get the branches of the prison service to work together unless they are directed towards one objective, and we believe that that objective should be decided by this House and embodied in primary legislation, in a prison regimes Act. In our view, the disunity arises from a neglect of the first basic principle of management, that one cannot manage without an objective. If one has a means without an end, one has trouble.
    Many bodies who gave evidence to us — Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, for instance—traced waste and conflict back to the same cause, to that lack of a defined objective. I am sorry to be hammering the point home, but it is central to the whole issue. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, in his 1982 report, arrived at the same diagnosis. Many prison staff to whom he had spoken were afflicted with "uncertainty and doubts" and were
    "calling for a fresh look at custodial objectives".
    Yet against this massive demand, the Government do not even consider, in their reply to the Select Committee's report, the nine paragraphs of argument advanced in favour of the recommendation that the aims of the prison system should be decided and promulgated in a law discussed and enacted by this House, a prison regimes Act.
    All in all, we found a picture of large numbers of people, some with good ideas, some with not such good ideas, all working in different directions in a mire of confusion and obfuscation. The result is not only unsatisfactory but a wholly unacceptable waste of resources. Our vision focuses on the need for a small piece of legislation, a prison regimes Act. That, in turn, focuses our minds on the needs and rights of the prisoner heading for a new, rehabilitated life, becoming a new citizen risen out of the waste and criminality of his former life.
    I urge the House, by enacting such a measure, to give the prisoner the right to be actively employed for a full day, to have the right of access to education, to be treated equally whether working in the workshop or the classroom, to be properly assessed on his educational needs and to be able to fulfil his serious educational ambitions.
    We want to provide around the prisoner a prison service whose actions and objectives are co-ordinated and unified
    340
    towards his betterment; a concerted force of prison officers willing and able to escort him to the workshop or the education block with equal zeal; and a positive, rehabilitative regime, carefully tempered by realism. Ultimately, every prisoner should be given the fullest encouragement to mend his ways.
    These aims are not naive or idealistic. The overriding purpose must be the secure custody of often dangerous criminals. But nobody can justify spending enormous amounts of public money on a penal system which merely embitters and frustrates both prisoners and custodians and whose main educative effect is to teach inmates new tricks of the criminal trade.
    The House must look afresh at the whole situation. I urge all hon. Members to look with new eyes at a problem that is of central importance to society and to the caring attitude of the nation.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Martin Flannery: I am sure that when, many years ago, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and I first met, we did not think that he would be moving an amendment on a subject such as this, or that, though on opposite sides politically, we would be at one on this issue. The depth of the problem and the unity of thought that has gone into the methods of solving it are proved by the fact that the motion stands in the name of two Conservative Members — the hon. Member for Ealing, North and the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee)—and myself.
    It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the previous Chairman of the Select Committee, the former hon. Member for Lewisham, West, Christopher Price, whose interest in this subject is borne out by the fact that he has come here today to listen to the debate. I wish sincerely that he was in a position to take part in it, because not only is his depth of knowledge great, but he has been a friend of mine from Sheffield for upwards of 30 years.
    The sparsity of attendance for the debate is regrettable, because we are discussing a vital subject. I accept that some of us would not have known the extent of the problem had we not looked into it. It is a pity that there are not more journalists in the Press Gallery to tell the general public about this real problem which society faces.
    It has recently been decided to release about 2,000 prisoners on parole. We all admit—indeed, the whole of Europe admits — that British prisons are grossly overcrowded. That overcrowding has intensified the problem with which we in the Select Committee have been trying to deal. The unanimity among the members of the Committee is a tribute to their realisation of the intensiy of the problem, remembering that none of us knew anything about it until we began visiting prisons.
    Most of us have never visited a prison but I had been in one or two to visit a constituent and some time ago I led a delegation into the Maze—Long Kesh—for political reasons. The Maze is a modern prison but some of our prisons are the most appalling places. It is dreadful that people should be put in them. I know it has to be, but many of them are Dickensian in the extreme. Some of the things that go on in them make anyone heave a great sigh of relief when he comes out.
    I had some initial knowledge of prisons but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North for being the first to raise the issue. He had spoken to his friend,

    341
    Sidney Heaven, who became our excellent adviser. Mr. Heaven showed a profound knowledge of the problem that we were considering, and intense humanity. We were able to unify ourselves, notwithstanding the political divide, because the problem demanded that we should do so. There were some differences between us but on the major issues we were at one.
    Like the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I was a teacher for many years. However, I had never given a thought to prisoners who wanted to be educated. I taught children a great deal about a woman I deeply admired, Elizabeth Fry. I remember the story I used to tell the children about her first visit to a prison. The warders, the turnkeys of those days, begged her not to go into the women's section of the prison. They told her that she would be torn limb from limb. It was so horrifying that most of the turnkeys never ventured into the women's section. Elizabeth Fry bravely went in, stood among the women and gradually won them over. She was first subjected to villification, foul words and abuse. However, she went among them as a teacher and a reformer. When we visited prisons I thought of the noble people of the past who learnt such a great deal and saw the issues much more deeply than many of us do today.
    We worked hard to produce a careful and detailed report. We knew that it was essential to do so. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North has said, it was the first time that such a report had been prepared. If the Select Committee is to be remembered for anything, I believe that it will be for this report. In fact, it was one of the minor reports that the Committee prepared, having produced more reports than any previous Select Committee. That is a tribute to our Chairman, among others.
    Unfortunately, the Government decided to attack our report. There was a problem because the report was made by the previous Select Committee and became available a year last April. In the meantime there was a general election. There was a different Committee when the Government produced their reply early this year. Only two members of the previous Committee are members of the present Committee. It is fortunate that they are two who took a real interest in the report. The new members of the Committee had to consider the report of the previous Committee and the Government's reply. It saw fit to hold a further group of meetings before producing a second report, having inquired more deeply into the subject. That is a measure of the seriousness with which it approached the problem.
    The Committee's decision to proceed in that way was widely welcomed throughout the prison service and by the teachers in the service, especially by the main union that represents the prison education staff as opposed to the prison staff itself, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. It wrote to the Committee to express its complete support for the report and for every principal recommendation within it.
    It was about eight months before the Government published their reply to the Committee's report. It was vague, dismissive and, in the Committee's opinion, thinly argued. That is why we had to go further and respond to the reply. Our most vivid impression, following visits to prisons, from questioning those concerned with education, and from considering written evidence, was the degree of confusion in prisons in general. It is impossible to study
    342
    prison education and not to learn a great deal about prisons, the prison service and what goes on in prisons generally.
    We met warders who were deeply interested and some who were not. I remember going round Wakefield prison with the chief warder. He was obviously a most humane man and he was forthright in his criticism of what went on. At the same time, he was aware of the realities and recognised that good things were happening. We learnt quite a lot from our visit to Wakefield.
    We found that no one agreed entirely on why or how prisoners should be educated. Each individual had his opinion and there was nothing central to the approach to education in prisons. The purpose of the prison regime itself was unclear. For example, should a prison regime be punitive or rehabilitative? In the minds of most people it has to be punitive to a degree, but I believe that that feature should take second place to the prison's role in rehabilitation. Unfortunately, whether the intention is to punish or not, the rehabilitative aspect is slender. In my opinion prisons will be universities for the training of criminals until we adopt a far more rehabilitative approach to those we imprison. There was no real direction given from the prison department. The central pillar of the Committee's report was the recommendation that a prison regime Act should be placed on the statute book setting out a right of access to education and a right for prisoners to be actively employed.
    It is appalling that so many prisoners spend 22 or 23 hours a day in their cells. We visited Wormwood Scrubs and saw prisoners on remand placed three or four in a cell. Many of them had been there for many months. Many had been there for six months and some had been there for longer than that. They were waiting to be tried for offences of which they said they were innocent. I do not know whether they were innocent but they had a right to he tried long before many of them did reach the courts. They needed education just as much as other prisoners. In 1982 the annual day for the collection of statistics in prisons was 30 June. It was found that 10,841 of a prison population of nearly 44,000 at that time were idle for the entire day. That meant that 25 per cent. were unemployed.
    What about the other 75 per cent.? Does anyone think that they were employed? Many of them were in their cells all day long and all night long, with all the indignities of slopping out in the morning and many other things that one can hardly talk about but which happen in prisons. The feeling of humanity within the Committee steadily emerged when we witnessed many of the things that take place in our prisons.
    It is difficult to talk about the individual problems, but many of us were shocked by one particular prison, Wakefield. Every prison has what is known as a black museum, which has the weapons that have been fashioned in prison. One man in Wakefield needed a whole group of warders because, although he. was clearly mentally ill, no mental institution could look after him. We went to look at these terrible black museums, which often contain weapons from incidents in which prisoners had been killed by other prisoners.
    One of the outstanding facts that came out of all our visits was the extent to which lifers—murderers, rapists and so on — were clamouring for education. They wanted their education even though they knew that they were in prison for a long time. We are not giving theta sufficient education. For instance, the workshops to keep

    343
    them employed are not properly utilised. In the financial year 1981–82, 210 out of the 305 workshops operated at less than half capacity. They are lying there idle, despite the demand from the prisoners who want to work. The hon. Member for Ealing, North has mentioned the issue of whether prisoners should be paid a proper wage instead of the miserable pittance that they are paid. There is a minimum of a 34 per cent. wastage of workshop capacity, as the official figures show, and that statistic can be multiplied many times.
    Prisoners are demanding education and it is right that they should have it. One of our central points is the need for primary legislation on education in prisons. There should also be a great reform of our prisons to make them more acceptable — I am speaking personally on that. However, aside from the details of what should be included in the legislation, we argued the need for this primary legislation with great care in some nine paragraphs. The Government's response to this detailed and considered argument came in 14 words, which were:
    "The Government considers that primary legislation dealing with regimes is neither necessary nor desirable."
    The Select Committee had examined this problem with great care and in great detail and suggested that the necessary solution was primary legislation. We were rudely dismissed in 14 words without any real explanation.
    This was hardly a compliment to the work of a Select Committee, which is gradually beginning to change what goes on in prisons. This will take a long time and we shall need to bring more people into the struggle. While the Government's reply to our report appeared to accept some of the details, their reaction to the most important findings betrayed a worrying state of affairs. The prison service is, and has been, in a state of crisis for a long time, and something serious needs to be done about it.
    Hon. Members should think back to the prison riots that have occurred in the past few years. If we incarcerate criminals for 23 out of 24 hours a day, neglect to give them the education that they need, do not have sufficient teachers or material to educate them, and neglect to have a prison regime, in which, for instance, the officers can conduct the prisoners to the rooms in which they can be taught, that almost encourages rioting and disorder in prisons. Again, this is my personal view. One of the ways to discourage rioting and disorder is to treat prisoners humanely, to have the warders, who to some extent live under the same regime, treated properly and looked after, and to give the prisoners better conditions and better education. That would be a civilised approach.
    The Home Office looked at all the Select Committee's discussion of the principles and concluded that no real appraisal was necessary. That is one of the reasons why we want education in prisons to be under the local education authority. Division of labour and authority in prisons should be looked at carefully before primary legislation is introduced, if and when it is. To check on the real meaning of the Government reply, we asked the prison service to come to give evidence to us again. Our first impressions of the Government's reply to the Select Committee report were amply reinforced.
    For example, it was staggering to hear the chief education officer of the prison service, Mr. Alan
    344
    Baxendale, a most humane and kindly man, declare that prisoners already had a right of access to education, when the Government reply said categorically:
    "The Prison Rules do not give a prisoner the right to education contemplated in the recommendation."
    It is time that that was cleared up between the Government and the education service. I hope that it will be made clear that a prisoner has the right to education. The word "access" can be discussed, but if a prisoner wants education, he should have it.
    We found that there was some resistance from prison staff to education. For instance, there are often highly educated prisoners, who are educated beyond the level of the staff. In previous years, many of the prison staff and their organisations had come out against education for prisoners because cuts in education might affect their children outside the prisons and they felt that prisoners had no right to education. Many of us believe that our children outside, and prisoners inside, have a right to education. It will help all mankind if we see to it that both these categories have education.
    The report recommends the right of access to education mentioned by the chief education officer. There are other contradictions between what the Government say and what others say. How can anyone not come to the conclusion that the Government are confused on this matter? The Committee visited a number of prisons, and occasionally split up to go to different prisons. Often we could not all go at the same time because of other commitments. The hon. Member for Ealing, North will agree that as a teacher it is easy to recognise poor education facilities, low morale and lack of drive. In some prisons, this was very noticeable and in others, conditions were better.
    As the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, we took evidence from what one might call consumers of the prison service, one of them serving a long sentence at the Scrubs, as it is called, and the other recently released from the women's prison at Holloway. We were not allowed to know their names, for obvious reasons, and we are grateful to them for volunteering to come to the Select Committee. Obviously, they had to be accompanied.
    We called the long-term prisoner Mr. Smith. He was a gifted and intelligent man who was in for a long time —we had not the faintest idea why he was in, and we do not make inquiries about such things. He wanted to talk about education. Both the prisoners were extremely intelligent people. Mr. Smith started with no aspirations and decided to take O-level classes. The assistant governor recommended that instead he should apply for an Open University course, as he seemed to be intelligent. However, as he said:
    "It has taken me 14 months to get an Open University course and in that time I have done nothing. I have been stagnant."
    He then submitted application after application and was repeatedly promised that education staff would see him. At no time, he claimed, was he properly assessed, and the first time that the education officer came to see him was in preparation for his giving evidence to us. That is a deplorable state of affairs. We could not question a vast number of people, and out of 40,000 prisoners, the Select Committee was only able to question those two prisoners in detail. But we were, of course, able to question other prisoners as we went round.
    Miss Doyle at Holloway—her name can be given—was full of praise for the education staff, and in a letter that she wrote to us she said:

    345
    "I cannot put enough stress on the importance of the education department within Holloway."
    It would have done your heart good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that woman and to see what education had meant to her.
    During the war, as a young teacher and soldier, I was stationed in a distant place where there was a young man who was a criminal, to say the least. We could not do anything with him. I had come out of action and was in the Education Corps for the time being. I asked him to come to my office. He refused so I had to use discipline to tell him to come. I discovered that he was an illiterate. In three months, having taken him for an hour each morning, I had him reading. When I left that area to come home he was captain of the football team and had been captain of the cricket team. He came up to me and said, "I'll not forget you." I said, "I'll never forget you." Until then I had never known what illiteracy could do to people.
    Many prisoners are prisoners because they are inadequate; because they cannot face up to life, and so take short cuts and wrong paths. But between 15 and 25 per cent. of them—and sometimes more—are illiterate. I hate to use the word "waste" but their illiteracy involves a terrible waste of the time of the prison service. I wonder whether we realise the number of warders who have to go to the cells of illiterate prisoners to read the letters that have come from home, from a loved one or from whomever, simply because those prisoners cannot read. The warders then have to sit with the prisoners and write letters for them.
    Many of those prisoners have, for reasons of illness, been pushed aside in life. The young man to whom I referred had been ill throughout his childhood years and for that reason had not learnt to read. Many of the prisoners have all sorts of reasons for not having learnt to read or write. If, on their release from prison, they could have the extra degree of adequacy that literacy brings, it would help the prison service as well as helping those prisoners to cope better with the outside world.
    An outstanding feature of the prison service is the education department's battle for survival. The cuts in education within the prison service are far more severe than those experienced outside, as we saw at Wormwood Scrubs. About half the full-time teachers had gone. Those who remained often had difficulty in being able to teach full time. Many of them had been put on part-time work, and NATFHE had been dealing with the problem.
    I have mentioned Miss Doyle, who was so full of admiration for the education facilities in Holloway. She said that regularly more than half the classes were cancelled. As has been mentioned, although there are six times as many prison staff as there were some years ago, with a prison population that has doubled in size, the staff still average 15 hours a week overtime. That is excessive overtime. It means that after 5 pm there is hardly anyone available to deal with the prisoners who need education. Some of the prisoners have already been working during the day. Miss Doyle told us that often a two-hour class would last for only an hour. She was emphatic that to provide any real service the education officer had to struggle with the existing system.
    It has to be remembered that an education officer has to ask whether certain prisoners or an individual prisoner can be escorted from one part of the prison to a classroom elsewhere. Usually there is nobody available to escort the prisoners. The teacher is left waiting in the classroom and
    346
    nobody comes. If any prisoners come to the classroom, usually it is for only half an hour or an hour instead of two hours. The lack of staff to escort prisoners to education classes has the further effect that other prisoners who might also wish to be educated are denied the opportunity.
    Miss Doyle told us about the sort of manipulation that takes place on the telephone whenever an escort is required. She referred to
    "manipulating whatever officer answers the other end of the telephone and saying 'Can you possibly bring this person to their classes because it is necessary?' That is between two people. Either that officer is going to say yes because she believes in what she is doing, or if she is in a bad mood she might say no and that is it."
    We were able to question only a small number of members of the prison service. Nevertheless, it was obvious that there are many things wrong in the service, and certainly in the education department. The common thread was a certain degree of confusion and some conflict. We did not see the drive and unity that we wanted to see. I am not condemning individuals. I am saying that the reasons for the confusion and conflict need to be considered with great care. Wastage must be eliminated and the resources, however inadequate, must be used in a proper manner. We were not able to give much consideration to the question of libraries, and I hope that at some stage it will be examined.
    I have already referred to the chief education officer, Mr. Baxendale. He told us that great efforts are being made to improve the facilities. As a result of our report, that effort has been increased. A regional conference has been set up to study our report. The staff are grappling with considerable problems and are having some success in overcoming them.
    Obviously, it would be incorrect and unfair to say that everything is wrong; it is not. The problem is that no ore seems to know the purpose of the education or indeed of the regime. We were unable to find any clear and unequivocal statement of policy. There are all sorts of papers from the Home Office, the prison service, policy statements, circulars, instructions, prison orders and rules, Government handbooks, and so on. they all say different things. It is an administrative jungle in which people have to work and in which they are trying to educate prisoners.
    Instead of dealing with administrative details, the Government—and by that I mean any Government—must sit down and sort out what they are doing with the vast amount of money that is spent. I understand that between £20,000 and £28,000 a year is spent on each prisoner. That is still insufficient and we are asking for a great deal more money, but we want it to be spent intelligently. In the most expensive public schools nothing like that amount is spent. Tremendous sums are spent on armaments, and a few more million pounds spent on the prison service would achieve a great deal.
    An attempt must be made to solve the problem of illiteracy among prisoners. It would be a considerable achievement if a prisoner could say, "I learned to read and write in prison". Even in that area, as I have illustrated there are serious problems and restrictions, but when education is given at higher levels, there is the problem of prison officer resentment. In that respect the problems are appalling, and far more Members of Parliament and others, should visit the prisons and formulate their own opinions.
    Clear guidance, and hence legislation is necessary. We cannot justify a prison service which simply locks up offenders and lets them out later, having learned new

    347
    tricks of the trade and little else. That is what is happening. That is why I read out some of the facts of unemployment in prisons. The Home Office guidance is full of contradictions, as we showed in our report.
    I again stress the need for that central point — a prison regimes Act. The case for such legislation is watertight. Without a formal legal document setting out the purpose of the prison regime, we shall continue to see a prison service that is flustering, wasting resources and needing more resources without any clear idea about what it is doing or any unequivocal guidance to its staff about their duties and responsibilities.
    I am convinced, as was the Committee, that there are insufficient resources in the prison education service, but I am doubly convinced that confusion, distortion, conflict and lack of purpose in the Home Office and the prison service are wasting money that could be more widely used under a more acceptable regime. It is disgraceful that we pay highly qualified teachers and instructors to sit and wait for prisoners who may or may not arrive at their classes because of vagueness of policy, the bad mood of a prison officer or the half-baked concept that education is a second-rate soft option.
    I stress, so that my point is not construed in any other way, that prison officers have a serious task to perform. They do their best to carry out that task honourably and well. Of course there are exceptions, as there are exceptions in other jobs. The regime needs to be improved. A good regime will be better not only for education and prisoners but for the prison staff. I should like to think that prison staff did their job and got off home, without having to work long hours of overtime.
    In short, our main report was a carefully thought-out and detailed analysis to which the Government reacted by merely retrenching their messy and ill-conceived policies and administrative confusion. The motion to which I have put my name asks for a token reduction in expenditure which is being squandered through inefficiency and muddle-headedness. I urge hon. Members to support the motion. They will be supporting the Select Committee's report, which will assist prisoners and prison staff, help towards rehabilitation, as opposed to a punitive regime, and educate prisoners for the outside world against further crime.
    5.52 pm
    Mr. George Walden: I do not need to re-argue the case on the virtue of rehabilitation in prisons —that has been eloquently done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have noted that the reforming zeal in this matter is bipartisan, too.
    One may ask, in that case, why I am speaking on this issue. I do so for three main reasons. First, as a new member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, I have been impressed by the work done by my predecessors, and I wish to support the conclusions that they have recapitulated so well. Secondly, I have a naive, perhaps even mystical, belief in the value of education. Just as many, perhaps all, prisoners have some residual spark of humanity—even the hardest cases—many, or perhaps most, have a spark of ability that should be
    348
    brought out. I refer to practical and highly intellectual abilities. It is a truism to say—nevertheless, it is still worth saying—that a number of prisoners would not be where they are if that spark of ability had been captured earlier in their lives.
    There are some people who would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member or Hillsborough, but who might suffer from a slightly sentimental approach to this problem. We have not heard that approach in the debate so far. They are the types of people who encouraged the release of an American criminal a year or two ago on the ground that he had literary ability. He proceeded to murder for a second time. They are the sort of people who admire — I believe rather too much — a French writer, who was an unpleasant criminal. I do not like his writings, so perhaps I am prejudiced. There are people who are naive, idealistic and sentimental, but none of those descriptions can apply to the pragmatic work that has been done by the Select Committee. We have heard some of the details. The Committee has argued solidly its case for reform. That is not a passionate and sentimental plea for reform, but a well-researched and soundly based one.
    My third reason for participating in the debate is my constutuency interest. My constituency includes two prisons next door to each other. One of them is the most important therapeutic prison in the country. The prison next door is an open one. The first prison to which I referred is commonly called a psychiatric prison and contains some strange people who are difficult to manage. Obviously, there is a completely different type of prisoner in the open prison. I stress those differences to show—I know this from having spoken to people at those prisons — that education is equally important in both establishments. There is an enormous range of ability, or sometimes non-ability — there are many semi-literate people and many people taking A-levels. The first prison even contains prisoners who have applied for the Duke of Edinburgh award, and in one or two cases they have won gold awards. That point emphasises what can be done, given the right organisation and resources. I know the value of the work done and of attitudes. The proposed legislation is important.
    I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister that I do not underestimate the work on prison reform on which the Government have begun to embark. That work is sadly overdue and will be immensely expensive. New prisons are to be built—two of them on the borders of my constituency, so I shall be well-endowed with such establishments. Given the enormous and sensible expense on which the Government are embarking, it will be wise to pay attention to the Select Committee's recommendations about putting a little extra effort into what is a relatively small area, but one that will help to keep recidivists out of the prisons. There is also the obvious value on humanitarian grounds.
    I cannot claim for a moment to speak with the depth of knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but I reinforce the case for action at a time when there is a fear in my constituency about the effects of financial restraints. We must especially remember one practical problem—I make this point without political overtones —which the prison education service is soon to face. Inevitably, if teachers as a whole are awarded a reasonably high increase in pay compared with the increase in the

    349
    prison award, prison education will be restricted still further. That is a purely neutral statement, but should be borne in mind by all who are concerned with this matter.
    My plea is thus that the Government should recognise the importance of this apparently small area of activity and give it the significance that it deserves in their overall strategy on law and order, which I thoroughly endorse.
    6 pm
    Mr. Clement Freud: The motion to reduce by £1,000 the £342,548,000 allocated to the prison service is a procedural device but it has a certain relevance in that past and present members of the Select Committee seek not financial aid but a different approach to the prison service in general and education in prisons in particular.
    The strength of the Select Committee procedure is that it involves people of differing political persuasions being overtaken by the strength of the evidence so that they finish up agreeing in their recommendations. These reports, the first published under the previous distinguished Chairman, Mr. Christopher Price, show that people who had little in common politically were overwhelmed by the arguments, so that their recommendations were unanimous. The weakness of the Select Committee procedure, however, lies in the fact that Governments take so little notice of Select Committee reports.
    A few years ago I visited Finland with a parliamentary delegation and saw the central prison in Helsinki — a flourishing organisation with metal workshops, carpentry shops, classrooms and a hospital. The kitchen was staffed entirely by prisoners. There were working parties outside and prisoners painted the building, parts because they needed painting and some to improve the appearance and atmosphere of the cells and other rooms.
    In that prison, the most important person was not the governor but the sales director, whose job it was to find a market for the prisoners' work. When I asked the governor how Finalnd had managed to get the running of prisons so right while Britain had got it so wrong, he suggested that it might be because most members of the Finnish Government had been in prison; most had served time as political prisoners during the winter war. The unlikely picture of the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, in a striped prison suit was no doubt on all our minds when we agreed that Finnish Ministers had experience in these matters that our Ministers did not have.
    On the publication of the Select Committee reports, one newspaper commented that the Government were long on sympathy but short on action, but it is clear that we must have exactly what the Select Committee recommended —a prison regimes Act so that prisoners know their rights, which at present are entirely at the discretion of the governor.
    It is important to bear in mind, however, that just as the Leader of the House of Commons is perhaps less important than the Whips and gets his way less often than they do, the prison governor's role is secondary to that of the prison officers, who have the real power and clout. Only when their situation is right will the overall problem be solved. I do not refer to their pay, which I believe is reasonable, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out, in 1981 every prison officer worked an average of 14 hours overtime per week and the figure is probably higher now.
    350
    Prison officers must recognise that prisoners want and are entitled to education but that they cannot obtain it without the good will of the prison officers. It is natural that some prison officers are jealous when prisoners are seen to receive a better education than their own children or next of kin.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of children or other relatives but that conditions in the service do not make it easy for prison officers themselves to improve their education?
    Mr. Freud: I entirely agree. No doubt the Minister wall refer later to the 45,000 inmates of our prisons, but the true figure should be 65,000 because the 20,000 prison officers actually spend more time in prison than the average prisoner. Once a prison officer is allocated to a prison he faces a life sentence which is not commutable. The average prisoner might serve eight, 10 or 12 years, but the prison officer spends his entire working life in that prison. Certainly, prison officers are jealous of the greater facilities available to those who have done wrong than to those who have done right — the prison officers themselves. That is why I believe that we must first achieve contentedness among prison officers and remove the reasons for their jealousy. If that means teaching 20,000 prison officers as well as making teaching available to 45,000 prisoners, so be it—it is a good cause.
    I do not believe that the Home Office has the slightest idea of what goes on in the prisons or what should go on in them. If I asked the Minister now whether people are sent to prison as punishment or for punishment I doubt whether he could give an answer. As he seems to have fallen asleep, it seems unlikely that he will even try.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am listening.
    Mr. Freud: That is the best news that I have heard for some time. In that case, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman so that he can answer my question. Are citizens sent to prison as punishment or for punishment?
    Mr. Hurd: I was simply making it clear that I was listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care. I shall seek to reply to his points later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that some people are sent to prison for different reasons but until there is a prison regime Act, prisoners will not know their rights and privileges. We must have statutory rules on these matters.
    In my view the Government are unkeen on prison education because they regard it as a waste of resources. Officers are needed to take prisoners to and from classes. The officers themselves are unkeen to do that because it is a bore. The real trouble is that educationists, prison officers and the Home Office are all working in different directions. Unlike colleges of further education, the workshops are staffed by Home Office employees while the teachers are employed by the local education authority; they have different rates of pay, different working weeks and even different pension arrangements. What we know is how little concern there is on the part of the Government. Although I am tempted, I shall not quote too

    351
    much from the three reports before us. But they are valuable reading because they show the Committee's most careful concern for prisoners and their plight.
    The evidence to the Select Committee came from all branches of those interested in prisons, prisoners and prison reform. I am not very sold on the average political persuasion of the Prison Officers Association, but I shall quote one member of the association, Mr. Evans. This is the only quotation that I shall use. He said:
    "I think it has to be said, Mr. Chairman, that if Parliament got it right in education then it would be the first thing that they have had right on the penal system for a very long time."
    I believe that one of the problems is that the prison officers feel that they have been let down by the Home Office; let down in that they have been shown no direction in which to go. There is too little lead from the Home Secretary; too much is left to the discretion of the prison governor and he is to some extent at the mercy of the prison officers.
    There are many prisons with prison farms. They are farmed and food is produced, but that food is not allowed to be sold because the unions will not allow it. Here I blame not the Home Office but the unions, for not being understanding. I am sorry that prison officers, the vast majority of whom have the well-being of prisoners at heart, have not tried to persuade their union colleagues at the TUC to be more sympathetic in allowing prisoners to work, as they do in Finland. Where that is done it occurs at no great detriment to the employment situation but with enormous elevation of the dignity of man.
    I understand that it is time-consuming and organisationally difficult to teach prisoners. But it is astonishing that all sorts of people are allowed to visit prisoners, to preach to prisoners, to entertain prisoners, including celebrities. I was asked several times, before I came to Parliament, to visit Wormwood Scrubs and other prisons, at the behest of the late Lord Stonham, just to talk to prisoners there.
    Why cannot educationists do the same and why must we have a procedural difficulty in making prison officers take prisoners in and out of cells? In olden days the prison chaplains had their own prison warder who had keys so that they could go where they liked. In this day and age, it would not be difficult to have a prison teacher with a key, who could move within the confines of the prison to teach those prisoners who were keen to learn. There are many of those.
    I want the Minister to examine particularly the plans of the new prisons that are being built, to see whether he can arrange facilities to make it easier for prison education to be effected. There should be fewer keys, more access and greater dignity, and no need to involve more than perhaps one supervisory prison officer in the gambit of being taught.
    Our hope for the best sort al education in prisons is, as ever, to present a wide range of educational facilities. I am not sold on any particular examination. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough has said, let us begin with teaching those prisoners who cannot read or write to become literate, but let it range upward to encompass the Open University, via all the other educational hurdles.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nation's prisons need a proper assessment of the educational needs of prisoners as they go into prison so that they may be provided with the form of education that
    352
    is most apposite? They could start on the ladder with a literacy scheme. Others may be interested in vocational education, or the Open University. In that way, each prisoner can proceed according to his needs, possibilities and aspirations.
    Mr. Freud: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be very helpful to do so. It is something that the probation service might well be able to do. Probation officers are very experienced and educationally enlightened people. They could recommend the type of educational progress of prisoners to be borne in mind by the Home Office when it allocates people to prison.
    To revert to the Open University, I am saddened, with all the good work that the Open University is doing, that its budget is being cut by 5 per cent. in real terms, even while the number of its customers has risen by 10 per cent. Of course, it will be impossible for the Open University to take prisoners, who are per capita more expensive clients for it, by virtue of being costly to visit; moreover, the university lecturers have to conform to the hours of the prison and not to their hours of availability.
    In closing, I say simply to the Minister that the Select Committee report is worthy of more attention than he has accorded it. I ask him to re-examine the dignity of prisoners and to see whether, in the course of this Parliament, he can lend his support to the recommendation for the introduction of a prison regimes Bill and the proposal that education should be part and parcel of the rights of each prisoner.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Tom Cox: This is a very important debate. The House rarely discusses our prisons. All hon. Members will accept that, sadly, there are very dangerous people in our society who need to be kept in prison.
    In a debate such as this we must emphasise once again to the Minister that many right hon. and hon. Members, and many people connected with penal establishments, believe that we have still far too many people in prison. The numbers are increasing year by year and there is major overcrowding in many prisons.
    Wandsworth prison is in my constituency. It was built more than 100 years ago. I sit as a member of board of Wormwood Scrubs prison, which is very similar to Wandsworth. It is also very old and overcrowded. It lacks many modern amenities and facilities. I have visited those prisons on my occasions over many years. There are similar establishments in many parts of the country.
    We know that prisons are designed to contain people. They are not supposed to be pleasant places, and they certainly are not. I believe that there should be three basics in all prisons. First and foremost, the food that is served to prisoners should be reasonable. There should be work opportunities as well as leisure, recreational and educational facilities.
    When I visit a prison and taste the food, I usually find that it is not too bad. The complaint is that between the time that it leaves the prison kitchen and when the inmates sit down to eat it, it is cold. Surely we can all understand that complaint. We would all be annoyed if we went to a restaurant, or even went home, and found that our meal was cold. We can do something about that, but a man in prison cannot. The sad fact is that that causes endless complaints within the prisons, not least from the prison officers who have to suffer the anger of the men who say,

    353
    "Why cannot the food that we are expected to eat be served in a pleasant condition?" There could be and should be a much greater improvement in the serving of food.
    The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke about the use of prison workshops. Both Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth have workshops. However, the Government have not done all that they could to develop prison industries. Those who become involved in the prison system understand the difficulties that many people do not appreciate. The prison governors and those who work in the prison workshops often say that the great problem is that men serving short sentences cannot be meaningfully employed. However, I believe that much greater use could be made of the workshops. It is no good the Minister saying that the Government are doing all that they can—they are not. Men are locked up for 22 hours a day, yet prison workshops are either closed or only partially used because there are not sufficient civilian instructors or work available. The Government could do a great deal about both those points. I speak not of the open, modern prisons, but of the vast majority of prisons that are old and overcrowded. The Government, especially the Home Office, must do a great deal more.
    The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) spoke of his experiences in Finland, and I endorse his comments. Many of us have travelled to various parts of the world to visit prisons to see how their systems operate. In many countries there are good, modern prison industries. If they can do it, so can we.
    We often hear people say that if prisoners were working and were paid reasonable wages, that would be a means to support the prisoner's family. That is a commendable aim, but there are many problems involved in seeking such a development. The real issue is ensuring that we make use of the workshops and that we get the men out of the cells and occupied. I am sure that the Minister reads the reports of the prison board visitors. He cannot be in any doubt that the visitors feel that there is a great lack of work facilities in our major prisons. The Government have no excuse for saying that they are not fully aware of the problems.
    The debate is primarily about education facilities, but when we have an opportunity to debate prisons other issues need to be aired. I warmly welcome the speeches of hon. Members who served on the Committee looking at the education facilities in prisons. I have met many educationists who do their utmost and have a great record of devotion, quite often despite the appalling lack of concern and help from the Home Office. They have proven themselves time and again in trying to develop education facilities.
    Despite some of the comments that I have heard this evening, I have found from my close contact with the Prison Officers Association that there is rarely any objection from prison officers to the development of education facilities. A good prison officer knows that if a prisoner is occupied in doing something of interest, rather than being locked away hour after hour in his cell, the prison officers will have to deal with fewer problems. Prison officers come in for a great deal of criticism. I can only tell the House that I meet prison officers who do not know who I am, yet I see them performing great acts of kindness for the men for whom they have responsibility. I hope that the Minister will endorse my comments. Prison officers perform a difficult task with a great deal of consideration, and credit should be given to them.
    354
    Many people in prison have great skills and abilities. They need the opportunity to further their education. Men and women in prison can take Open University courses. However, I am concerned with those in our prisons—the majority being men — who cannot read or write. They should be the priority in our education system. When talking to them and trying to build some confidence, I frequently hear them say, "I never learnt to read or write. When I tried to find a job I was asked to fill in a form. I had to make an excuse rather than say that I could not read or fill out a form." Teaching reading and writing should be a major priority.
    If a prisoner has certain abilities, he has a degree of confidence and can ask for certain services. He can say that he has O-levels or A-levels and that he wants to take an Open University course. If, in its annual report, a prison can say that a certain number of prisoners took Open University courses, that is to the prison's credit. I welcome that. However, I do not want what I call the elitist education system to develop in our prisons. It would not be right for those with ability automatically to get education facilities, and for prisoners who cannot read or write and lack confidence to have to struggle and rely on sympathetic governors or boards of visitors for those facilities. I hope that the Minister will consider that point further.
    The library service is important in prison education. I do not know whether the Committee visited prison libraries. I have visited some, but they were nothing to write home about. Often when a visitor says, "I do not think much of your library", the reply will be, "We do not have the facilities. The prison is crowded". I accept that problem, but a library should be part of a prison education service.
    All hon. Members know that a person interested in developing his knowledge and academic ability needs books. That must be taken into account. Many prisons will suffer enormous problems developing their library and education services as a result of the Government's rate-capping legislation. Local authorities often ensured that a library service was available—Hammersmith borough provided one at Wormwood Scrubs. However, there is little hope of a London borough doing that, not because it is unsympathetic but because it does not have the backup facilities. That will occur all over the country. It is one thing for the Minister to tell the House that the Government have a mandate for their rate-capping legislation, but it is another fully to appreciate its long-term effects on services such as the prison service.
    Many hon. Members are interested in the prison service, and I could talk about many issues. There are many things wrong with our prisons. The Minister has shown that he, too, realises that new problems are continually cropping up. Many men and women prisoners are mentally ill and should be treated elsewhere, but the prison service does not receive much Government help to move them to a more appropriate establishment for care. There is an increasing drugs problem. I wonder whether the Home Office fully understands the seriousness of it. If it does not, the problem will hit it soon.
    If we get our priorities right, we can help. Even under the previous Labour Governments there were money limitations, as there will always be. I accept that. It is regrettable, but it is a fact. However, if we get our priorities right, there is much that we can do. I should like to see more meaningful consultations with the Prison

    355
    Officers Association. The Minister may say that consultation takes place, but it does not in the talks with the present executive and general secretary of the association. They want meaningful consultations and want to work to overcome the problems. Sadly, they are not receiving much help from the Home Office, which is unwilling to participate. I hope that the Home Office will recognise the willingness of prison officers and their organisation to be involved in day-to-day issues and in improving prisons.
    Either we face up to the problems in prisons or we see greater violence and disruption in our prisons. No hon. Member would wish to see that. I have seen the effects of a prison riot and prisoners on prison roofs. It is frightening to see the anger of men who have had to resort to that because they could not vent their anger and frustration in any other way. The priority of the House and especially of the Home Office should be to assuage that anger by providing education and other facilities. All hon. Members will wish the Home Office well, but it must show hon. Members that it recognises the problems and wants to overcome them.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Alfred DubsI welcome the debate on this subject, which is of enormous importance to the prison system and the country. Over the past few years I have visited many prisons and other Home Office penal establishments. I remember visiting Wormwood Scrubs soon after the riots. My memory of an incident during that visit is as fresh as it was that day.
    Following the midday meal, I asked to see one of the cells that catered for more than one prisoner. The deputy governor showed me up to a cell. When he opened the door, I saw a bunk bed with a prisoner lying on each level, and a third prisoner lying on a separate bed on the other side of the cell. There was just enough space to walk between the beds. It was early afternoon and I asked whether they were going back to work or to education. They said, "No." I asked them whether they had been out that morning, and they said, "No." I asked them whether they had gone out the previous day, and they said, "No." I asked whether they had been out of their cells at all and they said that they went out for their one hour of exercise. They had been inside for about five months, and during that period they had spent 23 hours a day lying on their beds. They were young men in their mid-twenties and were lying there day after day in an atmosphere of abject despair, boredom and desperation.
    I believe that when those men are released they will be more of a threat to society than they would be if they had had the opportunity of work, training and education while in prison. The position may have improved since then. That incident took place some years ago. However, it struck me then that we had a serious problem to face. We know that that problem occurs in many other prisons. We have evidence from the Select Committee and other bodies that far too many prisoners do nothing while they are inside. I noted that the riots at Wormwood Scrubs took place following the closure of the education block, and it is believed that that was a contributory factor. I can well understand why.
    I have visited other prisons and left with a greater sense of optimism. I visited the borstal in Rochester—the
    356
    original borstal — for young men. It is no longer a borstal as the custodial arrangements have changed, but I trust that training continues. The young men there were doing City and Guilds courses, painting and decorating, carpentry and mechanics. There was a general sense of optimism about the place. The young men were confident and positive. Several with whom I discussed the education that they were receiving said that they were leaving borstal with better qualifications than when they went in. They would be able to do a better job and earn more money. They were positive about this.
    That was the other side of the coin from the rather depressing experience at Wormwood Scrubs. One can give examples of both sides. I am sure that many hon. Members could do so who have visited various establishments. I am not sure that a useful purpose would be served. I feel bound, however to mention Barlinnie, not that it comes under the Minister's responsibility, because I feel that the special unit there is of enormous interest to all of us who are interested in prisons. It gives hope by arranging an environment in which people can work, study and learn, even when that environment is unstructured as in Barlinnie. That poses greater challenges to the prisoners than a structured environment. The men can develop themselves, acquire skills and begin to adopt attitudes to society which I venture to suggest they would never have adopted had they remained in their old prisons in Peterhead or wherever they were before they went to Barlinnie. A great deal can be done and achieved for people in prison but, alas, too little is being achieved.
    Education in prison has three functions. The first is to relieve the boredom and monotony of day-to-day life in prison, and to widen the horizons of prisoners, especially those serving long sentences, who would otherwise feel as frustrated as the men in Wormwood Scrubs whom I described.
    Secondly, education in prison can provide something in prison that nothing else can—it can teach people how to make choices about their lives. People get into serious trouble and are sent to prison because they have handled their lives badly and have made the wrong choice, whatever other pressures there were on them. Society then puts them into a penal establishment where they are virtually unable to make any decisions about their lives. Everything is decided for them, except at Barlinnie as I said.
    It is difficult for me to understand how an environment in which men—it is usually men—can make no choices will help them to cope with society outside where they will again have to make good or bad choices, depending on whether they are going straight or getting into further trouble. Education has the supreme attraction in that it enables prisoners to make choices about an element of their lives while they are in custody.
    The third function of education in prison is to help prisoners prepare for the day that they are released. As many hon. Members have said, at one end of the scale that can mean teaching basic literacy, which will equip prisoners to cope with the outside world better than if they remained illiterate and—if there were any jobs outside —less able to obtain jobs on their discharge. At the other end of the scale, there are a number of highly intelligent and ingenious prisoners whose resourcefulness and abilities have hitherto been devoted to crime. If those

    357
    talents can be diverted into a more positive direction, it will be a gain for them and society. Alas, it does not always happen that way.
    I had a constituent on whose behalf I battled for a number of years. He wanted to take an Open University course, but because his first eligible date for parole was before the completion of the Open University course, he was prevented from starting. In the event, of course, he did not obtain parole. He was denied the chance to start his Open University course for reasons that seemed so absurd that I found them hard to believe until the letter I received from the Home Office confirmed that that was the practice in the prison department. I am pleased to say that the man has been released. He did not manage an Open University course, but he is out of prison and sends me occasional postcards to say that he is getting on all right.
    Some people within prison and penal establishments are committed to education. I am aware of the enthusiasm with which people at detention centres feel that their approach to education can benefit the young men who go there. That is right, but with the coming of the short, sharp shock sentences—three weeks in practice—I have heard one or two people connected with junior detention centres express regret that they did not have the young people in for long enough and therefore could not do enough for them. If they had them longer they could help them more. That is a slightly ridiculous argument because it implies that the purpose of a sentence is to educate people. Surely that is not the case, but I mention it because it was an example of enthusiasm which somewhat ran away with itself.
    It is clear from what hon. Members have said, and what the Select Committee report explained, that there are enormously wide variations in available education. There is an element of chance as to whether a prisoner has good opportunities for education or virtually none. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the information given in the Select Committee report about the number of workshops which were operating at half capacity. The question to which I have tried and failed to obtain the answer in the past is how many prisoners on a given day are working or being trained, and how many are doing nothing? The Home Office has so far been unable to provide that information. I suspect that it would be a serious indictment of what goes on in our prisons. It would reveal how little time is used purposefully and how much is spent in the cells doing nothing.
    When replying to the debate, and answering the accusations that there have been cuts in services, the Minister may say that expenditure has increased, but I do not believe that he can deny, whatever has happened to the money, that in real terms there have been cuts in services and that a lower standard of education is now provided in prison than a few years ago. That is why there have been so many pleas for expansion. The Select Committee, the May report, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and almost everyone who has considered education in prison makes a plea for expansion.
    Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the Select Committee recommendation that there should be a new prison regimes Act. That argument seems unanswerable, because unless there is a statutory basis for the matters about which we have been talking, to compel the prison department to provide adequate
    358
    minimum standards of education, and adequate opportunities for all prisoners in all establishments, I fear that nothing sensible will happen. Pious hopes and wishes are no substitute for a determination to provide the necessary type of education. That is why I believe legislation to provide minimum standards of education is necessary. I regret the Government's flabby response to the Select Committee report.
    In arguing for better educational opportunities in prison, we are not being soft on prisoners. We are in no way condoning the crimes that led prisoners to be in prison. We are saying that decent education can bring a number of benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned the Prison Officers Association. Prison officers have to cope with the consequences of many of the things that are wrong with our prisons. Being a prison officer is a difficult and unenviable task. The provision of better education would help prison officers in their day-to-day tasks. They would be dealing with fewer discontented, angry, frustrated and bored prisoners. Proper education in prison would benefit prisoners while they are in prison and, above all, when they leave; society would be protected. I would feel much safer in the knowledge that prisoners being discharged from prison had spent most of their time working, learning and training rather than lying in cells doing nothing. If I know that prisoners are discharged having served long sentences during which they have done virtually nothing, I am worried that their anger and frustration will probably be directed against society, thus endangering all of us. I regard a commitment to education in prisons as being helpful to society. It would make our streets and homes safer. I hope that the Government will listen to the pleas that have been made on both sides of the House saying that education in prison is so important that we cannot afford just to tinker at the edges and leave the main problem alone. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
    6.49 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)I agreed with almost all of the first part of what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said. It would be hard to better his explanation of the purposes of prison education and the ideals that should underlie it. I have found the debate fascinating. It is the first of its type that I have attended. It illustrates the importance of the subject and of the Select Committee system. It is the duty of a Select Committee to act as a stimulus to the Government and, when it thinks it necessary, to act as a goad. The two reports have served that purpose.
    Sensible Governments welcome stimulus and, although it is more painful, an occasional goading, provided that they are being goaded in the direction in which they think it is right to go. That is certainly true of prison education. The Select Committee is pressing us to devote greater resources to prison education and, generally, to devote more coherent attention to prison education. I welcome that. It is a direction in which we want to go. It is good in itself that the House, through its Select Committee and through today's debate, should show that interest.
    The prison department report of 1982 said:
    "The upsurge of interest in education services did much to raise the morale of education staff".
    I am sure that the Select Committee has had that effect in its visits, in its reports and in today's debate. I pay tribute to and compliment those who have taken the lead,

    359
    especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) whose great enthusiasm for the subject spans many years. Yesterday I read an Adjournment debate of 1980 in which he eloquently set out his enthusiasm. Today he gave us another eloquent and strongly felt speech. He was well seconded by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). There was idealism in their speeches, and it would be a bad day for the House if idealism became a term of criticism.
    The second report contains some harsh words about the Government's response to the first report that, to some extent, have been repeated today. I do not believe that those harsh words were justified, but it is not enough to say that. Any Minister who is confronted with such words in a report of the House should sit up sharply and reflect why they were used and what issue provoked them. There is no division between the Government and the Select Committee about the importance of prison education. We have a good story to tell about performance and I propose to tell it. Nor is there any division about the need for greater resources. At a time of great financial stringency we are acting on that agreement. The prison programme is one of the few major spending programmes that is increasing substantially in real terms and prison education is getting a reasonable share. There is no division about the need to increase the number of weeks in the education year in prisons and there is no division about most of the Select Committee's practical recommendations.
    The main division arises on the recommendation in the first report for a new prison regimes Act. That recommendation is repeated in the second report and was repeated again in most of the speeches made by members of the Select Committee and by the hon. Member for Battersea. Perhaps I should explain why the Government have reached a different conclusion before I explain what we are doing in tune with the Select Committee's report.
    I am sorry that, in its second report, the Select Committee interpreted the Government's response as dismissive. It was not intended to be so. Much thought has gone into the matter and we do not believe that circumstances that are so varied and changing as the present prison regime can helpfully be prescribed in substantive legislation. The needs of prisoners, staff and the service as a whole are constantly changing and vary widely. Detailed, substantive legislation might become radically out of date and in need of change.
    Hon. Members ask themselves from time to time whether legislation in general terms is worth its salt. Hon. Members might not agree, but one of the lessons that I have learnt in a relatively short time is that we have had quite a few Acts that lay down general obligations in general terms, the practical effects of which have not always matched the good intentions with which we set out. Expectations are raised by general phrases and then dashed because those phrases are not turned immediately into reality. That happens under Governments of both colours. We should reflect carefully and be somewhat chary before pursuing that route.
    We believe that the type of detailed provisions that the Select Committee has recommended should have a place in legislation but that that legislation should be in the form of the rules approved by Parliament under the Prison Act 1952 and in guidance issued by the Department to its establishments.
    Mr. FlanneryAm Ito understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the central theme that we have pushed in almost every speech today is not acceptable to the Government, as the Government's answer to the first report shows? Is he now saying that there is adequate legislation which, if worked out properly, would solve the problems of prison education? If that is what he is saying, will he explain why prison education is in such a mess and why the Government have not done something about it through existing legislation?
    Mr. Hurd: We believe that prison education requires and is now receiving a great effort in terms of resources and staff. I shall expound on that later. The Select Committee will always want us to do more. That is perfectly proper, but I wish to show that we are doing a great deal and that a great deal more can and will be done in our programmes under existing legislation. I was trying to explain why we do not believe why new primary legislation is necessary. Changes are needed in the present rules to modernise many of the points to which the Select Committee has drawn attention.
    Mr. GreenwayLike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), I am most disappointed by what my right hon. Friend has said. He seems to take refuge in prison rules and to say that they will be looked at and perhaps redrawn with a view to making the prison education system more modern and sensible. But why have not those rules been redrawn for more than 20 years, and why have we been hearing talk of redrawing them for at least five or six years when nothing has happened?
    Mr. HurdI accept that criticism. I believe that the rules should be redrawn, and they will be. However, I am afraid that I cannot say exactly when the House will be asked to approve new versions. I do not think that my hon. Friend would disagree that it is important that as much effort as possible should go into the resources that are increasingly being devoted to prison education. Nevertheless, I accept my hon. Friend's rebuke. However, the practical need is for a revision of the prison rules rather than primary legislation. In the light of their experience in other areas, hon. Members will know of the limited value of new primary legislation, which takes a great deal of time and requires a lot of effort and which may simply raise expectations that cannot quickly be satisfied.
    I should like to give a more detailed reply than that which we gave to the Select Committee's first report as to what is happening to our efforts in prison education. I shall deal with the money involved first, but I entirely accept the point made by many hon. Members that figures for expenditure are not in themselves the answer. In 1982–83, the budget for education, libraries and vocational training equipment was £10·5 million, in 1983–84 it was £12·1 million and in the current financial year it stands at £12·9 million. Those figures, however, are minima because they do not include several costs which fall outside the prison budget but which are, in effect, to do with prison education. They compare with £500,000 for all prison education in the mid-1960s. So it was £500,000 then and it is £12·9 million now.
    The cash figures that I have just given represent increases of 15·2 per cent. in 1983–84, and 6·6 per cent. in 1984–85—or, in other words, an increase of almost 23 per cent. in expenditure on prison education over those two years. That is considerably higher than the rate of

    361
    increase over the same years for prison service expenditure overall and is, of course, well ahead of, and indeed about double, the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Andrew F. BennettWill the right hon. Gentleman give us the figure per head, per prisoner?
    Mr. HurdI am not sure that I have that statistic to hand, but I can certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am talking about the rather rapid rise in real terms in the expenditure on prison education.
    The cash that I have just described has enabled the number of full-time and part-time teachers to be increased in 78 prison service establishments, split between 50 prisons and 28 young offender establishments. That increase amounts to 36 full-time teachers and at least 27,000 hours of part-time teaching.
    The improvement in the Home Office per capita payments to the local library authorities for their facilities in prison service establishments is reflected in a rise from £3·47 to £5·085. The Home Office has been able to open negotiations with the Open University for a modest increase in the number of establishments designated for Open University degree study.
    So far I have dealt with the cash involved and the total of manpower, but I should like now to discuss the use of that manpower. Prison education is a partnership that involves the Home Office, the local education and public library authorities and the principal trade unions concerned. With them are associated the Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and, increasingly nowadays, a range of other education institutions and public bodies with an interest in such work.
    In recognition of the importance of the subject and of its growth, the Home Office recently established with its main partners a national consultative committee for prisoners' and trainees' education services in order to improve their communication and co-operation with each other, and to harmonise their policies and practices. I can, I think, report that the consultative committee is developing well, and in line with that development it became possible early this year for the Home Office to improve the internal organisation of its education branch so that it can work more effectively.
    I shall comment briefly on some of the specifically educational recommendations in the Select Committee's first report as they relate to prisoners. I readily accept that those recommendations do much to chart the professional way ahead for prison education. We accepted the first two recommendations about follow-on education facilities in the community for prisoners when they come to the end of their sentences. The proposals carry forward policies that the Home Office was already working on, and a working party has now been set up to consider how they can be further developed. We likewise accepted the Committee's three recommendations dealing with professional issues in the staffing of the education services, the support that staff need on the job, their bases in colleges of further education or institutes of adult education, and the arrangements for their in-service training. Those, too, were welcome recommendations that pushed us further along a path upon which we had already set out.
    One particularly important recommendation of the Select Committee involved the need to eliminate the
    362
    38-week educational year. We accept that. Progress is steady, and in this financial year we are taking steps to raise it to 40 weeks. We shall endeavour to manage our resources so that it is possible to raise the educational year to at least 46 weeks over the next two financial years. As the House will know, education already functions throughout the year in detention centres, and the new youth custody centres are being geared to a 46-week educational year. I hope that the House welcomes that response to one of the Select Committee's most important recommendations.
    Concern for vocational training ran through many of today's speeches, and certainly through the Select Committee's first report. Again, we had no difficulty in accepting the recommendation that account should be taken of the experience of local education authority colleges in vocational training to broaden the scope of training in prisons. That, too, was something on which we were working. We like to seek advice over the widest possible area. The other two vocational training recommendations dealing with the unification of education, vocational training and construction industry training within individual prison managements, and the transfer, with safeguards, of vocational and construction industry training instructors to the employment of the LEAs, caused the Government a good deal of heart searching. Indeed, the House will have seen that from our response. After that heart searching, we decided to accept the first recommendation but not the second. The second recommendation led to acute differences of opinion among those concerned. It would be rather expensive, and it is not clear to us, at least at present, that it represents the best use of the money available.
    That brings me to the Committee's other recommendation, that construction industry training should be united with vocational training arrangements as an integral part of prison education departments. Our sympathies lie with that recommendation. It is being studied in the Home Office as part of our management review of the prison service, and it is also being looked at in its professional terms within the prison department's directorate of regimes and services by the professional management interests involved. I cannot commit the department today to a particular solution, but we agree that a sensible management device is needed in the headquarters of the prison service and in individual prison service establishments to enable the LEAs, vocational training, construction training and education services to work more closely together than they do at present.
    Several hon. Members have dealt with prison staff and that raises another point to which the Select Committee attached great importance. The Government were strongly in sympathy with what the Select Committee said about the education of prison service staff, especially prison officers. One recommendation that was made was that prison officers should take part as teachers in prison education programmes. There is a long tradition in the prison service, as hon. Members will know, of prison officers taking part as teachers in prisoners' and trainees' education programmes. I must admit that that tradition has been undermined in the past few years by the pressures on prison officers with which we are all familiar. It is the intention of the prison service, now that we are recruiting an increasing number of prison officers, that that tradition of former years should be resumed. I hope that the House will welcome that.

    363
    Thus, 11 vocational training instructors are following part-time courses leading to recognised certificates of education. Three more are doing the same leading to City and Guilds technical teachers' certificates. One is following a full-time course leading to a BEd degree, and one is following an Open University course. That is not the end of the tale. I could give other examples. In a number of establishments in Britain prison service staff have participated in recent years in local in-service training courses for part-time teachers run by the relevant LEAs.
    Several hon. Members have rightly dealt with the problem of illiteracy. Let me give the House some statistics so that hon. Members will be able to assess the situation from their own professional experience. They show the importance that we attach to that matter and the progress that we have in mind. Of 34,670 prisoners who were assessed for literacy in a recent academic year, 5·9 per cent. were found to have a reading age of eight years or less and 12·9 per cent. one of 10 years or less. The figures for youth custody centre trainees were 10,759, 5·4 per cent. and 17·5 per cent. respectively. For detention centre trainees, the figures were respectively 12,460, 5·6 per cent. and 21·4 per cent. Resources are available to help youth custody and detention centre trainees with reading ages of less than 10 years and, increasingly nowadays, trainees with reading ages of less than 12 years are being included with them.
    Resources for prisoners go to those with reading ages of eight years or less but increasingly now they are beginning to take in prisoners with reading ages below 10 years. The hon. Member for Hillsborough will probably agree that some of the best work in the education service is done with prisoners and trainees who have literacy and numeracy handicaps. The anecdote that he told us about that was particularly telling. The quality of the teaching and learning is usually high. However, we would all recognise from those figures that there is still a long way to go. A critical question has been asked about the situation in which staff increases are occurring while the overtime figures remain stubbornly high. I hope that in assessing that the House will keep in mind the immense increase in demand which has occurred. In the immediate post-war years in which the statistics start there was not substantial overcrowding in prisons. In addition, as the House knows, the number of dangerous prisoners serving long sentences for crimes of violence, including terrorism, has grown in recent years. Obviously that imposes a substantial extra demand. It means that there is a greater emphasis on security in the priorities of the prison service. Other facilities have improved alongside the improvement in education facilities. The demands on the prison service have hugely increased and that must be remembered when we consider the figures for staff and overtime. However, we are not in the least complacent about that. We are conscious of the need to use staff effectively and efficiently—hence the joint manpower review conducted by Home Office and Treasury officials and referred to in our reply to the first report. There will always be scope for improvement in the use of manpower.
    The work of that review helped the Government last year in their decision to increase the size of the prison service by some 5,550 staff in the four years to April 1988. Because of the allegations of waste, it is worth pointing
    364
    out that in the spring term of 1984 91 per cent. of all daytime education programmes and 87 per cent. of evening programmes throughout prison establishments were achieved. That is probably a rather higher figure than one would deduce from some of the things that have been said. The education centres at Leeds and Brixton, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred, are now in use. That at Leeds is in full-time use and that at Brixton in part-time use.
    The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), backed up by others, made an understandable criticism of the difficulties experienced in keeping prison workshops going at the level that he would wish. It is true that prison industries have suffered, like other activities including education, from pressures on accommodation and manpower. Of course, the industrial climate has made matters more difficult, as anyone who has dealt with the problems of prison industries in manufacturing, particularly in finding markets for products, will understand. However, we are doing everything that we can to put prison industries on to a firm basis and to increase the extent to which they already meet prison department needs.
    Mr. FreudWhen the Minister says that the education programmes have been achieved, does he accept that, without a prison regimes Act under which prisoners would have a right to attend such classes as take place, the fact that a class takes place without a sufficient number of prisoners is no criterion of achievement?
    Mr. HurdI am not sure that the hon. Gentleman can prove that. I was trying to answer the point that, because of muddles, staff shortages, and so on, many programmes that were published and subscribed to did not take place. The figure that I gave was not perfect, but it was reasonable and showed how matters stand at the moment. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's belief that a change in the statutory requirements would in practice create a great difference on the ground. The difficulties with which staff wrestle remain and the greatly increased resources that we are putting in would not be increased by statutory requirements.
    Reference has been made to libraries. The total book stock of libraries in all prison service establishments in 1982–83 was 711,000. On 31 March last year just over 24,000 prisoners and trainees — 56 per cent. of the custodial population—had books on loan. I note what has been said about inadequate facilities, but that figure shows fairly widespread lending.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough dealt with the question of classes which were cancelled because there were no escorts to take the prisoners to the classes. That certainly has been a problem. The additions to prison officer staff which we plan to make over the next few years and the efforts which we are making to improve the use of available manpower should ensure that prison officer escorts are regularly available to allow evening classes to take place. Escorts are crucial and we are determined that staff should be available. It is no secret that we want to have more staff available in normal hours, without overtime, because we believe that that would benefit all prison routines and regimes.
    Mr. FlanneryI am glad to hear that promise. However, at holiday times, prisoners are still in prison while their teachers are on holiday. What can be done to ensure that education continues during that time?
    Mr. HurdI will look into that matter in more detail. I said that there has been an increase in the number of weeks per year in which education is given. That covers part of the point, but the hon. Gentleman has raised one of the limitations with which we have to deal.
    I should remind the House of some of the facts of the building programme, because they are relevant if hon. Members are to understand the background against which prison education is being improved.
    Not all establishments are in poor condition, but the size of the population greatly exceeds the numbers that can be accommodated in what the House would regard as a respectable way. About 45,000 prisoners are being accommodated in a system that has a normal capacity of about 39,000. That is the main reason for the major new prison building programme. Fourteen new prisons are in the pipeline between now and 1991 and major extensions or refurbishments are planned or in progress at 90 establishments, including 23 of the 25 local prisons.
    By 1991, a total of 10,000 new places will have been created. One fifth of prison accommodation will be less than seven years old and over half will be less than 30 years old. We cannot have a meaningful debate on prison education without understanding how the building needs are being considered.
    We are aware that resources, the funds that they represent, buildings and staff are not enough without improved management information and we are beginning to introduce that. Computer technology is being introduced to help its development and better value for money is being sought for the 61 per cent. of the prisons Vote which is spent on staffing establishments. There will be greater delegation of authority and greater clarity about the lines of accountability so that staff with local responsibility for operational decisions are also accountable for making the best use of resources.
    I do not think that the Select Committee would disagree with my view that we must keep a sensible balance between progress in prison education and progress in other services within the regime. If we stress one too much at the expense of the others we could destroy the interlocking and balance of services which are essential to good regime management.
    I have tried to deal with the progress being made on money, staff, facilities and the diversity of educational arrangements to which we are committed. We intend to press ahead with that progress. I am delighted that the House has cross-examined us about it and I am sure that it will continue to do so. We are glad that the Select Committee has urged us forward and that its reports and this debate have alerted the House and the public to what is being done and what needs to be done. We are not in the least complacent about the gaps and inadequacies that remain, and I endorse what the hon. Member for Tooting said about prison service and the work of prison officers. They perform a notable service in sometimes difficult circumstances.
    It will take time and continued commitment, but I believe that we are developing a realistic and humanitarian regime of useful activity for prisoners during their sentences and preparing them for their return to the community. That is an essential part of our prison policy and, thus, an essential part of the general strategy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues have worked out for this area of our national life.
    366
    It is fair to say that, partly as a result of the efforts of the Select Committee, prison education has come of age. We intend that its manhood should be vigorous and flourishing.
    7.25 pm
    Mr. GreenwayWe have had a valuable and wide-ranging debate. I am glad that the Minister has been able to tell us of progress being made in many areas.
    I am sure that the Select Committee will continue to take a close interest in what is happening and how things develop and I am sure that it has not said its last word on a prison regimes Act. However, in view of the progress that the Minister has announced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The original Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

    Class VIII, Vote 5
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum not exceeding £95,152,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration; central administration including royal commissions, committees etc.; privatisation of hydraulics research station; the audit commission; payments in connection with licence fees; building construction and civil engineering research and environmental research and surveys. —[Mr. Waldegrave.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)As the five remaining Estimates are all referred to in the second report of the Select Committee on the Environment, a joint debate on them will be permitted. Mr. Speaker has selected the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi.).
    That Class VIII, Vote 5 be reduced by £2 million in respect of Subhead DI (Dog and game licences).
    The amendment may be moved formally, if desired, at 10 o'clock, when all Questions necessary to dispose of the Estimates have to be put.
    7.27 pm
    Sir Hugh Rossi: This is the first time that a Select Committee on the Environment report has been debated in the House since the new Select Committees were set up in 1979. The five Votes on the Order Paper encompass criticisms made by the Select Committee in respect of the Department of the Environment's main Estimates for 1984–85.
    In fairness to the Department, I should say at once that each criticism is made in respect of a sum that is small in the context of the overall expenditure proposed by the Department, although not necessarily small by the standards of the majority of taxpayers.
    However, each criticism raises a point of principle, which is why the House is being troubled with this matter.. The criticisms relate to parliamentary approval for expenditure being assumed by the Department rather than sought, to public money being wasted, to public money being spent in advance of need, or to administrative costs that seem excessive. In each case, the Committee thought it right that Parliament should exercise its control over public expenditure and bring these matters to the attention of the House.

    367
    The first Vote for consideration is Class VIII, Vote 5, relating to dog and game licences. The Department intends to pay £3·45 million to the Post Office for its services in collecting £750,000 in dog licence fees. That is a patent absurdity for which there cannot be any justification in revenue collection terms. Nor, apparently, is there any justification in licensing terms when it is learnt that about half the owners of dogs do not bother to take out licences and that no authority seems worried about that default or about taking steps to make sure that it is put right. Indeed, it is arguable that those breaking the law by not licensing their dogs are performing a public service by minimising the loss that occurs to the taxpayer each time a licence is issued.
    I approach the whole question of dog licensing with a sense of déjà vu. It is 10 years almost to the month since I proposed a new clause, to what became the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to the effect that the responsibility for the issue of dog licences should be transferred to local authorities, which should be allowed to charge fees within limits laid down by the Secretary of State but sufficient to fund and provide a proper dog warden service for the care and control of dogs.
    That new clause was tabled against a background in 1974 of public anxiety concerning toxicara canis, which causes blindness and liver damage, mainly to children, when worms penetrate the soles of the feet as a result of walking in areas where dogs have excreted; against a background of growing concern against rabies, which was then 200 miles from the Channel ports and approaching the coast of France by about 20 miles a year, and which I understand has now reached the Channel ports; against a background of vocal concern against packs of strays, in different parts of the United Kingdom attacking people; and against a background of the general disgust that was felt about the fouling of paths and parks, particularly in urban areas.
    The intensity of the problem varied from area to area, so the proposal was that local authorities should each have discretion whether to take advantage of the right to create a dog warden service and to pay for it through a licensing system. In the event, that new clause was not debated. Instead, the Government gave an undertaking, which I accepted, to set up a working party on dogs, and that was set up in the same year.
    That working party did not report until 1976. However, when it did report, it endorsed the dog warden concept, a service to be operated by local authorities and to be funded out of fees, with local authorities being able to charge dog owners. The working party found that there were 6 million dogs, of which 1 million were strays, which showed the size of the problem then.
    It also pointed out that the fees had remained unchanged since 1878, when they were fixed at 7s. 6d., today's equivalent of 37½p, which is the present cost of a dog licence. The working party recommended in 1976 that the fee should be increased to £5 to provide the necessary service to take care of and control dogs.
    Since 1976, no Government have done anything about the problem, save in Northern Ireland where, by coincidence, a dog licensing system of £5 was set up during the period when I was privileged to be Minister of State there. There were serious problems there because
    368
    packs of wild dogs were savaging sheep across the countryside and causing a great deal of expenditure in compensating farmers for the loss that they were suffering.
    Mr. Andrew F. BennettDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a security argument in Northern Ireland in that it would not have been desirable to have farmers going about shooting packs of dogs?
    Sir Hugh RossiThat was an element in the situation, but the main worry was the need to control packs of wild dogs which were causing so much damage to the economy, and it was necessary to fund a scheme by which the authorities could deal with that problem.
    Apart from what I have described, nothing was done. The problem came to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts, which, in its report to the House in 1982–83, strongly criticised what it called the
    "futile collection of small sums of money in respect of less than half the dog population".
    That was in July of last year, and a Treasury minute in response said that "due consideration" would be given to that comment of the PAC. When the matter came before my Committee a few weeks ago, we referred to that exchange. The replies that we received from officials of the Department of the Environment were not encouraging. The best reply received was that the matter "remains under scrutiny".
    We have a situation, therefore, in which a Committee of the House has criticised the futility of still collecting 37½p per dog, where the owner has condescended to take out a dog licence, with the Government having to pay the Post Office approaching £4 million to carry out that service.
    For that reason, the amendment standing in my name and in that of members of the Select Committee would reduce the Vote by £2 million. In other words, we would not pay the Post Office for the remainder of the year, thereby suspending the service of the issue of dog licences. There does not seem to be any licensing need for it, and, in any event, why should money be thrown away on what another Committee has called a futile exercise?
    If the Minister cannot, when he replies, say either that the dog licence will be abolished altogether or that a sensible system will be introduced along the lines recommended by the working party, I hope that the House will join me in removing £2 million from the Vote.
    Mr. Tony MarlowMy hon. Friend made the sensible suggestion that the control of dogs, as a reasonable level of licence fee, should be devolved to local authorities. Perhaps to save him problems later, he would agree that it would be wise for local authorities to have discretion to reduce the rate of fee for dogs owned by pensioners.
    Sir Hugh RossiI did not want to bore the House with all that I proposed in 1974. There was contained in my proposal then discretion for local authorities to grant exemptions in suitable cases, including not only the area to which my hon. Friend referred but, perhaps more important, guide dogs for the blind. I agree that certain exemptions would be necessary.
    Mr. Sydney ChapmanMy hon. Friend gave the staggering statistic that it costs five times more than the revenue received to collect the present dog licence fee. My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister

    369
    in Northern Ireland, but for some inexplicable reason he is no longer in office. How is the scheme working in Northern Ireland? Is the revenue well exceeding the cost of collection, and is it being used in the right way?
    Sir Hugh RossiI made inquiries, in anticipation of being asked that question, but was told that it was too early for meaningful figures to be given. Therefore, I cannot answer my hon. Friend, although at the appropriate time the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could be asked a parliamentary question.
    The British Board of Agrément comes under Class VIII, Vote 2, C6. Approval is assumed by the Department. The board has been operating without statutory cover since 1966. Throughout 18 years, successive Governments have intended that the board should move gradually and steadily to a self-financing basis, but that has never happened. A grant of £447,000 is required in the coming Estimates. We are told that the grant to the board in 1984–85 is expected to exceed expenditure in 1983–84 by almost 50 per cent.
    The evidence seems to be that the board is not moving steadily to a self-financing position although pious hopes have been expressed in answer to our questions that that position may be reached by 1988. Even that expectation is based upon an increase in the real growth of fees plus a 10 per cent. per annum growth in business. It can be argued that those two concepts are self-cancelling or self-contradictory. However, those are the bases of the estimates that have been put before the house for its consideration.
    The Committee makes two recommendations. First, the Department should produce a quicker and more certain path to viability for the board. Secondly, proper powers should be sought from Parliament to continue financial support beyond 1984–85. The Committee finds it unsatisfactory that such a board can operate without proper parliamentary authority and has done so since 1966 on a purely ad hoc basis.
    Sub-head C13 deals with the London zoo. Over three years £4·9 million has been paid to the zoo by means of Supplementary Estimates without any provision being made in the main Estimates. The three years of indecision were suppose to allow the zoo to produce a break-even plan. However, an additional £2 million is required this year and we are told that more will be required next year. No clear view seems to have emerged on whether the society, as a learned body engaged in research, should receive Government financial support on a proper basis. We do not want to see the zoo sink under the weight of its financial problems, but taxpayers' money must be protected. We recommend that the Department carries out a review before next year's Estimates are presented, and that the position of the Zoological Society of London should be reconsidered if a continuing grant is needed. If so, proper powers should be sought from Parliament, especially if future capital projects require financial support. These are matters of proper accounting and accountability to the House and it seems that they have evaded the Department.
    A criticism must be made of sub-head C9, which deals with grants to voluntary bodies. The Vote is rising from £300,000 to £1 million in one year. The Committee is supportive of the general intention that the Department of the Environment should give financial support to voluntary organisations that are undertaking work with which it is
    370
    concerned. However, it is wrong that such expenditure should be undertaken without specific parliamentary authority and without statutory authority.
    In making payments through the Vote in this way, we are being asked to grant a supply of money to Ministers for virtually undefined purposes. That is not acceptable. For many years the Department of Health and Social Security has provided moneys by way of aid to voluntary organisations under what are known as section 64 grants, for which there is proper statutory authority. We hope that the Department of the Environment will introduce proposals before next year's Estimates are produced.
    Class VII, Vote 1 is headed "Housing, England (Department of the Environment)." The Committee's examination revealed that under sub-head A 1(1) the Department has been paying subsidy money to local authorities in advance of need. Expenditure was £113 million in 1982–83 and £23 million in 1983–84. Local authorities over claimed subsidy because of an unexpected fall in interest rates. The subsidies are paid to local authorities in 10 tranches a year. The Committee feels that greater effort could have been made in adjusting the tranches to ensure that the overpayments were not made which now require an adjustment to be made in this year's Estimates.
    Class VIII, Vote 1 deals with "Local Environmental Services, etc., England". Oral evidence was that the Vote allowed too much provision for inflation. The witnesses subsequently corrected the figures. We welcome the Department's assurance that the Vote will be monitored more closely in future and that corrective action will be taken when needed.
    The royal palaces and royal parks are dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 4. The Committee found that administrative costs were excessive. Two new bodies have been established, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries. The Estimate showed that the administrative costs of the new bodies might not be under proper control and might be consuming too much of the resources that have been allocated. A glance at table 2 on page 52 will explain our cause for concern. Salaries have increased from £5·7 million in 1982–83, to £6·4 million in 1983–84, and to £11·78 million in 1984–85. General administrative expenditure has increased from £1.5 million in 1982–83 to £4·7 million in 1983–84 and to £5·1 million in 1984–85. When pressed, the witnesses in oral evidence told the Committee:
    "This table will not do and we are going to have to submit …a revised estimate."
    As a result, we have a new set of figures in the revised Estimates in table 2 at page 73. The Committee is concerned that completely inaccurate figures for the expenditure in 1982–83 and 1983–84 were given to Parliament when the Estimates were presented. If the Department does not know until close questioning takes place how much money has been spent under sub-heads in previous years, it becomes difficult to assess the need for provision in the current year.
    As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the sums that I have mentioned are relatively small when compared with the gross expenditure of the Department of the Environment. They should not be regarded in too exaggerated a way and we should not lose our sense of proportion. The Committee welcomed the dialogue that it had with Department officials and the explanatory

    371
    memoranda that they submitted to it, which greatly assisted in pinpointing the errors which were eventually discovered and which I am criticising now. There has been much co-operation, but the Department has been put on notice that a number of arrangements need to be reviewed before it presents next year's Estimates. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with it.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. Eric S. HefferI shall not follow too closely the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and certainly not what he said about dog licences. I noted that he said very little about game licences, which is a matter of some interest. However, I shall not participate in that debate as I know that other hon. Members will.
    We are discussing not only the second report from the Select Committee but the Estimates, and in particular Class VII, Vote 1, which is the one about which I shall speak. It concerns
    "expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services."
    In other words, we have the opportunity and the right to examine the Government's attitude to housing when they drew up the Estimates. It is important that we spend a little time on this.
    On page 51 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", in the section on housing, it says:
    "The Government's policy priorities for housing are:

    (i)to increase the level of home ownership;

    (ii)to encourage the repair and improvement of existing stock; and

    (iii)to concentrate public resources within the housing programme on capital provision for those in greatest housing need."

    I shall examine that last point first. Page 53 shows that the number of permanent new dwellings completed have gone down steadily, as has the money available for local authorities. Page 50 shows that the total general subsidies will be down from £945 million to £703 million. The total current expenditure is also down.
    We are told that total capital expenditure will be the same, but increased inflation means that, in real terms, there will be a reduction. It is this about which we are concerned, as it is a reduction in housing. The Government have to answer some important questions. Something that has been floating around for some time, which I know is greatly worrying the construction industry, is the question whether there will be a moratorium. I am constantly getting letters from various bodies that are worried about this and the effect that this will have on the construction industry. We are entitled to have some early replies on this matter.
    In its election manifesto for the last general election campaign, the Labour party made it clear that
    "Britain faces a major housing crisis."
    We put forward our policy on this. We also said:
    "The Tory recession has seriously damaged the construction industry…Nearly 400,000 construction workers are on the dole."
    While private sector housing has improved, public sector housing has gone from bad to worse. Now, in local authorities, people want homes but the waiting lists are getting longer and longer and more and more people are suffering as a result.
    372
    I am glad to see the Minister of Housing and Construction in his place. He recently went to my city of Liverpool, having been preceded by the Secretary of State. When the latter went round the city he said that he had never seen worse housing in all Europe. The Minister said that the position in Liverpool was the same as in other great cities. Let us take those two statements together, as they are not entirely contradictory, and assume that they are both correct. That means that the Government should be pumping more money into the construction industry. They should be helping local authorities on a much greater scale than they are, so that local authorities can build more homes, get more repairs done and achieve a better housing programme.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately, although he was not purporting to do so, either from what I said or from what my right hon. Friend said. I am sure that he would want to make that clear to the House.
    Mr. HefferI do not have the exact words in front of me, but I took the quotations from the Liverpool Echo. I am not saying that I got the exact words, but the idea of both those statements was there. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the housing problems of Liverpool and other great cities are extremely bad. That is causing immense hardship, many difficulties, much anxiety and worry, the break-up of homes, young people moving into overcrowded conditions with their parents and so on. In our debate on the Estimates, the Opposition are saying that the Government's policy of reduction is not acceptable and must be reversed.
    Volume 1 of the Government's Expenditure Plans, page 6, says:
    "The revised net provision of £2,500 million for 1984–85 is a reduction of £490 million compared with Cmnd. 8789."
    That is for the previous year. It continues:
    "The new level of gross capital provision is broadly the same in cash terms as that for 1983–84."
    That means that, because of inflation, there will be a reduction. It continues:
    "The net provision for 1985–86 and 1986–87 is £2,610 million and £2,680 million respectively. That for 1985–86 is a net reduction of £500 million compared with Cmnd. 8789".
    That is an important point in these Estimates that must be put on the record.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) dealt with the Housing Defects Bill. He pointed out that people who live in privately owned accommodation will get assistance to deal with the defects in that accommodation, but local authorities, which need such assistance, will not get any separate financial assistance and will have to pay for improvements out of HIP allocation. That is bound to affect the future provision of homes.
    We felt that we had to draw attention, in this very important debate on the Estimates, to the serious situation that exists in housing and construction. I say in all seriousness to the Government that, after just over one year in office, they must revise their whole attitude to the construction industry. If they fail to do so, the situation will go from bad to worse. We shall end up with very few apprentices, so that when there is an upturn we shall not have the skill that is required in the industry. I notice the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who

    373
    often disagrees with me, nodding his head in assent. We ask the Government to change their attitude to the construction and housing industries.
    8 pm
    Mr. Richard AlexanderI wish to speak to Class VIII, Vote V, subhead D1, dealing with dog licences. We all know the background to the dog licence scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) spelt it out yet again, but the problem is becoming a matter of folklore. Since 1878 the dog licence has cost 7s. 6d.—37½p since 1971. Only half the dog owners pay for licences.
    What is not so well known is the lack of responsibility within Government for the dog licence fees, collection and rates. In my innocence I tried to table a question on dog licence fee rates and I thought that the Home Office would have responsibility for it. I was told that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was responsible for dog licences and fees. I then tried to table a question to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I was told that I could not do it because it was a Revenue matter, and therefore a matter for the Treasury and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his annual Budget Statement. Information concerning the cost of collecting the dog licence fees can be found only in the Estimates before the House which, happily, we are at long last debating tonight.
    The Select Committee on the Environment has done the House a service by exposing the fact that the cost to the taxpayer of collecting dog licences is now this year £3·4 million. The question that the Select Committee had in its mind—and which I am sure all hon. Members wishing to speak on the subject have in their minds—is: why do we need dog licence fees? What is their purpose? Are they to raise revenue or are they to control the dog population? Or are they supposed to do both? The answers that the officials gave in reply to questions showed—I hope that I am not being unfair to them—that basically it was a question of raising revenue, although they rather unhappily describe the revenue as
    "regrettably now of a negative amount".
    I would have hoped that we have dog licences primarily to control the dog population, and that that should govern our thinking on the matter. There are too many instances in our constituencies of dogs fouling footpaths, playing fields and parks; of dogs causing enormous danger to traffic by roaming the streets. That danger is caused not only to traffic but to passengers who are properly going about their duties in vehicles which have suddenly to brake because of the natural instinct to avoid danger to an animal.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has properly drawn to the attention of the House the fact that rabies is now almost at the French coast. Many experts fear and believe that it is only a matter of time before it gets into Britain. I hope that they are wrong. Certainly, the proper control of dogs will lessen the possibility of rabies getting a hold. It will be easier to deal with stray dogs if they are licensed and if a sensible fee is paid for the privilege—and if a hefty fine is imposed if the owner fails to take out a licence.
    There should be a sensible fee for a dog licence. The fee should go to the bodies in the community most affected by the activities of dogs — in other words, local authorities, not the state, should be entitled to charge for and issue dog licences. There should be a fee of about £10
    374
    and a fine for those in default. If local authorities were able not only to collect the fee but to collect the fine where the fee is not paid it would be an encouragement to them and would also provide them with the funds to provide dog wardens and to keep their streets, playing fields and parks clean.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was properly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There would, of course, need to be proper exemptions, and I would not like anyone, in listening to or reading the debate, to think that the Tories or anybody else were proposing, willy-nilly, a flat rate fee for a licence, without any exemptions. Naturally, the people who need dogs—the blind, the handicapped and old-age pensioners —would be exempt. But I still believe that, even though people were exempt from the licence fees, they should nevertheless be obliged to take out a licence. Such a fee and such an arrangement would encourage those who do not really want to have a dog to dispose of it.
    In many cases, dog owners keep dogs in conditions falling not far short of cruelty, caged up and unwanted. Consequently, the dogs howl through the night, to the great annoyance of neighbours and residential neighbourhoods. Those are complaints that I get from areas in my constituency. If the keeping of a dog was a privilege for which people paid, only people who wanted a dog would take the trouble to have one, and those who did not care for the animals at all would dispose of them.
    In the answers to questions put at the Select Committee meeting we were told that the Government are considering what to do about dog licences. I hope that the debate will concentrate the minds of those in Government who are supposed to be thinking about them, because our evidence is that that thinking is singularly lacking in concentration so far. Witnesses knew of no papers that were being studied and of no work being done. The matter was said to be "under consideration". That seemed to the Committee to be a euphemism for saying that someone was sitting on his or her hands about the whole matter and would, until prodded, continue to do so. The debate highlights the scandal of this expensive inactivity. I hope that it will take a few bottoms off a few hands and produce action along the lines that I have suggested.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Michael HancockI am delighted that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has referred to the dog licence scandal. We are all only too well aware of the problem, having read the evidence given to the Select Committee. The evidence shows how stupid the whole system has become. If the purpose of a licence is to control the dog-owning population, the present licensing laws are inadequate. An increase in the licence fee would go far towards solving the problem. The RSPCA kennels in any constituency show that the most expensive clogs suffer from the cruelty about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. This week I visited an RSPCA kennel in my area. I was horrified to see the condition of two dogs—a sheepdog and a red setter, two of the most expensive dogs it is possible to buy. Both were less than two years old and had suffered especially badly from the actions of owners who did not give a damn about the conditions in which the dogs were kept.
    There must be an increase in the dog licence fee. The hon. Member for Newark suggested a figure of £10, but

    375
    I believe that £5 would be more appropriate. There should be exceptions for those categories of people who rely heavily on a dog—the blind who need a dog as an aid to sight and the elderly who depend on a dog as a companion. I hope that the Government, in looking seriously at this problem, will come up with a licence system providing protection not only for the rest of the public who do not own dogs but for dogs themselves. That is why some of the money raised from an increased dog licence fee must be put back into the community, offering improved facilities for those who have dogs and those who do not. That would enable people to enjoy our parks and open spaces without having the problems that are readily apparent in any municipal park or open area.
    It is a disgrace that we have allowed this system to continue for so long unamended, with no one prepared to do anything about the problem. We should do certain things immediately. Pet shops should be more strictly licensed. If a licence is to mean anything, someone must apply and pay for it in advance of buying the dog. It should be illegal for a pet shop to sell a dog without having obtained a licence. A pet shop should not be permitted to sell a dog to anyone under 16. There should be a national neutering and spaying campaign in co-operation with many of the animal societies, many of which wholeheartedly support that approach.
    It is interesting to note that an answer to one question revealed that it is estimated that there are 200,000 stray dogs. Some people felt that that was a conservative estimate and that the figure approached 1 million. It is horrifying to think that there is such a number of stray dogs or dogs that are not properly cared for. Anyone who genuinely cares about animal welfare should be worried about the way in which animals are turned on to the streets and left there.
    My city has tried desperately to come to grips with the problem. It is sad that Portsmouth was not quoted in the evidence. The Select Committee asked whether dogs ran in packs. Parks and many of the open spaces surrounding the city were repeatedly inundated with packs of dogs terrorising the community. The introduction of a dog warden was not an effective measure, but at least it went some way towards alleviating the problem. In its wisdom the council decided to spend about £20,000 on an experiment to do something about proper policing of the parks to ensure that dogs were looked after properly by their owners, and that dogs which did not have someone responsible for their welfare at the time of entering a park were collected by the dog warden.
    Mr. Chris SmithDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that such expenditure by Portsmouth, which is in danger of potential rate capping by the Government, would be regarded by the Government as profligate and wasteful and that the authority might incur penalties because of its sensible steps?
    Mr. HancockI agree with that statement, but we would be barking up the wrong tree if we did not believe that the Government would take this matter seriously. The problems of rate capping and dog licensing concern us all. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on not only Portsmouth but other local authorities that are threatened by the same procedure.
    376
    It is always a shame that dogs get a bad name when their owners walk away scot free, unabashed about the nuisance that has been caused. Those hon. Members who have received the report on dogs from the British Veterinary Association must be sympathetic to its point about licensing. I hope that the responsible Minister will take on board many of the association's points, which I genuinely believe go a long way towards allaying the fears of many hon. Members and the community generally.
    The experiment in Portsmouth will last for six months and will cost the local authority £20,000. Many measures before the council were in danger of being considered lavish or being done for the wrong reason. The plan to conduct an experiment was one of the few measures that was unopposed in the city council. It was a completely non-political idea. Everyone felt that it was a valiant attempt to do something about a difficult problem.
    I hope that the Government will come to grips with the problem of dog licensing. I hope also that the Government will not take steps for the reasons that were given to the Select Committee. The Select Committee asked why licence fees were collected — for revenue or as a licensing procedure. In answering the question, the officials fished around for what to say. In the end, reluctantly they said that the licence fee was collected to provide revenue. Having read the report of the proceedings, I feel that the officials would have liked to say that they hoped to do a service for the community which, sadly, the present licensing fee does not do.
    I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Newark, myself and other hon. Members. I draw his attention especially to the letter from the British Veterinary Association which spells out the issues and gives us an opportunity to introduce a realistic licence fee, with obvious exceptions to guard those who cannot afford the fee or need a dog for the reasons that I have established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take on board also the Government's ability to help local authorities to provide better facilities for the dog-owning population. It would be stupid of all of us if we did not recognise that far too many animals are not cared for. That is gross irresponsibility by owners who neglect animals.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about the problems of housing. It is difficult for me as a Member who has just been elected not to use this opportunity to speak about my constituency. Only yesterday the housing investment programme for Portsmouth was discussed. It is a laudable programme, offering hope and a chance for housing measures to be taken. It offers nowhere near enough, and that is always the case. The increasing housing waiting lists in Portsmouth are apparent for anyone to see, and it must be the same in every large city. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw a comparison between the problems in Liverpool and those elsewhere.
    The underlying threat running through the discussions in Portsmouth this year and last was the axe hanging over the housing investment programme and the risk that the Government would step in and cut expenditure at a time when local authorities are doing their utmost to support their communities.
    Perhaps the key function of a local authority is to provide a decent environment and decent homes for people to live in. Housing investment programmes try to deal with that. Regrettably, however, there is the threat of

    377
    expenditure being cut off. For owner-occupiers, the threat to improvement grants will mean ever-increasing delays and in some instances no hope of ever improving very old houses. A moratorium or a cut in the housing investment programme will leave those on long waiting lists equally without hope and paying very high rents to Rachman-style landlords.
    I urge all Conservative Members who have any influence with the Government to state clearly that housing investment programmes must be honoured. The Government should make it clear that they have no intention, this year or next, of cutting even further into an area of provision that has already been savaged beyond belief.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire)I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the highways and byways of his constituency but take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who opened for the Opposition on this matter.
    First, however, I believe that the House should express its gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for securing a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, on which I had the privilege to serve in the last Parliament. One of the most frustrating aspects of serving on that Committee was that the House never seemed to debate its reports.
    I wish to deal briefly with Class VIII Vote 5 relating to the Audit Commission, Class VII Vote 1 relating to improvements in investment and, if time permits, Class VIII Vote 1 on assistance for the construction industry.
    In March this year, the Audit Commission published a report on council housing and rent arrears which showed that local authorities were owed £250 million in short-term, medium-term and long-term rent arrears. I wish that the House could find time to debate that report, too, and draw attention to the authorities guilty of mismanaging their housing stock and failing to collect rental income which could be recycled to provide the improvements and new homes to which the hon. Member for Walton referred. Certainly I hope that the Select Committee will take that matter on board.
    The Government have every reason to be proud of their record on home improvements. The hon. Member for Walton failed to mention the Labour Government's record. In the first four years of the Conservative Administration, renovations exceeded 160,000 per year —30 per cent. more than the average in the last four years of the Labour Government. The 90 per cent. repairs grant introduced in the 1982 Budget proved almost too great a success and in 1983 renovations reached an all-time high of 380,000. As a result of that policy, significant progress has been made in reducing the number of dwellings lacking basic amenities such as hot water, bathrooms and inside sanitation. In 1981, there were 900,000 such properties. The hon. Member for Walton failed to inform the House that in 1976, when I believe that he was a Minister, the number of houses lacking those basic amenities was 1·5 million. There is, however, still room for improvement and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction here today, as he has done so much in travelling around the
    378
    country encouraging local authorities and building contractors to take up the initiatives introduced by the Government.
    Unfortunately, the problem of disrepair is worsening. More than 1 million homes are now in a serious state of disrepair compared with 860,000 in 1976. The English house condition survey of 1981 contains disturbing evidence suggesting that grants are not always directed to the people or properties most genuinely in need of them. That is why I believe that the Government's initiative in increasing improvement grants to 90 per cent. was in some ways counter-productive in that, sadly, some of the money seems to have fallen into the wrong hands. The survey states:
    "the worst stratum is increasingly the province of long-term residents with limited economic resources or opportunities…It seems likely that the rate of turnover of lower quality housing is decreasing and, if inducements fail in motivating existing residents, the result will be less action on the worst housing, whilst the better condition stock will continue to receive a disproportionately large share of expenditure in relation to its need".
    Morever, when grant-aided work is carried out, lack of proper supervision and, sadly, the prevalence of cowboy operators mean that the job done often does not represent the best possible value for money.
    All those problems must be tackled if we are to make serious inroads into the problem of housing decay. I trust that the Minister agrees that the first priority must be to reiterate the Government's commitment to tackle the problem and to back that commitment with an adequate, stable, continuous and regular flow of funds. Nothing is more costly and disruptive than the stop-go policies pursued by Governments in the past. Improvement policy requires long-term initiatives and a long-term commitment by the Government that the problem will remain a major priority.
    It is not necessarily the province of local councils to provide homes. I believe that the nation's housing problem can be solved through a partnership between the public sector and the private sector—between local authorities, building societies, building contractors, housing associations, trusts, and so on. Grants should be paid only against invoices and local authorities should be encouraged to operate lists of approved contractors so that householders may have some confidence in their choice of builder and some sanction against poor workmanship. The Government should also take action to concentrate expenditure on the people and properties most genuinely in need. That can be achieved only if the grant applications system is simplified and stripped of inordinate bureaucratic delay and complicated form-filling.
    Local authorities should be encouraged to make far greater use of the innovative techniques of improvement pioneered by some authorities — techniques such as enveloping, block grants, housing improvement zones and so on. Some of the most imaginative and successful schemes rely on a partnership beween local authorities, residents, private sector building contractors, and so on. That is the way to reverse the decay of our housing stock. Some of these schemes may be more costly to operate than one-off improvement schemes, but the gains in reliable workmanship and the renovation of whole areas of needy housing instead of the pepperpot approach of one-off improvement grants more than justify the additional cost.
    The problem of housing decay is daunting. The Government have taken the right step to stop the rot, but

    379
    far more needs to be done to garner existing funds identified in the Estimates so as to ensure that more properties are properly improved and thus halve the spiral of decay.
    8.29 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. BennettI begin by addressing a few remarks to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It is a little sad that he did not reflect on the difficulties faced by some council tenants when they get into rent arrears. No doubt he has the possibility of getting an overdraft from the bank when he wants it. He is probably able to overcome difficulties by using plastic money. He should remember, however, that many council tenants do not have the opportunity to borrow money. It is very tempting for them to get a week or two behind with their rent. Then, if they are faced with unemployment or some other problem, they get into difficulties that they cannot easily overcome. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that many people end up in debt in circumstances for which it would be hard for us to blame them.
    In the past 15 months many people have been told that they are in debt because of the administration of the new housing benefit system. It is very easy for housing authorities to say that they have processed applications in, say, three or four months and that applicants will receive financial help. They then say that applicants will not actually receive anything, because they are three months in arrears with their rent. We must consider those problems too.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the allocation of money for home improvements. I am especially concerned about the two local authorities covering my constituency—Tameside and Stockport. I know that many people are suffering because of the reduction in the amount of money available to those local authorities for home improvements. In Tameside especially, there are numerous examples of most of the house-owners in a street taking advantage of the improvement grants, but of one or two house-owners not doing so. Clearly, to make the investment by the community in the first phase of the grants beneficial, the remaining one or two houses in those streets should be improved as well.
    However, when those house-owners apply for an improvement grant, they find that they will receive less financial help and it may not be possible for them to proceed with the work. In many cases they will not be given money. That causes me considerable concern. In many cases we shall waste the effort that has been put into improving the houses, or even the first set of houses in a terrace, if we cannot complete the process.
    There are people in Stockport whose houses desperately need work done to them. Their owners are in considerable difficulty. I know one old lady who has been Informed by her insurance company that it can no longer consider insuring her roof because it is in such a bad state. She has been putting off her application for a grant for the past three years because she is frightened of the upset and upheaval to her house. She has been convinced that she must have some work done to get the roof put right and have work done to prevent the damp penetration into the
    380
    plaster in the lower rooms. She went to the council, but it said, "Sorry, there is not the money because the Government have cut back the amount available."
    I plead with the Government to examine the amount of money available in the housing investment programme that local authorities can use for home improvements. I ask them to consider particularly the amount of money that is available for Tameside and Stockport. I remind the Minister that he received a deputation only a few months ago from other hon. Members from the Stockport area, who passed upon him the problems of that area. Stockport's problems and those of Tameside are fairly typical of those of many local authorities in the north-west.
    I also note that the Estimates include reference to the amount of money available to the Nature Conservancy for it to spend on the countryside. We heard yesterday in the House of the discussions about Halvergate. The strategy that the Government set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not working because they are not prepared to put up the money to make the legislation work. Many of us argued when that legislation went through the House that the spirit of the legislation would not be followed unless the Government provided enough money. Some of us offered alternatives, which did not involve bribing farmers to do what they should do anyway. The Government said that that was unnecessary and, with a little encouragement and a small amount of money being made available, they could achieve the right ends. They have not achieved those ends. That has been clearly demonstrated in the past month by the position in Halvergate. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Estimates and to tell us how much money will be available for the rest of this year to ensure that we do not have another scandal such as that at Halvergate.
    My main emphasis is on the issue that was raised originally by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir. H. Rossi)—dog licences. That is a clear example of an administrative disgrace and of political cowardice. I hope that we shall give the Government sufficient encouragement in the debate to get on and do something about the problem now. I make a particular plea to Ministers. If the Government are approaching an election, it is tempting to do nothing about dog licences. I do not say that because I believe that anyone would turn his dogs on the Minister as he came up the path to knock on the door during canvassing, but because If the licence fee is increased just before an election people will not appreciate the impact of the new licence fee. They will not have had time to see the benefits that most hon. Members would argue should come from a proper dog warden service. If the Minister dealt with the problem now there might be resentment in the next month or two while the new licence and enforcement procedure were introduced. But I suggest that there would be two or more years afterwards in which people would see the benefits of a proper dog warden service. By the time the election came the dog licence would no longer be an issue. It is important for us to do something now.
    Britain is supposed to be a nation of dog lovers, but I suspect that we are really a nation of dog neglecters. It appalls me to see the problems created by uncaring dog owners. I realise that some people would argue that to put up the licence fee would penalise those who care and are concerned for their dogs, and would do little for those who neglect dogs and show little concern for them. I believe

    381
    that most people who care about their dogs would pay the licence fee willingly if they thought that it would reduce the great suffering that people inflict on dogs.
    It is most important to stop somebody acquiring a dog if he is likely to neglect it. Sadly, the largest group that acquire dogs and then neglect them is children. We all know the way in which the young become enthused with their new toys, which last for perhaps seven or eight days and then lie in a cupboard or a corner and are often neglected for long periods. The trouble is that a pet cannot be treated in that way. It must be cared for and its owner must show concern for it. The child must continue to be concerned for the dog after seven or eight days. The pet must go on attracting the care and attention of children for long periods.
    It is difficult for a parent to resist pressures from the children to take on ownership of a pet. It is easy, if a child wants to buy a pet from a pet shop, for a parent to say that the child must save up. If the child does not maintain his enthusiasm and ends up spending his money on something else, the pet is never bought. Too often, a dog is acquired from the boy or girl down the road because there is a set of puppies in a particular household and the child thinks that the puppies are very attractive. He is told that he can have one of them. The parent can really say nothing other than that the child can have the dog.
    It would be very helpful if parents could tell their children that dog ownership is expensive. First, one has to save up for the licence. Many people forget that it is quite expensive to keep a dog properly, especially in urban areas.
    We must convince youngsters to stop and think before taking on the ownership of a dog. They must also recognise that it is expensive to own a dog. If we make it a little more expensive by raising the licence fee, and ensure that that licence is obtained before someone takes on a dog, that may stop children and parents from being pressurised into ownership without first having worked out the full consequences both for themselves and their neighbours.
    People have highlighted the problem of dogs for the past 10 years, but the Government have offered no help. Time and time again those working in casualty departments have told me about the number of people suffering from dog bites with whom they must deal. The bites may not be serious, but they cause youngsters and adults considerable distress. It is necessary to give injections and other treatment, which all costs money.
    The disease carried by dog dirt has been often mentioned in the House. It is very unpleasant when a youngster comes into the house, having walked along a pavement, with dog excreta on his shoes. I vividly remember one of my constituents telling me that when he slid into the corner of the rugby pitch to make his try, he found that having put down the ball he had than to remove dog dirt from his hair. He was bitter that someone obviously regularly exercised his dog on the rugby pitch, with no thought for the consequences. As he said, the person probably used the rugby pitch because he did not want to exercise the dog in his garden because of the problems that might cause.
    Dogs cause road accidents. They run on to the road and drivers automatically brake, irrespective of the fact that another driver may run into their car or that the car may swerve to the side of the road, perhaps hurting someone other than the dog.
    382
    During the past eight years, I have been concerned about sheep worrying. Anyone seeing a field of sheep being worried by a dog or pack of dogs, and witnessing their agony as they run around and around, would be appalled. Not only the sheep are attacked, however. In many urban fringes the dogs attack cattle, ponies and other animals. For a number of years hon. Members asked a series of parliamentary questions about the number of animals killed or seriously injured by dogs. What did the Government do? They decided to help the problem by stopping collecting information. We now have no up-to-date information available. The evidence I have from the National Farmers Union and other groups is that the problem is as bad now as it was then. We must take action to reduce that problem, especially sheep worrying. We must control the number of stray dog packs that roam around the Countryside and urban fringes.
    I do not want to discuss the problem of rabies, but most people are frightened of the consequences for human beings. There could also be horrific consequences for wildlife if that disease crossed the Channel. Animals would suffer great misery and many would have to be destroyed.
    The Minister should consider the number of dogs that we destroy each day in this country. The last figure available to me was 200 a day. If the Minister lined up 200 dogs at St. Stephen's entrance and told people that that was the number being destroyed each day, there would be overwhelming pressure for action. No one wants to destroy that many dogs, yet it happens.
    We must increase the licence fee—certainly to £5, but possibly to £10. When the working party reported in 1976–77 it said that an increase to £5 would mean that it would not need to be raised again for many years. It is important that we get the fee right. Firm advice must be given to local authorities to spend the money from those fees on a warden service. It is important that the dogs are licensed as soon as they change ownership and that a tag is put on the collar so that the dog can be identified from some distance away as being licensed.
    There is the will both in the House and in the country for the Government to take on the difficult task, raise the licence fee and ensure that there is an effective dog warden service to reduce the many nuisances to which I have referred. We must also educate people to ensure that we are genuinely a nation of dog lovers and not a nation of dog neglecters.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at 9.25 pm. The debate must conclude at 10 pm. Therefore, we have about 40 minutes remaining with six hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. The arithmetic will be obvious.
    8.46 pm
    Mr. Tony MarlowI wish to say how pleased I am to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has been a leading campaigner in this area and has had many sensible things to say on the subject over a significant period. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has given the House an

    383
    opportunity to look again at the issues of dogs, dog control and dog licences. We are currently confronted with a nonsense—a licence that costs four times as much to raise as it raises, which is absolutely stupid, and the act of omission in obtaining a dog licence that is probably as great as, if not greater than, the act of commission.
    We must be wary of the siren voices that suggest that we should get rid of the dog licence altogether. We have a real and growing problem of dog control. It is not only a real and growing problem; it is well recognised, especially by the House. When we last had the opportunity to debate the subject there was a large majority of three and a half to one in favour of introducing sensible measures in that area. We also know that the National Farmers Union, for obvious reasons, is in favour of retaining the dog licence. It provides some system of tracing the marauding dogs that cause so much harm and damage to livestock. Some 10,000 farm animals are savaged each year, two thirds of which subsequently die.
    We have heard from the British Veterinary Association how it believes that the retention of the dog licence system would help to provide a proper legal framework and system for the control of dogs. We have heard that rabid dogs are growling at us from the other side of the Channel and we must beware very much in case some of them come across to join us. Although some may say that we should do away with the licence system, I think that that would be dangerous.
    As has been said in the debate, dogs are man's best friends. They bring a great deal of pleasure and comfort if cared for and looked after responsibly. But, sadly, the puppy bought at Christmas — that beautiful gorgeous puppy—for the child of the family soon becomes the unwanted stray, the latchkey dog that is allowed to roam the streets and cause problems for so many others. Many problems have been mentioned — for example, the unfortunate rugby player, the yapping dog in the house next door and the marauding packs.
    There are other problems. When I was canvassing in my constituency recently I met three elderly people who dared not come to their doors because people in the locality left their dogs out during the day when they went to work, and if they came to the door a great dog would bound up to them. They were terrified. We must devise a system to control such problems.
    I have suggested previously — I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about this when he replies — that as the problem is different in different parts of the country local people may wish to deal with the problem differently, and instead of a great central system, which would involve additional bureaucracy and tax, we should, within guidelines, let each local authority decide on its own system and dog licence fee. The money so raised should be spent on the control and welfare of dogs.
    Many hon. Members have spoken about cruelty to dogs, of dogs which have been loved and left, and about neglected and suffering dogs. If we had a system of dog wardens paid for by local authorities from money raised through the licence—not through Parliament, additional taxation, or through additional burdens on local authorities, which they cannot fund—we could control the dog nuisance and the owner who did not look after the dog, and we could provide advice, assistance and education to prevent much of the suffering.
    384
    Many dog lovers would gladly contribute to such a system. I have been involved in this subject for some time and I have received much correspondence from dog lovers. The overwhelming number of them have said, "Go ahead, Mr. Marlow. Push it. We would be happy to spend more on our licence if dogs were properly looked after and if there were a proper system for dogs."
    My hon. Friend has taken a sympathetic interest in the subject, and I regret what Opposition Members have said. He understands the subject well and would like to do something about it. He should be bold and brave, and grasp the bone. He will find that there is overwhelming support, especially from the dog loving public, to move in the direction suggested by many hon. Members.
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Chris SmithI am pleased that the Government made time for this debate on the Estimates of the Department of the Environment and on the Select Committee's report. The extremely important items of expenditure which come under the heading in the Estimates for the Department of the Environment too rarely succeed in getting an airing. Although I fully accept the importance of the issue concerning dog licences, recognise the valuable work done by dog wardens who are employed by the borough of Islington, and endorse the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I wish to deal with other items in the Estimates. They relate to the expenditure of the Housing Corporation in support of housing associations.
    The Select Committee report draws attention to that item of expenditure. Many important matters must be raised. As with local authorities, though less severely in the case of the Housing Corporation, the amount of investment which housing associations can make in new and renovated houses has been substantially reduced during the past four years. It is said that the cutback in housing investment, which has marked the Government's terms of office, has affected housing associations, albeit less, in the same way as local authorities.
    I shall make three points relating to the funding of housing associations and to the Estimates. First, the way in which the funding of housing association grant schemes operates, the year-to-year mechanism which is used for supplying the Housing Corporation with sufficient funds, and the way in which allocations are made to the corporation and to individual housing associations, are still based too much on an ad hoc year-by-year arrangement. The Committee examined those items and decided not to make a judgment on the matter until after the full review. Will the Government consider different ways of operating the housing grant funding mechanism?/
    It would be more sensible to operate the mechanism in the same sort of way that local authorities operate—that is, money is made available to the Housing Corporation, and through it to housing associations, which are then told to go and spend it according to their priorities and the strategic housing plans that local authorities draw up for their areas. That would be more sensible than the scheme-by-scheme operation. It involves too much double scrutiny by the Housing Corporation and the Department of the Environment, and enormous fluctuations in funding available to the Housing Corporation and to individual

    385
    associations on the year-by-year basis. I appeal to the Government carefully and thoroughly to consider the possibilities of changing the funding mechanism.
    Secondly, in evidence presented to the Select Committee, Department of the Environment officials demonstrated clearly—this is on pages 18 and 19 of the back notes to the report—that there was a surge in expenditure relating to the 1982–83 increase in approvals for new schemes through the Housing Corporation given at that time. The point which worried me when we interviewed the officials, and which still worries me, is that that surge in expenditure may not, because of the long-term nature of housing project expenditure, come through fully into Government cash spending until the next financial year.
    If a substantial amount of that surge in expenditure will arise in the 1985–86 financial year, we have the right to remind the Government of that fact, and ask them whether they intend to make provision for that when they come to consider the Estimates for the next financial year. In particular, will they ensure that sufficient funds are made available to the Housing Corporation so that new projects can be undertaken at least at existing levels when we come to the expectations for the next year and the amount of money that is made available to the Housing Corporation? Committed expenditure following through from this year or last into next year can carve an enormous slice from the Housing Corporation budget. I am especially interested in what is left for new schemes.
    If the Government were minded, as I sincerely hope that they are not, to introduce a moratorium later in the current financial year on capital spending and on the start of new construction work when the schemes reach tender stage, and if they were minded to impose that upon the housing association movement, they are building in yet more expectation for the next financial year, which may well cut still further into the amount of money available for new schemes. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Government, if not now at some time during the course of the next few months, that they intend the number of new schemes undertaken by the housing association movement to be at least the same next year as they are this year.
    The Select Committee dealt with the sum of £350,000, which appeared to have been allocated to cover sites that has been acquired by housing associations but had, subsequently, under Government instruction to be sold. That sum — small in comparison with the overall Estimates with which we are dealing but, nonetheless, a significant figure—had been incurred, apparently, as a loss on sites that had had to be sold. The Select Committee recommends that in future when such sales and disposals are contemplated more account should be taken of whether they are likely to incur a loss to the public purse. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation on board.
    In those three specific ways, I hope that over the course of the next few months the Government will study the expenditure of the Housing Corporation, the way in which the valuable work done by housing associations is funded, and the overall level of that funding. Just as with local authorities, it is inadequate at present and the number of desperately needed homes which could be provided and which are not being provided is scandalous. I hope that when the Government consider next year's Estimates they will also take that point on board.
    386
    Hope springs eternal. I somehow doubt whether the Government will be moved by such a plea but, nonetheless, I hope that they may just for once consider it, and the homeless and badly housed people who could be helped by such expenditure.
    9.1 pm
    Sir Michael ShawI shall speak on the subject of dog licences because I am one of the only two remaining members of the Public Accounts Committee that considered the matter in 1982. It is a good, if small, example of the way that Select Committees can work together. I support the general feelings that have been expressed by members of the Select Committee when considering the matter, but we were not considering the danger to animals in the countryside, to old people in urban areas and the messes in residential areas; we were considering the matter from the financial point of view.
    When considering the subject, we went back into history and discovered the long lineage of the tax on dogs and the fact that the present licence fee had been fixed long ago; that it was originally established to earn money for the nation; that that revenue had been put to local authority use; and, now, that it was costing the country money.
    Restricting ourselves to the value-for-money exercise, we questioned representatives from the Departments to try to find out the purpose of the licence. I am afraid that the answers left us far from satisfied with the present system. They said that it was a revenue exercise and then admitted that there was no revenue. When it was put to them that there would appear to be other reasons, they were coy about what those other reasons might be. We therefore decided that something ought to be done by the Government and we accordingly made a recommendation.
    We said:
    "The present arrangements serve no useful national purpose; and both DOE and the Treasury recognised their absurdity. From the taxpayer's standpoint, the obvious immediate action needed is to suspend the present arrangements temporarily until a policy decision becomes possible."
    It is not that we oppose control, as I believe that many of us privately believe that dogs need to be kept under control. There is a responsibility attached to keeping dogs. If the Government are not prepared to make up their mind and produce some realistic and self-financing system, they should in the meantime scrap the licence. At the end of our debate, I put a question to the Treasury representative. I told him that there was an expression, "Let sleeping dogs lie" and asked:
    "do I understand that the Treasury believe that £4 million a year is an unacceptable price to pay for that?"
    The reply was:
    "No, the Treasury does not regard the £4 million a year as an acceptable price to pay."
    If the Treasury does not accept it, why is it not putting pressure on Ministers to do something about it and to introduce a realistic policy that would save money and safeguard owners of dogs and people who suffer as a result of dogs not being kept under control? In this small way, the Committee of Public Accounts has assisted the work of the Select Committee. I hope that, in many wider respects, that assistance and co-operation will continue.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Peter HardyI shall try to be brief as we are having a wide-ranging debate and I am especially interested in dog licences and game licences. I believe that

    387
    the Minister will appreciate a brief reference to the Nature Conservancy Council and the need to accord a much higher priority to it than the proposed expenditure of £15·5 million, which is not enough to serve the essential purposes of British conservation. As we are to debate a private Member's Bill of enormous relevance on Friday, I trust that if the Minister cannot find the money he can at least guarantee the Government's good will.
    The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, uttered a call for boldness. I suggest that the Minister applies that boldness to the game licence. I am astonished that no Conservative Member, apart from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), referred to this matter. However, if the Minister obtained the figures from the Box he would ascertain that extravagance on the game licence greatly exceeds that on dogs.
    The licence is a feudal residue. It was introduced in 1831 as a means of changing the arrangements to prevent the masses from taking wild animals and game. Before that date, people could not take game unless they owned a certain amount of property. They had to be 40-shilling freeholders in the 14th century and £150 long leaseholders in the 17th century. However, in 1831, with the prospect of greater prosperity and more people qualifying, it was decided to scrap the property qualification and to introduce a licence or, as it was originally called, a certificate, the fee for which was pitched well above the purchasing power of most people.
    The system of game licensing has virtually fallen into disuse. Many people probably do not know that it exists and many others conveniently forget about it. Given the enormous change in recent years in the Conservative party, I doubt whether many Conservative Members have ever even thought about it. Indeed, that reference to change is very relevant, because earlier this week a Conservative Member referred to grouse as a migratory species. It is astonishing that Conservative Members do not understand the wildlife that they have for generations slaughtered. These days people have to come to Opposition Members for information on wildlife. Only my hon. Friends seem to be aware of the appalling brick that was dropped on that occasion.
    The approach to game, shooting and field sports needs to be changed and should concentrate on conservation and competence instead of an individual's capacity to pay. I could go on at great length on that point, and I trust that the Minister would allow me to do so, since his hon. Friends failed to refer to the game licence. However, as hon. Members have said, that licence is perhaps even more absurd than the dog licence. The Minister will have to consider the advice that he has been given on dog licences, because the situation is plainly absurd. In doing so, I hope that he will recognise the valuable point made by a Mr. Read in a debate in the House in 1867. I believe that the fee was then fixed at five shillings. He urged that dog licences should be taken out before the dog is six months old.
    I make that point, because I believe that the greatest problem is impulse buying. I used to breed show dogs, and that is probably why I am speaking now. A long time ago, before I became completely involved in politics, I was
    388
    much involved in dog fancying. Many dog fanciers recognise that too many people obtain puppies on a whim, and that it is they who tend to cause the trouble.
    Responsible dog owners—and that usually includes all those involved in breeding and showing, who are unlikely to let their valuable animals run about and cause a nuisance—should not have to pay a very large fee for every dog that they own or hold. Those who do not cause a problem should not have to foot the bill for the problems that irresponsibility causes. The Minister should be wary of accepting the advice of some of his hon. Friends, who seemed to be so anxious to follow every prevailing fashion as to deter people from owning dogs.
    Many of us accept that the present fee is absurd and that changes in the regulations are necessary; but we must not create a situation in which poor people or lonely elderly people are denied the companionship and affection of a dog. We must try to ensure that we encourage responsibility rather that deter dog ownership. I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind. Clearly we need to ensure that those responsible for the problems are not given any encouragement.
    People may have been evading the licence fee for years. There was considerable concern about dog licence evasion in the early part of the 19th century following Pitt's introduction of the licence in the late 18th century. However, we would not want to raise the licence fee to the real level found in William Pitt's or Gladstone's day and then find that people are prevented from owning dogs as a result.
    I think that I have addressed the House for long enough, but I trust that the Minister will accept the advice that he has been given. I hope that he is bold, but he also needs to be intelligent.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Ivan LawrenceI rise to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that Class VIII Vote 1 does not include one penny for the fluoridation of the public water supply. I fear that the words telling us that the Vote covers grants to public bodies towards capital expenditure on water services or grants to local authorities for a number of local environmental services may cover just the evil that I have to spend so much of my time trying to fight. Surely in a free society the compulsory mass medication of the water supply, forcing people who do not want it, who do not need it, who cannot possibly benefit by it and who are opposed to it, to drink water polluted by this industrial effluent, is an evil.
    What on earth are a Conservative Government, committed to the freedom of the individual and the freedom of choice, doing permitting—nay, encouraging —the mass medication of our drinking water? Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that fluoridation is completely safe, which it never has been or ever could be in the face of massive evidence that it triggers cancer and other physical afflictions, it would still be an affront to a free society to force it on people. Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that it was wholly beneficial for teeth, which it has never been and never could be in the face of evidence that it causes mottling and discoloration at quite low doses, it is still a cause for shame that those who have no wish to be mass medicated have to be subjected to it. Those who want fluoridation could easily buy fluoridated toothpaste in the shops.

    389
    This is not the time to go into the manifest reasons why fluoridation is undesirable and unacceptable, but my hon. Friend ought to be reminded of three points about fluoridation. First, it is unlawful. It has been found to be so by the Court of Session in Scotland. The water authorities in England and Wales fluoridate only because the Government indemnify them against successful legal action. There is a move afoot to change the law and that move could bring the Government into discredit with a large number of people who support them throughout the country.
    Secondly, fluoridation is undemocratic and intensely contrary to people's wishes. Unelected water authorities and unelected regional health authorities substitute, with flagrant contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, their views about what is best for them in place of the views of elected authorities. All over the country, district, county and parish councils have overwhelmingly voted against fluoridation, yet the water authorities have gone on doing it. Only this week I have received letters of support from the metropolitan borough of Calderdale and the Taunton Deane borough council, both of which are organisations to which the people are democratically elected, and they resent the fact that the Government have given to unelected authorities the right to decide whether there shall be fluoridated water.
    The Government must take on board their responsibility in this matter. They cannot just shrug off that responsibility with the explanation that they are making fluoridation available and that it is up to local authorities to decide. What are the local authorities? Local authorities to everyone are the democratically elected local authorities, not the water authorities and not the regional health authorities, which are not democratically elected and which flout the views of the democratically elected authorities.
    There are already 93 signatories to early-day motion 20 opposed to fluoridation and even as I speak I am hopeful that there may be 94. My hon. Friend must know also that a large number of Ministers are privately opposed to it. I warn him that any attempt to introduce a Bill to make fluoridation lawful will not slip through the House without obstruction in the middle of the night. It will be opposed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will seek to divide the House at whatever hour the vote is called.
    Thirdly, I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that hitherto what has moved Governments to support fluoridation is the belief that the respectable responsible medical authorities in Britain are wholeheartedly behind it. That is no longer so. Day by day, fluoridation is being opposed by responsible medical bodies throughout the world and by responsible medical practitioners. The message is getting across that it is unethical to prescribe medicines for people one does not know and about whose needs one has no idea.
    The message is getting across that in the fluoridated United States there are not fewer dentists but more. The argument that as there has been a reduction in the dental decay of children's teeth in places such as Birmingham since fluoridation, that must have been caused by fluoridation is false, unscientific and contrary to much of the evidence. If it were true, it would be difficult to explain why similar reductions in dental caries are taking place in areas such as the Isle of Wight, which is not fluoridated, and in fluoride-free Bristol, where 62 per cent. Of
    390
    five-year-olds had no tooth decay in 1983, while fewer than 58 per cent. of children in Gwynedd, which is fluoridated, were free from dental decay.
    The message is getting across that to talk of an optimum level of 1 part per million as being safe in drinking water is to ignore the fact that there is fluoride in the air we breathe, in the processed food we eat and in the tea we drink. The cumulative increase of fluoride over the years is probably having strong adverse effects on people, particularly the elderly. In addition, we still do not know what causes rheumatism and other illnesses.
    One leading medical authority who has changed his mind about fluoridation is Mr. John Colquhoun, who was, until his recent retirement, the principal dental officer of Auckland in New Zealand. He worked in the health department for 35 years and is the president of the New Zealand Society of Dentistry for Children. In 1980, he was chosen to carry out a worldwide research study on fluoridation and he produced a paper saying that there is evidence that there is no dental benefit related to water fluoridation, but there is evidence of chronic fluoride intoxication.
    That is consistent with the findings of two or three law courts in America, of the commission in Quebec and of a number of medical authorities throughout the world. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to convey to the Government the fact that the sway that the medical profession once held over the House and the Government to force fluoridation down our throats is no longer adequate. That control must slip away. The rights of individual citizens, claiming their freedom in a free society to make their own choices, must be paramount. I want an assurance that not one penny of this Vote will be used for the fluoridation of the public water supply.
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Michael BrownIt is said that patience is a virtue and, having now been called to speak, I am delighted to recognise that that statement still holds good. I shall not follow the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), except to say that, as one of the signatories of his early-day motion, I agree with everything that he said.
    The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made a valid point when he said that we are in a mess over dog licences. The pressure being put on the Government by this debate and by the reports from the Select Committee on the Environment and the Committee of Public Accounts show that the House speaks with one voice in saying that we are in a ridiculous situation and that the Department of the Environment can no longer ignore the problem.
    Like the hon. Member for Wentworth, I have to declare an interest. I own two Cavalier King Charles spaniels.. I was delighted that the debate did not start till after 7 o'clock, because I normally rely on the business of the House allowing me to exercise and feed my dogs between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
    When I saw that the debate was taking place today, I wondered when my dog licences had expired. I regret to have to admit that I have broken the law. It was only after seeing that this debate was to take place that I went to the post office in the Central Lobby and paid my 75p—two dogs require two 37½p licences.
    Although I had been breaking the law—in common with many millions of fellow dog owners—I realised as I walked into the Post Office that I was doing the Treasury

    391
    a disservice, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said about dog owners saving the Treasury money by not having licences. It is ridiculous that the 37½p for a dog licence does not pay for processing the licence. We must resolve the present muddle in a way that does not penalise dog owners. Dogs provide companionship and friendship for many people.
    The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that feeding a dog these days is an expensive business. It costs me about £4·50 a week to feed my two King Charles spaniels. That is about £200 a year. If I add £30 to £40 for veterinary fees and innoculations, being obliged to pay an additional £5 for a licence would not be unreasonable.
    Because time is pressing, I shall not raise other matters to which I would have referred. I hope that the Minister accepts that dog lovers throughout the country expect action, as do those who have cause to worry about stray dogs.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Allen McKayI shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because I must not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I know of his interest in spaniels at first hand because we appeared on Yorkshire Television together, and he was seen walking up the path with a spaniel under his arm.
    I shall concentrate on the places where dogs are normally kept — in the home. We have had some important recent legislation affecting the home, including the Housing Defects Bill, and I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary in his place, because he has been concerned with that measure. There were some interesting exchanges in Committee on that Bill, but today I wish to concentrate on the cost to local authorities arising out of the buying and rejuvenation of defective property.
    I fear that the Government have not taken fully into account the vast financial effect that these activities will have on local authorities. If authorities are to be obliged to purchase defective houses and pay for their rejuvenation, they should receive 100 per cent. grant for that expenditure.
    In my constituency, which is a mining area, another problem will arise. Not only will the local authority have to buy back defective houses which were sold to people in the past, and perhaps pay for the rejuvenation of that property. There are a number of houses that used to belong to the National Coal Board and which were bought by former NCB tenants. Under the latest proposals, the authority, not having benefited from the capital receipts of that property, will nevertheless have to buy it back.
    Local authorities, especially those in my area, will move into financial difficulties. Many of them are already facing those difficulties because of the Government's policies. If the Housing Defects Bill is enacted in its present form, I hope that the Government will closely monitor its effect. I hope, too, that they will tell us of that effect. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local government organisations have warned the Government of the possible financial effects of the Bill. If they find that the local government organisations are right and if they come to that realisation before the Bill is
    392
    enacted, I hope that they will introduce amendments to ensure that local authorities are compensated in full for the consequences of it. It is essential that we look after local authorities, and as it stands the Bill will place an additional burden upon them. I hope that the Government will take that factor into consideration.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. John FraserThis has been a mixed debate. Some hon. Members have addressed themselves to the uncaring attitude of some towards dogs and the welfare of animals generally. I shall return to the theme that was adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) by taking up his remarks about the Government's uncaring attitude towards and neglect of human beings and placing them in the context of the housing Estimates.
    It is the Opposition's view that the moneys provided in the Estimates for housing purposes, whether for housing associations—a cut has been announced in the money to be made available to the Housing Corporation — for local authorities for their own building and renovation programmes or for owner-occupiers for repairs or the provision of new amenities, are grossly inadequate for the current year. There has been a cut of 60 per cent. in the moneys provided for housing benefit since the Government took office. The money that will be spent next year by the Government on housing subsidies and capital expenditure will be only 35 per cent. in real terms of housing expenditure for 1979–80. Those figures—I realise that sometimes figures are not absorbed —demonstrate a massive and growing housing crisis. That is why the Opposition are discontented with the moneys that the Government are providing this year.
    There remains great suspicion that during the current financial year the Government will impose a moratorium on local government capital expenditure on housing. There are a number of reasons for that suspicion. First, local authorities were urged last year not to underspend. That being so, they may have slightly exceeded last year's spending limits. That overspending could be carried forward into the current year. Secondly, there remains the massive pressure that was built up by the 90 per cent. repair and improvement grants. There are probably several hundred thousand applications in the pipeline. The pressure created by the payment of grants could lead to overspending in some local government areas, which in turn could lead to a moratorium and cuts.
    Thirdly, the imposition of VAT on house alterations could increase even further the commitments of local authorities which have agreed to give housing improvement grants. That in turn could put further pressure on the Government to introduce a moratorium.
    Lastly, it appears that the Government may have underestimated the amount of money coming in from capital receipts from the sale of council houses. A large part of the £700 million for the housing investment programme for the current year is financed by the sale of council houses. The Government were banking pretty heavily on local authority tenants getting mortgages from building societies, and every time a local authority tenant chooses to get a mortgage from his local authority instead of going to a building society, there is a cut in the housing investment programme. That could intensify the pressure for a moratorium to be announced during the year.

    393
    The moneys are inadequate because of the risks to which ordinary members of the public are exposed, including the further atrophying of the building industry which could take place if the Government announced a moratorium. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that the building industry is especially damaged by any Government's stop-start policies.
    Mr. HeddleIn view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about local authorities having granted mortgages for the sale of council houses, will he use this opportunity to appeal to local authorities to refinance their mortgage book by encouraging people who have mortgages with them to refinance through building societies at significantly lower rates of interest and thus release the money that has been locked in mortgages for more beneficial purposes?
    Mr. FraserI am in favour of anything that brings more money into new housing investment. I am sure that many local authorities would be only too happy to follow that course of action. However, one can understand the problem by examining the statistics of people buying council houses. The average age of people buying council houses is much higher than that of people buying private homes for owner-occupation. The average age is as high as 55, which means that building societies do not regard such people as being such a good risk as they would the average owner-occupier of 29 when they first buy. That is why the Government have got these things wrong.
    I have an illustration of why the money provided for housing is inadequate. It arose out of a television programme about housing problems in London which was shown last night. It also illustrates how wasteful in the long term is the failure to invest in housing. In London there are 2,178 families in bed-and-breakfast hotel accommodation. That is costing the public — either London ratepayers or London taxpayers, or both—about £10 million a year. Money is being lost because local authorities are accommodating three times more families than three years ago in such accommodation. There is also the problem of the long-term damage being done to the health of these people and their children, which is almost immeasurable.
    It is a scandal that the amount of money being provided for housing is such that over 2,000 families are living in accommodation that is described as "unfit for human habitation" and "prejudicial to health" and which involves people living in hotels with inadequate fire precautions. One of the people in the programme last night said that living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a homeless person was
    "worse than a prison sentence".
    At least prisoners know how long their sentence is, but many homeless people have no idea when they will get a decent home.
    This problem is exacerbated by the way in which some Conservative local authorities in London are misusing the national mobility scheme by pushing their homeless families into another part of London. It is interesting that many Conservative authorities have no people, or few people, living in hotel accommodation, because they are not allocating within their own authorities. They are simply pushing the homeless into areas such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark, which already have terrible housing problems.
    394
    Whichever test one applies to housing problems, the investment is inadequate. In the private sector. one third of a million houses lack amenities, and 500,000 have high repair costs of over £7,000. There must be more investment in that sector, or it will begin to fall apart. I suspect that much of it is beginning to fall apart already, as the pressure from the reduction in the provision of council accommodation to let continues because of inadequate housing investment programmes. More and more people on low incomes with inadequate resources to undertake owner-occupation are none the less being forced into the owner-occupied sector or are being forced to remain there because that part of the stock of privately owned housing will go the same way as the stock of privately rented accommodation which has been neglected because of too little investment.
    By that test, far too little money is being invested. At the same time, local authority construction figures are continuing to fall, quarter after quarter, as the recent press releases from the Department of the Environment show. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke of the housing association sector, and again expenditure on that is falling. Indeed, the most recent Department of the Environment press release shows a further substantial cut. In 1983–84 the net funds for investment for the housing association movement were £608 million. They fell in 1983–84, and they have fallen again this year to £617 million, which is a very substantial drop. But even within that reduced total of expenditure for housing associations, as the press release shows, the obsession with the right to buy, as opposed to the provision of money for housing accommodation to let, involves a further cut of £6 million in the housing investment programme for housing associations during the current year.
    As was said at the beginning of the debate, we censure the Government for the amount of money provided in the housing Estimates. We are staggering to a terrible housing crisis. The position gets worse year after year. In the long term, it will be a crisis not only for the homeless, for those on housing waiting lists, and for those who live in inadequate, damp and poorly repaired accommodation; it will be a crisis for the whole of society, and one that we shall regret. We make no apology for returning to the subject at every possible opportunity.
    9.41 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that it is a very good thing that we are having this debate at all, and that the House should be asserting its right to look at Supply in a proper way.
    I shall of course attempt to respond to the general points that have been made on housing, and will report all the others to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has been here throughout much of the debate. But most of my remarks will be addressed to the report of the Select Committee, because we are developing a system whereby Estimates are examined by Select Committees in considerable detail, after which we have a debate on the Floor of the House. It is an admirable system and it would be a pity to waste the opportunity to deal with the matter in that way.
    I can say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I shall make no reference

    395
    to fluoridation. However, I listened to his speech with close attention, and I have no doubt that it will be deployed on other occasions.
    I start with the vexed question of dog licensing, dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 5. There were a large number of speakers— led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) all took part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has been a major campaigner on the issue, as indeed has the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Perhaps the father of all campaigners on the issue has been my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I understand that he is responsible for the new regime that now exists in Northern Ireland.
    I entirely share the Select Committee's concern about the continuing and increasing cost to the Exchequer of dog licensing. I congratulate the Committee on bringing the matter to the attention of the House. As the report points out, the Committee of Public Accounts—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is a member — reported on the matter in the last Parliament, and the House is right to expect the Government to bring forward proposals. The fact that none has yet been advanced does not mean that the Government have not been seized of the importance of the matter. The unfortunate officials of my Department have had to be concerned with it. I imagine that there can for them be no more difficult task than having to stonewall while the Minister has not yet made up his mind, and to do so with courtesy under intense cross-examination. The officials did their job very well. It was not their fault that at that point Ministers had not come to conclusions.
    I have an opportunity now to mention to the House some of the conclusions that we have reached. The report of the Committee of Public Accounts, and the report now before us, focus on the financial absurdity that the costs of issuing licences are now substantially greater than the revenue they produce. But the Government are faced with the fact that correction of that absurdity cannot be separated from a decision on policy towards dog control in general.
    The Government recognise, as do many hon. Members —in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—that very great benefit derives from responsible dog ownership. Several hon. Members made that point. We must recognise the growing concern in the past decade or more about the genuinely serious problems caused by dogs that are not properly controlled and cared for. In 1974, the Labour Government set up a working party on dogs, which reported in 1976, recommending an increased licence fee to finance dog warden schemes. Successive Governments—it may have been the Chief Whips of successive Governments who do not always welcome this subject with the same enthusiasm as those of us who are concerned with this subject in other ways—did not manage to find the time to tackle these issues.
    The present Government are clear that something must now be done to change the present arrangements. The
    396
    difficulty has been to decide between the competing solutions. As the House will perhaps realise, although there has been unanimity about a good deal of the debate, I suspect that it will be shortlived when our proposals come forward, because this is a matter about which people feel strongly and in contradictory directions. There is a severe dog war raging in my constituency about whether to allow dogs into a particular garden.
    The Committee of Public Accounts recognised the complexity of the issues. It recommended that the present arrangements should be temporarily suspended until a substantive policy decision was possible. The Government replied that there was no provision for suspending licensing. Suspension would imply abolition and would require primary legislation. That would amount to a substantive policy decision rather than an interim measure.
    Sir Hugh RossiIt is intended some time this year to remove the halfpenny by regulation, but at the same time it is possible to reduce the fee to nil pence.
    Mr. WaldegraveI shall come to that point. Some people see the dog licence as an anachromism. Its original purpose was to raise revenue. It now raises negative revenue, which in some ways is a good principle for a tax but is not sensible in raising revenue. Other people feel equally strongly that abolition would signal a lessening of concern about the control and welfare of dogs. I am sure that that is wrong, but there is increasing worry about that aspect.
    Another option—perhaps the simplest—is to increase revenue by simply increasing the licence fee. That would not require primary legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has pointed out, we have the powers to vary the licence fee. We could increase it or we could decrease it to zero. Dog licensing can no longer be seen merely as a means of raising general revenue. The question of revenue is important, but consideration must be given to the need for dog control measures. The Government are not persuaded, therefore, that a uniform national approach to licensing is appropriate.
    The aim should be to take account of differing local circumstances while preserving the benefits of licensing. The Government believe that the best way forward lies in new legislation to replace the present national licensing system with a provision for local authorities to introduce their own licensing and registration arrangements, which they can tailor to local needs, the revenue raised being devoted to appropriate dog welfare and control activities.
    Mr. Andrew BowdenI apologise to the House for not having been present for the earlier part of the debate. I am most disturbed at what my hon. Friend said. I warn him that, if any such powers were brought into effect, the anti-dog local authorities throughout the country would be given draconian powers. We have seen the draconian powers that have been granted through Northern Ireland regulations. My hon. Friend will face massive opposition. The best thing to do would be to increase fines to a level that would really penalise irresponsible dog owners and not give local authorities the chance to crucify dogs if they do not like them.
    Mr. WaldegraveIf my hon. Friend had heard the earlier speeches, he would have heard good arguments set out against that case. He has demonstrated the reasons why

    397
    Governments have not come forward with proposals. It is not easy to achieve unanimity. No action on this matter will achieve unanimity. The Government therefore intend shortly to issue a consultation paper setting out the options and making detailed proposals for change on the basis I have described—a Green Paper with white edges. The issues are contentious, as has just been demonstrated. We are anxious that future arrangements should command as broad a measure of support as possible.
    Sir Hugh RossiMy hon. Friend refers to a further consultation paper. We had a working group paper in 1976 after a delay of two years. It is now 10 years since the whole operation began. Will he give an assurance that the consultation period will be short, because if next year's Estimates contain a similar provision for the Post Office he may find it more difficult to persuade the House to accept it?
    Mr. WaldegraveI fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I cannot guarantee that the legislation will be through by this time next year, but I guarantee that we shall have initiated action by then. We are anxious to bring the whole unhappy saga of the dog licence to a rational conclusion. I am sure that the House will be pleased that the Government have grasped the nettle and decided to do something about it and that we have resolved to settle an issue on which successive Administrations have felt unable to take action.
    I wish to deal briefly with two specific points mentioned in the report. First, the Government are considering what action may be needed to deal with the consequences of the demonetisation of the halfpenny, a decision that could not sensibly be taken until the wider question of what to do about the licensing arrangements had been settled. Secondly, the report mentions the arrangements in Northern Ireland where a £5 licence fee was introduced in 1983. We certainly wish to learn from that experience, although it may be too soon to learn very much.
    I well understand why the Select Committee wished to bring to the attention of the House the continuing cost to the Exchequer of the present dog licence arrangements. I also understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green put down his motion, but I hope that in the light of what I have said he will not wish to press it.
    Mr. MarlowIs my hon. Friend promising legislation?
    Mr. WaldegraveI have made it clear that we are proceeding by means of a consultation paper with the intention of introducing legislation based on the local option scheme that I have described.
    The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to game licences. I believe that there is a far better case for this licence, which is linked with the licence to deal in game and has a conservation aspect in attempting to control the taking of game and to prevent poaching. It is impossible to say exactly what it costs at present as the costs are linked with those of the dog licence, but revenue is about £200,000.
    On housing subsidy, the Select Committee was rightly concerned that local authorities had over-claimed in 1982–83. The criticisms made by the Select Committee have led to a further tightening of the system, which had already been improved by the Department, and this has
    398
    reduced the overspend. As the overspend is clawed back in subsequent years this is a matter of administration rather than of any waste of cash in the end.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a number of sensible points about housing association grant. He referred to costs relating to site disposals. The report deals with those which followed cuts in the programme in 1976, but it is well accepted that in circumstances of that kind costs must be properly covered. I do not have time to respond fully to all the hon. Gentleman's points, but they were well taken and I will ensure that they are pursued.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other hon. Members on both sides attacked the Government's record on housing, but their solution is not that favoured by the Government. Some of the worst housing conditions to be seen, certainly in my constituency, derive from the ill-considered boom in council house building in the 1960s. One of the tragedies that we face is the rapid deterioration of those properties. I understand and respect the point made by the hon. Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that money should go where it is most needed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was present for that part of the debate and reminded me that he was carrying out a review of the improvement grant system to ensure that the priorities were designed to put the money where it would do most good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire firmly reminded us, if there is any party political knockabout on this, our record in expansion and maintenance of that programme compared with that of the Labour Government is one of which my party can be proud.
    I have not been able to respond in detail to the whole range of general points on housing on this occasion, but there is nothing in the Government's record of which we need to be ashamed.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to defective housing and its relationship to HIP allocations. The cost derived from defective housing will need to be taken into account in HIP allocations.
    The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Wentworth mentioned the Nature Conservancy Council and its resources. The mounting claims on the NCC must be of concern to the Government, but we stand by the intention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to provide the resources for the working of that Act.
    I do not think that hon. Members referred to the local environmental services underspending, in Class VII, Vote 1. I am able to give an assurance, in commenting on the Select Committee report, that the Vote will be closely monitored so that early consideration can be given to the possibility of corrective action. That has already been welcomed in the Select Committee's report.
    With regard to the British Board of Agrément, I agree that we cannot go on indefinitely in this way. We have been trying to make it pay for almost 20 years. We shall make a final serious attempt to do so but if within the next two years we do not achieve a solution, it would be right to come back and have another look at the future of that organisation.
    With regard to voluntary bodies, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend, corning as he did from the Department of Health and Social Security,

    399
    has been very interested in the programme and has taken a grip on voluntary grants in the Department of the Environment. He has organised matters on a much more rational basis and has channelled support to national umbrella organisations rather than to the rag-bag of bits and pieces that was on the list before. Although it is difficult to find a definition that allows sufficient flexibility to meet the wide-ranging demands upon my Department, we shall search for a definition that will allow us to provide proper legislative cover. I hope that that will encourage hon. Members to believe that we take criticisms seriously in the Department.
    Hon. Members have made entirely justifiable remarks about the level of financial support to the Zoological Society of London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 December that the Government had agreed to provide further financial support to the Society for up to three years. We are also considering the possibility of making grants available for capital projects. We are now reviewing with the society its plans for the future. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review. If longer-term financial support were needed, I fully support the Committee's recommendation that the matter should be placed on a proper statutory footing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, referred to the Vote on the Royal Commission on Historic Buildings and Monuments for England expenditure on the royal palaces, and the unsatisfactory information that was provided. He was generous in saying that mistakes are made occasionally when huge sums are being dealt with. The position is much better than it appeared at the time. I am sorry that new information reached the Select Committee too late for its report.
    The job given to the new commission and to the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries is most important. The Committee rightly expressed concern. I hope that we can allay any fears about the control of spending. These new bodies cover important areas and we shall monitor their expenditure closely. We are grateful for the help of the Select Committee in highlighting an unsatisfactory position which may not have come to light so quickly without its help.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for what he said about the co-operation that he received from the Department. My Department is undertaking a wide range of improvements based partly on the well known MINIS system and partly on the financial management initiative to tighten and sharpen control of expenditure. The way in which the relationship between the officials and the Select Committee has developed has shown that that partnership can have great benefits to us and to the House. It shows how Select Committees can be used in the right way to the benefit of the taxpayer and hon. Members.
    I am grateful for the debate that we have had today, and recommend the motion to the House.
    Sir Hugh RossiBy leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment
    400
    and divide the House. However, I add the caveat that I hope that similar items will not appear in the following year's Estimates.
    It being Ten o'clock, the Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).
    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates, 1984–85, Class IX, Vote 8 and Class VIII, Vote 5.

    Class IX, Vote 8
    Resolved,
    That a further sum not exceeding £342,548,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Home Office on prisons (including central administrative staff) and associated stores in England and Wales, and the Parole Board.

    Class VIII, Vote 5
    Resolved,
    That a further sum not exceeding £95,152,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration; central administration including royal commissions, committees etc.; privatisation of hydraulics research station; the audit commission; payments in connection with licence fees; building construction and civil engineering research and environmental research and surveys.

    Class VII, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum not exceeding £1,087,420,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services.

    Class VIII, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £16,325,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on assistance to the construction industry, other water supply, conservation and sewerage, local authority and other environmental services including recreation.

    Class VIII, Vote 2
    Resolved,
    That a further sum not exceeding £73,696,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on other environmental services including grants in aid and international subscriptions, on grants in aid to the British Waterways Board and Development Commission, on bridgeworks and on developing Civil Defence water supply services.

    Class VIII, Vote 4
    Resolved,
    That a further sum not exceeding £59,956,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on royal palaces, etc., royal parks, etc., historic buildings, ancient monuments and certain public buildings, the
    402
    national heritage, on grants in aid, other grants and on payments to Inland Revenue covering assets accepted in lieu of tax, and on the administration of those activities.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day
  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      TRANSFER OF PERSONS CONNECTED WITH TERRORISM
      'No international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the British Isles, of persons who would otherwise be covered by the provisions of this Act, shall be made in connection with any such person concerning whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that he had acted on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'. —[Mr. Lawrence.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
      'Provided that no such direction shall be given in any case in which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the prisoner had been acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.
      No 2, in clause 2, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
      '(8) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act providing for the transfer of any person out of the United Kingdom unless he is satisfied that the prisoner had not been acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. Lawrence: The two amendments are consequential upon the new clause, which states:
      'No international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the British Isles, of persons who would otherwise be covered by the provisions of this Act, shall be made in connection with any such person concerning whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that he had acted on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.
      The amendments deal with the direction that must be made by the Secretary of State and the issue of a warrant under clause 2. The amendments take account of the new clause.
      I have no desire to divide the House, but, in return for that magnanimous concession, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will improve upon the rather feeble assurances that he and the Home Secretary have hitherto given on this matter. I say feeble not because I have any wish to impugn the intentions of my hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend, but because assurances so far given will be taken as feeble by foreign powers that have an interest in springing convicted terrorists from our prisons.
      Under the Bill as it stands, a convicted terrorist—convicted by a British court and sentenced by a British judge—may be transferred back to his native country, where he may be released to commit further acts of terrorism. If ever a convicted terrorist were to show his face in Britain and kill or maim for a second time, the people would not easily forgive the Government who had permitted that terrorist to be returned, nor would our allies in Europe, the United States or elsewhere. It would be disastrous.
      404
      I first raised this matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in August 1983. In his reply to me, he said:
      "I can, I hope reassure you that we are very much aware of the specific problem to which you refer.
      The Council of Europe convention allows transfer to take place only if the prisoner and both countries concerned consent and this proviso is likely to form a central part of any other repatriation agreement we negotiate.
      Thus we would retain an absolute discretion to refuse to transfer any prisoner."
      That absolute discretion obtains providing the prisoner consents. A terrorist who has been sentenced to life imprisonment will consent to return to his country of origin. Therefore, that reason for reassurance is not sufficiently substantial.
      My hon. Friend continued:
      "I have no doubt that Parliament will expect us to make very clear our policy on the exercise of this discretion. I do not want to anticipate any announcement we might make during the passage of this legislation. It was however a conclusion of the Inter-departmental working party which considered the subject in 1980 that the discretion to refuse would not normally be used except for compelling reasons of public policy.
      The then Minister of State Mr. Mayhew indicated in his reply that in circumstances relating to terrorism such compelling reasons for public policy might well exist."
      I cavil at the words "might well exist". The words "would exist" would have provided reassurance, but the words "might well exist" do not.
      When the matter was raised again in the other place and Lord Elton was asked for reassurance, he said:
      "Considerations of public policy might lead to a decision to refuse the transfer of any prisoner who had been convicted of particularly horrific crimes and who might be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy; for instance, in the case of a murderer, a particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug trafficker, or someone who had killed or maimed in the name of some political cause or committed other acts of a terrorist nature. Each case would be dealt with on its merits taking due account of all relevant factors, including the considerations I have mentioned."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 758.]
      Once again, the door is left open ever so slightly for a Home Secretary of the future to allow a terrorist offender to be repatriated.
      Again, when the matter came before the Second Reading Committee, my hon. Friend dealt with it. My hon. Friend said:
      "one assurance that will, I hope, bring comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is that almost inevitably public policy considerations would prevent a transfer in the sort of cases that he has suggested."
      They were terrorist offences.
      "for precisely those reasons the Secretary of State has sought the public policy grounds for withholding his consent that we have included in the Bill. Each case will have to be treated on its merits". — [Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26]
      Once again, the door is left open. Why is it so important to have something more substantial than those assurances given by honourable men? The answer is, because of the danger of blackmail. I believe that we hold five Libyans; the Libyans hold two innocent Britons. The temptation for Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq or any of those countries that have had some history of terrorism which has spread to this country to put pressure upon us to release their terrorists by arresting innocent Britons is great.
      Under existing law we can say, "No." My right hon. and learned Friend can say, "I am sorry, there is no law that can permit me to release someone whom we have sentenced. It is not possible." After the Bill is passed, we

      405
      shall not be able to say no, because there will be a law that will permit the Home Secretary to do just what we are most fearful that a future Home Secretary might be under pressure to do. It will, therefore, be inherently easier for a Government to be blackmailed. That unsatisfactory aspect of the Bill does not drive me to say, "It is a wholly bad Bill. Let us reject it in its entirety." Obviosly there are desirable elements of the Bill that I support, in particular, conforming to the international convention.
      The advantage of having something in the Bill of the kind for which I and a number of right hon. and hon. Members of the House and peers in the other place have asked is that it would stiffen the backbone of a Government. They would be able to say, "We are a parliamentary democracy. We have our laws. It is simply not possible to do what you want us to do. There is no point in arresting innocent Britons."
      The question comes down to this: is there any real reason why we should not exclude terrorist offences from the provisions of the Bill? Three points have been made by the Ministers before today. One is, "We do not define terrorist offences, therefore we cannot define them here." I do not understand that argument. We have Northern Ireland legislation which turns on terrorist offences. We all know what a terrorist offence is. When a person, for political reasons, blows up innocent people in bars, in vehicles, in public or private buildings, or tries to assassinate political leaders, those are acts of terrorism and the persons responsible are terrorists. Why are the Government so coy? Do they not cut much less of a convincing figure when they persist in sheltering behind what is, in realistic political terms, a legalistic myth?
      Of course, my hon. Friend will find some formula that will allow him to say no to terrorist offences. I do not believe that that argument is valid.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. and learned Friend is giving a commonsense definition of terrorism. Is not a terrorist offence already defined in Northern Ireland legislation?
      Mr. Lawrence: I have already said that, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point that I have made. An objection on that basis no longer holds sway.
      The second objection that we have heard from Ministers was set out by my hon. Friend in Second Reading Committee on 16 May 1984. He said:
      "We must reserve the right to consider each case on its merits because there are no absolute categories. When we talk of categories we always think of those cases that fit clearly in them, but there are some on the margin and it is right that they should be given individual consideration."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
      That may be the same as the first point. If it is, I need not repeat the argument. If it varies in the sense that it is possible to have some scope for distinguishing between people who commit offences that are not immediately obviously terrorist offences, they would not be covered by new clause 1.
      The third reason also emerges from the Second Reading Committee and from my hon. Friend. He said:
      "the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a particular transfer, unless he considers that there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing." —[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 6.]
      Public policy—the unruly horse. That is what many of us who support new clause 1 are most fearful of —
      406
      leaving the door open. It has happened before and will doubtless happen again. I am merely suggesting that future Secretaries of State should have less reason for responding to the demands of so-called public policy to return terrorists. True public policy requires that the guilty are convicted and sentenced. It requires that our innocent people abroad are not arrested for the purpose of blackmail. That is a form of public policy that is supported by everyone in the country.
      10.15 pm
      I do not fear that my right hon. and learned Friend will not use his discretion properly. I am apprehensive about what might come after him. Most essentially, I am apprehensive that, as long as a discretion remains, that discretion will be exploited by the very Governments who are responsible for sending terrorists to Britain to cause bloodshed, mayhem and fear on the streets of Britain.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has done a service by tabling new clause 1. The Bill and this proceeding upon consideration is a classic example of the unwisdom of the method of taking a Second Reading in Committee. There was great sense in the standard procedure of the House whereby it is on the Floor of the Chamber that the principles of legislation have to be explained and considered before they are sent, if that is the pleasure of the House, to Committee.
      It may be said, and it has been argued in favour of Second Reading in Committee, that when a Bill is uncontroversial and plain sailing it saves the time of the House for the Second Reading to be taken in Committee. I do not think that anyone who has perused the proceedings on this Bill in another place could possibly say that the contents of the Bill were not such as required the utmost attention of the House at all stages of its passage. It is therefore unsatisfactory that the Committee stage took place, and the principal opportunities for amending the Bill took place, before a proper debate had occurred on the Floor of the House upon the principles to which we are committing ourselves by this legislation.
      The Bill provides the framework to enable Britain to ratify an international convention. In accordance with what is now fashionable and frequently brought about by international convention, it represents an invasion upon the field of territorial sovereignty. Territorial sovereignty is a principle with which one toys at one's risk and sure enough we shall, if this legislation goes forward, live to regret the fact that we were so ready to tear up the principle of territorial sovereignty to accomplish an international convention.
      I do not dispute the humanitarian intentions behind the convention and so behind the legislation, but I suggest that the implications of what we are doing with the Bill as it stands, unrestricted as it is, could be, and probably will in future be, very serious.
      At present, we deal with those who are convicted of offences in our own territory, and we exercise our territorial sovereignty if a sentence of imprisonment is passed by keeping people imprisoned within the jurisdiction. That principle is fundamentally breached, and is intended to be breached, by these arrangements for the exchange of prisoners, which in effect entrust to another sovereign power, when an exchange takes place, the duty of carrying out the orders of a British court, and, of course, vice versa. It is a deliberate affront to the principle of

      407
      territorial sovereignty, now so scorned as obsolete or obsolescent. But there is great life and sense yet in that principle, as we may find if we are not careful in our construction and administration of this legislation.
      I appreciate that so far the convention has been signed only by fewer than a score of countries. Those that have signed it are not those to which the fears expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Burton would most naturally attach. But we are also engaged in making bilateral arrangements that are quite outside the scope of the convention. In Committee in the other place, it transpired, I think, that we are engaged in negotiations with Thailand for that purpose. So even if a country such as the Irish Republic or Libya is not among the signatories to the convention that the Bill would enable us to ratify, we may still find ourselves one day using the Bill's provisions to implement a bilateral agreement that we made for what seemed, at the time, to be a good reason, with a country that does not adhere to the Council of Europe or belong to the North American mainland. It therefore behoves us to take great care of the framework within which we expect future Home Secretaries and Governments to operate.
      Mr. Lawrence: If the Bill's provisions make it easier for the pressure of blackmail to be exerted on a British Home Secretary, will not some of the countries that are not yet signatories to the convention hurry to sign it?
      Mr. Powell: That had occurred to me. Indeed, it had occurred to me that there might be an anxiety in some quarters, which we might find it diplomatic not to set aside, to secure bilateral arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, there might be some attraction from the United Kingdom's point of view too in making such arrangements.
      There are two distinct dangers that arise in the context of terrorists offences, and that are incurred by the Bill as it stands, and by the incomplete assurances that the Government have given as to the manner in which it will be operated. The first involves the question of blackmail, which was cogently argued in Committee by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir. P. Goodhart), whom I am glad to see in his place, and which formed the staple of the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. It is a real and substantial possibility. The Government say that there would not be any connection between any blackmailing threat and the case-by-case consideration of prisoners held in this country for the purposes of transfer. It is all very well to say that when one is talking in the abstract but under the pressure of agitated and excited public opinion things are different.
      Some of us remember in 1970 the case of Leila Khaled, a case in which, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown a few months afterwards candidly admitted, we prejudiced the principles of the rule of law in Britain in order to facilitate Leila Khaled's departure from this country because it was thought that that would be to the advantage of British subjects who found themselves in disagreeable circumstances elsewhere. So there is precedent for the notion of blackmail and there is precedent for the assertion that Governments are perfectly capable of bending to the wind if the law can even be twisted so as to allow them to bend to the wind. The great safeguard, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, is an absolute non-possumus—the absolute impossibility under the law of
      408
      surrendering a prisoner who is lawfully held in durance in this country. Only that could be a protection for a British Government against the pressures of blackmail.
      But there is another consideration altogether in which blackmail is not involved but which is just as realistic. Perhaps I might describe it as public scandal — the possibility that a foreigner who had been guilty of an atrocious terrorist offence in Britain might, under the Bill, be returned to his home country and there, in effect, whether by escaping or otherwise, be seen to have evaded the punishment which was his due. I cannot but believe that that would be a cause of grave public scandal and we of this generation in this Parliament who pass the legislation would be held to blame for having made such a thing possible.
      It is that consideration in connection with the adjacent Irish Republic, where I do not think the question of the blackmailing motive is likely to arise, which has made my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself so anxious about the provisions of the Bill. It is true that certain assurances have been given. For example, in another place on Second Reading the Government's spokesman said:
      "We do not intend to put ourselves in a position where we can be browbeaten into the exchange of prisoners on any grounds, whether terrorists or not."
      I am prepared to accept the Government's assurance that they do not intend to put themselves in that position, but that is precisely what they are doing by the unrestricted terms of the legislation. The Government spokesman continued:
      "We intend that the public interest shall always be the basis of our decisions". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 778.]
      I compared that with the assurance which was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in Committee where he said:
      "We want to face the terrorist problem head on and compelling public policy reasons would make it impossible and wholly undesirable for us to transfer such people."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
      Those two statements are in themselves about as strong as ministerial statements could be. I have deliberately, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Burton, chosen rather stronger assertions in the mouth of Government spokesmen than he did. What makes me anxious is that I may have been defective in my study of the Bill, but I have found no wording behind which or under the shelter of which those assertions of public policy could be made good. As far as I can see, no clause makes it a duty on the Secretary of State, in the case of a transfer out of the kingdom, to have regard to any considerations, which might be specified, such as public safety or otherwise.
      10.30 pm
      Unfortunately, we rest wholly on ministerial assurances given during the passage of the Bill and we are leaving the legislation in a form whereby, on the face of it, any other country, pressure group or section of public opinion can argue, "There is nothing in the legislation. Since the legislation is innocent of any qualification, the presumption must be that wherever there is a convention of this sort in force the Secretary of State should obey it." One can imagine the pressure under which a Government would find themselves at those times.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I hope that, even if the Government are not able to accept the new clause, we shall get much more secure reasons, for which a future Home Secretary will, I am sure, be grateful, for supposing

      409
      that the risks of blackmail and public scandal, which appear to be implicit in the legislation, will not in fact exist and that we are adequately defended against them.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the Bill required the utmost attention at all stages and that it involved an abridgement of territorial sovereignty.
      When my noble Friend Lord Elton moved the Second Reading in another place, he described the Bill as
      "a new departure in the administration of criminal law"
      and as being actuated by "humanitarian arguments." My noble Friend gave the assurance that
      "the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a particular transfer unless he considers that there are compelling reasons of public policy for doing so." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 751–531.]
      Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I require a different assurance. Blackmail was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. Member for Down, South, but I want an assurance that the legislation will guarantee that there will be no transfer of terrorist prisoners unless they are to be safely held for the term of their sentence.
      Suppose that the Republic of Ireland adheres to the convention and that a dangerous terrorist from the Republic is imprisoned within the British islands — I think that the Minister will agree with the definition of British islands spelt out in amendment No. 4. Suppose also that that terrorist is sent to the Republic to serve his sentence. I am not sure about the humanitarian arguments; I am not sure whether he would be more comfortable in Mountjoy or Portlaoise than in a prison on this side of the water.
      The Republic is a precarious state, governed by unstable coalitions—the fruit of proportional representation—and some Irish Governments are always pandering to and looking for the support of small extreme factions close to the men of the bullet and the bomb.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: Disgraceful.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is not disgraceful to describe the state of affairs in the Irish Republic. This is the nature of the politics of the Irish Republic.
      Mr. Dubs: Is the hon. Gentleman making that accusation against the present Irish Government?
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am saying that Irish politicians have to be extremely careful what they do if they are to remain in office. I am not speaking of the present Irish Government, but there has been deference to extreme groups close to terrorism to perpetuate Governments' periods of office. That fact is well known to all those who study these matters.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): The hon. Gentleman's remarks are disgraceful. Which Irish Government since 1922 have given way to extremist measures because of seeking to obtain a coalition?
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is not disgraceful to say what is true. It is disgraceful for an hon. Gentleman to put words into my mouth which I did not utter. I said that Irish Governments must consider, because they operate on a small electoral margin, various small groups in the country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman recalls the connection of the present Leader of the Opposition and former Taoiseach with certain curious operations in connection with the provision and importation of arms.
      410
      I am saying that the Irish Republic is a precarious state. I therefore wonder what would happen if, in some future circumstances — I am not speaking of the present meritorious Irish Government — a dangerous terrorist who was sent from one of Her Majesty's prisons within the jurisdiction to serve his sentence in the Irish Republic was released, or was enabled to escape, before the time of his sentence had expired. That, in the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South would be a grave public scandal. It would also be a grave public danger.
      Mr. Bermingham: Clause 1(2) says:
      "The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, and, if he has issued one, shall revoke it, in any case where after the duty under subsection (1) above has arisen and before the transfer in question takes place circumstances arise, or are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, which in his opinion make it inappropriate that the transfer should take place."
      The question of terrorism has been canvassed on more than one occasion, as hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware. What Home Secretary, hon. Members asked, would ever issue a warrant for a terrorist to be transferred?
      Reference has been made to the Republic of Ireland. I make no secret of the fact that I was born there, and many members of my family, going back generations, have been born there. I am the first to condemn anyone, of whatever race or nationality, who commits a terrorist offence. I have said time and again — I said it regularly when we debated what became the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984—that there is nothing special about a terrorist. He is a criminal and he commits criminal offences, and the sooner we get back to appreciating that we are talking about crime — albeit crime of a moat heinous nature — the better. The terrorist's crime is in no way justified by it having been committed in pursuit of some spurious cause.
      Mr. Lawrence: The difference is that, with normal crime, somebody is unlikely to try to blackmail the Home Secretary into giving a release or gaining repatriation.
      Mr. Bermingham: People can bring pressure on the Home Secretary in respect of any criminal's detention. It has been known for people to make spurious claims of innocence, and goodness knows what else, and to have built up a terrific head of steam in support of a man who has been rightly convicted of crime, just as a head of steam has been built up in support of somebody who has been wrongly convicted of crime.
      We come to the crucial test; what is the position of the Home Secretary? What is his status within our system? He is a servant of the Crown who is answerable to the House. That is where our protection lies. Let us use as an example a man from the mythical country of Transylvania who has committed an offence of bombing in pursuit of a national cause in his own country and seeks to bomb his way to victory by using Britain for his bombing. This is not a spurious example because there have been numerous instances of that sort involving people from the middle east.
      If such a person is convicted and sentenced in this country, how many Home Secretaries, past and present, would consent to the transfer of that criminal back to his own country, where he may face an immediate amnesty and release? Public opinion in this country would not permit a Home Secretary to take such a step. That is the

      411
      reality. That same public opinion would be directed to someone who emerged from the Republic or Northern Ireland and came over here to commit terrorist offences.
      To argue the case that has been adopted by some hon. Members is to cast a slur on the Republic for it suggests that it would seek the return of its citizen and grant him amnesty. The Republic does not grant amnesties to terrorists. It has as great a loathing of terrorism as the United Kingdom. It accepts, as we do, that it is criminality of the worst and most bestial sort. A slur is cast also on Home Secretaries present and future. It suggests that in some way they would seek to give way to a third country which said, "We want this chap back because we want to let him go" while knowing full well that the full weight of public opinion in Britain would be adverse to that happening.
      I recognise and understand the emotion that lies behind the word "terrorism" but let us try once again to return the terrorist to what he is, nothing more than a common criminal who is dealt with by our legal system as a common criminal. When considering the amendments and new clauses let us take on board the arguments advanced on Second Reading, in Committee and in another place, when it was said repeatedly by Ministers that no Home Secretary, bearing in mind the provisions of clause 1(2), would give way to the argument that a man should be repatriated, knowing full well that he would be going home to an amnesty. None of us would be party to such a decision and I ask the House to reject the new clause and the amendments.
      Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support the new clause. The Bill in its present form will be of concern to everyone in Northern Ireland who believes in British justice. We should be aware of the attitude of the Eire judiciary and some members of the Eire Government to their sons who go abroad in the guise of patriots and commit the most diabolical acts in the name of Irish nationalism.
      At this moment there is in custody in this country a citizen of Dublin who is suspected of the most heinous crime perpetrated upon the innocent people of the capital, a crime which, although commonplace in Northern Ireland, has caused great consternation and shock to the community on this side of the United Kingdom. We shared the grief, which was expressed by the representatives of my party in the House and others, for the victims of the atrocity, who are also our fellow citizens.
      We can imagine the reaction if an Irish individual were convicted and sent to Dublin to serve his sentence. He or she would be treated almost as a hero. Such punishment as was administered would not be rigorous.
      We have heard many times in the past the clamourings from the southern Irish religious leaders and from the Republican Government for the return of prisoners serving their sentences in British prisons. It is a matter of great concern to me—and I am sure it is shared by many of my fellow countrymen — that once again we are witnessing an appeasement by the Government. They are attempting to placate the vociferous minority and to show a magnanimous attitude to a foreign Government who have never reciprocated the concessions that, over the past 50 years, the Government have given to them in the interests of peace and harmony.
      412
      10.45 pm
      I shall illustrate the sympathy of the Irish judiciary to terrorism. I draw the attention of the House to the recent case of Philip James McMahon who escaped from Newry courthouse in 1975 and fled to the Republic. The Supreme Court in Dublin, in a unanimous reserved judgment, upheld the appeal against extradition on the ground that the escape was connected with a political offence.
      Let us be clear about this offence, which was admitted by the subject of this incident. He said that he was a labourer in Dublin and that he lived there. He was tried before the Crown court in Belfast for armed robbery and was convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He said that the robbery was carried out by order of the IRA, of which he is a member, to raise funds for the campaign for the liberation of Northern Ireland from British rule. This individual now walks free in the Irish Republic and presumably he will continue his efforts on behalf of the organisation that spawned him. The House must be aware that, by applying this section of the Bill to the Republic of Ireland, it is giving credence and encouragement to the IRA and its fellow travellers in their pursuance, by whatever means, of their insufferable objectives.
      Such weakness as is suggested by the Bill only spurs these terrorist organisations into even more vicious and sustained action against innocent men, women and children in any part of the United Kingdom. In our recent debate on the New Ireland Forum it was said by many right hon. and hon. Members that the rights of Ulster Unionists are not up for negotiation. There are 1 million people in Northern Ireland who are determined that they will never surrender those rights which, in our part of the United Kingdom, are offered to everyone who lives there. Sending murderers, arsonists and common criminals to what is considered a haven will be seen as an erosion of these rights, and that is why I support the new clause.
      Mr. John David Taylor: I support the new clause because it refers to the specific problem of terrorists. In the United Kingdom we have suffered for many years from terrorism by the PLO, the Libyans and by people from the Irish Republic. In particular, those of us from Northern Ireland constituencies know only too well the suffering of British people at the hands of Irish Republican terrorists.
      The Bill has been presented to the House by a somewhat unusual procedure in that tonight, with only 20 hon. Members present, we have the first chance to consider the contents of the legislation. It has been discussed in the other place and in Committee, but this is the first time that it has been brought before all hon. Members.
      In the Bill the Government are asking for a blank cheque to deal with the transfer of sentenced terrorists from this country to others. The Government are asking that they, and they alone, should have discretion in deciding who shall go and who shall not. They ask that this House shall not place any limitations on the free hand of the Home Secretary to decide which warrants he should sign.
      In the United Kingdom we have seen the refusal of the Home Secretary, under considerable pressure from time to time—perhaps even blackmail, as some hon. Members have suggested—to transfer sentenced terrorist prisoners from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom. He has used very firm and clear

      413
      arguments showing why such transfers should not take place. Here we find a contradiction, in that he is now prepared to support the transfer of sentenced terrorists outside the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions and to other sovereign nations, yet he will reject and oppose the transfer within the United Kingdom of sentenced terrorists.
      It is clear that in considering the legislation the Government did not take into consideration the problem of the transfer of sentenced IRA terrorists. They did not take into consideration the question whether the legislation affected the transfer of IRA terrorists from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland. We have only to look at the presentation of the Bill in another place when the Minister, in introducing the legislation, was questioned by Lord Kilbracken, who said:
      "My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down"——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The right hon. Member may quote only from Ministers in the other place. He may put in his own words any references to other speakers in the debate.
      Mr. Taylor: I will not quote the question, but I will quote the Minister's reply. He said:
      "My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question to which the answer must be phrased with great care and I shall give it to him when I reply at the end of the debate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 758.
      In other words, the noble Lord did not know whether the legislation affected the Republic of Ireland, and it was only at the end of the debate, having consulted his officials, that he then discovered that Irish terrorists could be transferred under the legislation from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland. That was the first time it came to his attention.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear in Committee that article 12 of the Council of Europe convention provides that
      "'each party may grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence in accordance with its constitution or other laws.'"
      Those of us in the United Kingdom dealing with the problem of Irish Republican terrorism, and knowing what a running sore it has been over the past 15 years—there has been no extradition of wanted terrorists from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom—recognise immediately that it is the constitution of the Republic of Ireland that is used time and again in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland as the basis for refusing extradition of wanted terrorists. If the constitution is used by the southern Irish authorities as a pretext to refuse the extradition of terrorists, we can easily assume that the constitution will yet again be used as a pretext for going soft on those Irish terrorist transferred back from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland.
      The possibility is underlined by the Under-Secretary of State, because in further debate in Committee on the same date he said:
      "Where, under the terms of an agreement, a prisoner who has been transferred from the United Kingdom is discharged in the other country earlier than he would have been if the had stayed here, a procedure is needed to ensure that, should he return here, he would not be subject to arrest and detention under the original order of the court." — [Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 17 and 7.]
      The Under-Secretary of State is accepting that if an IRA terrorist is transferred from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland, he can released earlier there than he would have been released in accordance with the wishes
      414
      of the courts of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, if he is released, he can return here and know that nothing will happen to him and that he will not be lifted again by the authorities in the United Kingdom. That suggests that the legislation will provide a possibility for people who have been found guilty in our courts of terrorist acts to go to another country—not only the Republic of Ireland—to be released earlier than intended by the United Kingdom courts and to return to the United Kingdom to continue to kill, damage and harm people in this community.
      This is dangerous legislation. The Government are asking for a blank cheque. The legislation should be strongly opposed by those who uphold the safety of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and therefore I support the new clause.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I recognise the strong feeling on this issue. I am in no sense surprised or even dismayed by it. I have sought throughout the Bill's stages to deal with this matter as clearly and forthrightly as I can. It is perfectly right that, although the overwhelming majority of prisoners who will be affected by these provisions will have nothing to do with terrorism and none of the matters that have been canvassed this evening will apply, grave concern will attach to any suggestion that some people held in our prisons will be sent back to their country of origin.
      When the matter was raised on Second Reading, I sought to state the Home Office position as forthrightly as I could. I said:
      "almost inevitably public policy considerations would prevent a transfer in the sort of cases that he has suggested."
      I was referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) had said about terrorist offences. His point was mirrored by what was said in the House tonight by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and other hon. Members. I continued:
      "For precisely those reasons the Secretary of State has sought the public policy grounds for withholding his consent that we have included in the Bill. Each case will have to be treated on its merits, but it is profoundly unlikely that any of the cases that he has in mind would ever be the subject of an agreement to transfer."
      I went on to say:
      "We want to face the terrorist problem head on and compelling public policy reasons would make it imposssible and wholly undesirable for us to transfer such people."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who is always fair in his judgments on these matters, said that that was about as strong as a ministerial statement can be. I was grateful to him for saying that, because I believed that to be so when I uttered it. I intended it to be received as such. It goes right to the edge of what can be permitted to fall from the mouth of any Minister when defending a request from the House to give him a discretion which he cannot in any circumstances entirely fetter. In no sense —I say this to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton—can that be called a feeble assurance. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South thought that it was a feeble assurance.
      The question at issue is whether it is right that the Home Office should have any discretion in this matter. I should have thought that it must be accepted that if we are to

      415
      retain a discretion we cannot state any more clearly than was said on Second Reading how we propose to exercise that discretion in relation to terrorist offences.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was wrong to say that when framing the Bill we had not taken into account the possibility of transferring terrorists. It was predominantly for that reason that we believed that it was integral to the Bill that the Secretary of State should have absolute discretion, whatever the views of the other state or the prisoner, to refuse a request for transfer if he thought that it was right so to do.
      I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and other hon. Members who have raised this point that there is nothing sinister in not including in the legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to certain issues before exercising his discretion, because no Secretary of State could properly exercise his discretion without taking account of those matters. It would be superfluous to put those requirements in the legislation, because the essence of the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State on these matters is that he would have regard to the consequences of his act.
      In relation to terrorism, as we all understand, the consequences of the act would be gravely damaging for a variety of reasons. First, it might be thought to encourage terrorism. Secondly, it would not have proper regard to the utter abhorrence of the public for terrorist acts so that even if, as the legislation intends, the person concerned were to be incarcerated in his own country for the full period that he would serve here the public would still take grave offence. Moreover, it is for the very reason that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned—that a state might be tempted to release somebody prematurely on the basis of article 12 of the convention —that no Home Secretary worth his salt would wish to run that risk if he felt that there would be any pressure on the Government of the receiving state to take that cause.
      11 pm
      For all those reasons, the discretion of the Secretary of State to refuse under clause 1(1)(b) is absolute and those would be the grounds on which he would choose to do so.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps the Minister will clear up a difficulty that many of us have found in relation to clause 1(2), to which attention was drawn by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Under that subsection, only where the duty has already arisen is the Secretary of State forbidden to issue his warrant if
      "circumstances arise or are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, which in his opinion make it inappropriate that the transfer should take place."
      It seems curious deliberately to leave the general issue of discretion quite unqualified but in the special case, where something arises after the duty comes into existence, to provide specifically that the warrant shall not be made if it is inappropriate.
      Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that as I intended to point out that the absolute discretion to withhold rests in subsection (1)(b), not in subsection (2), as I believe that that may cause some confusion. It is only when the Secretary of State and the other two parties have consented that the duty arises and can be discharged, but if circumstances then arose that made it inappropriate to do so the Secretary of State
      416
      would, as it were, abrogate his previous consent by exercising his power under subsection (2), but the duty would not arise if from the outset the Secretary of State had reached the conclusion that for compelling reasons of public policy it would not be appropriate to contemplate a transfer.
      Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): As it is often said that no Parliament can bind another, does my hon. Friend agree that in the same way no Secretary of State can bind another? If the occupant of the great position of Secretary of State changed or if his attitude changed, would it not be helpful to have the new clause so as to make the view of the House clear to any future Secretary of State?
      Mr. Mellor: I appreciate that point and I am about to deal with it, if my hon. Friend will be patient.
      We have described as clearly as we can—consistent with leaving a discretion to treat each case as an individual case—the way in which we propose to exercise the discretion in relation to terrorist offences. The question then arises whether we should have any discretion at all in those cases. First, the discretion is wholly in line with the discretion of all Home Secretaries always to be unfettered in relation to matters such as immigration control, release of prisoners on parole and life sentence prisoners. There are different requirements in respect of each, but the basis of the exercise of Home Office discretion is that there is individual consideration of each case.
      In my respectful submission, that does not prevent a Home Secretary from reaching the conclusion that to safeguard the public interest he must make general declarations of his intention, although he always leaves himself room to have regard to a special case. The alternative to doing that, if we were prepared —[Interruption.] I ask my hon. Friends to bear with me. It is difficult for me to answer an important debate when there is such a noisy conversation going on.
      I want to tackle the question whether we should introduce the concept of terrorist offences more widely into our law. They are there to a limited degree at the moment and are part of the law of Northern Ireland, for obvious and apparent reasons on which I do not need to dilate. They are in the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to our rights to exclude people from this country.
      When invited to restore capital punishment for terrorist offences, the House resisted the invitation and several speeches suggested that it would be inappropriate and, indeed, confusing in our law to have to determine, as well as the issue whether a person was guilty of a criminal offence, whether it was motivated by terrorism or arose from pure criminality.
      The point was also made forcefully and vigorously—I found it compelling—that we play into the hands of a terrorist if we give him status over and above that of a common criminal, because we put him into a category that he wants to be put into, as someone who is different from a murderer or other criminal. That is such a major departure from the way in which we have customarily done things in our law that it should be entered into only after great thought. I do not think that it would be helpful. That does not lessen our resolve that no one should think after this measure, any more than after anything else that we

      417
      might do in the Home Office, that our determination to resist terrorists and to ensure that they are punished for the crimes that they commit is any the less.
      Blackmail is a serious issue, but it does not arise effectively in relation to the measure.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister tell us if the Government do not want to elevate terrorists in legislation, why public opinion should change them from being criminals into terrorists and therefore super people, so that pressure would be brought against the Government if they were to release them?
      Mr. Mellor: Perhaps it is the time of night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot pretend to have followed that intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have another go.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps that is the problem that I have in understanding the Minister's reply. He has said that it is not the intention of the Government to elevate terrorists above the rank of ordinary criminals. But behind the answers up to this moment there was a suggestion that the Minister could not do certain things because there would be a public reaction and a scandal. Why, if that is the mind of the Government, should the public treat it as a scandal if a person is a terrorist rather than a criminal?
      Mr. Mellor: I do not believe that that quite meets the point. As my noble Friend Lord Elton made clear in another place, not only terrorist offenders will fall at the hurdle of the public policy objection. The crime in question might be an especially despicable murder, which has nothing to do with terrorism. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned sex offences. I agree with him that the public policy objection to transferring prisoners is in no sense restricted to terrorists, although terrorists are the most obvious part of that restricted group.
      On the question of blackmail, I am totally convinced that none of the powers in the Bill make it more or less likely that we shall be subjected to blackmail of the sort that has been suggested. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the Bill does not envisage a position in which someone says, "We have one of yours, so why not give us back one of ours who we want?" This is done on an individual basis, on the assumption that there is a prisoner of one nationality in the prison of another country, and that arrangements can be made, either through the treaty or bilaterally, for a transfer to take place. There is no requirement that there should be any exchange of prisoners.
      If a Secretary of State was minded to agree to blackmail, he would have plenty of powers to do so. We know the decision that was taken on the Leila Khaled case. Other exchanges arose as a result not of blackmail, but of negotiation. For example, Lonsdale was transferred to behind the iron curtain by the use of prerogative powers.
      If a Secretary of State is minded, for perfectly valid reasons, such as an exchange making sense, or because of blackmail, to ship someone to another country to wash his hands of the problem, it would be wrong to suggest that he does not have the power to do so under his already wide powers. When the right hon. Member for Down, South talks about the Government bending, I must tell him that the Government have supple enough limbs now and do not need any ointment provided in this measure to give them
      418
      any additional spring. If a Government want to succumb to pressure, they can do so now. That is why it is no more likely that pressure will be put upon this country because of this Bill than at any time in the past.
      In asking the House to reject the new clause, I in no sense mean that we believe that this is a suitable Bill to allow the transfer of the several dozen terrorist prisoners in our prisons. I do not believe that any Secretary of State is likely to arrive at the conclusion that it would be appropriate to do that. However, it would be in keeping with the way that Home Office discretion has been handled in individual cases over the years that there should be a residual discretion. The category of terrorist is not self-defining; there are plenty of safeguards within the statements that have been made and within the common sense of the situation that make it imperative that the Secretary of State should refuse any application in any of the cases mentioned tonight.
      Mr. Lawrence: I have a great deal of admiration for my hon. Friend who is brave, forceful, persuasive and eloquent in his arguments, even though he shows a slight hint of intolerance towards we lesser mortals who may not agree with him. But he has stood upon the precise position upon which he stood during Second Reading, and the precise position that our right hon. and noble Friend in another place stood upon when the matter was decided there.
      The difficulty that my hon. Friend faces is twofold. First, if he is saying that the Secretary of State will always refuse to return a terrorist, there can be no reason why that is not incorporated in the Bill. It is when he refuses to incorporate that that there is a little area of greyness when, if someone if not observant, aware and informed, the repatriation of a terrorist could take place. That is what concerns us.
      Secondly, it is no longer open to my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, to say that we cannot define what a terrorist is. In at least two Acts of Parliament the word "terrorist" is defined. It is defined in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. To say that that was the subject of discussion when we talked about capital punishment, and the reason why some hon. Members advanced objections to capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death, is neither here nor there. We were not discussing legislation, but a motion. If everything that an hon. Gentleman said in a speech is taken as a ban on future legislation, this House would have come to a pretty pass.
      11.15 pm
      Neither of my hon. Friend's arguments was persuasive. What was more persuasive was the argument that the Home Secretary can exercise a prerogative power. The reason for inserting into the Bill a bar on terrorist offenders being returned is not to abrogate the prerogative power, because it cannot be abrogated, but to make it clear beyond peradventure to the people whom we represent—they are important, especially in those parts of the country most susceptible to terrorism — that it was Parliament's intention that, but for the prerogative power, there should be no weakening and no concession to pressures from foreign powers. That must and can be explained. It will stiffen the backbone of a Government in negotiation or discussion with the head of a foreign power.

      419
      I am sorely pressed to pursue new clause 1 with its attendant amendments. The only reason why I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw it is the I gave an undertaking to do so when I made my opening speech. I had no idea that so many hon. Members would support the new clause. Had I been aware of that, I would not have committed myself. Having committed myself, I must, I am afraid, remain true to my word. It would be inappropriate not to withdraw the new clause in those circumstances. However, what the House chooses to do is its business. I am honour bound not to press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 121.

      Division No. 391]

      [11.17 pm

      AYES

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      McCusker, Harold

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Maginnis, Ken

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Nicholson, J.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Rev. Martin Smyth and

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Mr. William Ross.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hirst, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Ancram, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ashby, David

      Jackson, Robert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Lightbown, David

      Baldry, Anthony

      Lilley, Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Beith, A. J.

      Lord, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      MacGregor, John

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Maclean, David John

      Best, Keith

      Major, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bottomley, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Marland, Paul

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Marlow, Antony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Mates, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Mather, Carol

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Mellor, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Merchant, Piers

      Budgen, Nick

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Burt, Alistair

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Butterfill, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Cash, William

      Neubert, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Newton, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Norris, Steven

      Cope, John

      Osborn, Sir John

      Couchman, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Penhaligon, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Powley, John

      Dover, Den

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Dykes, Hugh

      Raffan, Keith

      Evennett, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Gregory, Conal

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Heddle, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      420

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tracey, Richard

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spencer, Derek

      Waddington, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Walden, George

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Watson, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Watts, John

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Whitfield, John

      Sumberg, David

      Whitney, Raymond

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Wood, Timothy

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

      Thurnham, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 7

      EXPENSES
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Dubs: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 21, after 'secure', insert 'following that transfer'.
      I do not think that the amendment will detain the House for more than a few moments. In clause 7 a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to collect from the prisoner or some other source the cost of transferring the prisoner to the United Kingdom. The principle of that charge on the prisoner was debated at length in Committee, and I do not wish to reopen that argument now. However, one aspect of the process of charging is of particular concern, and that is at the heart of the amendment.
      The amendment's intention is that the Secretary of State would seek to secure the money only following the prisoner's transfer. That may seem a simple point, but it involves a matter of principle. It is that otherwise the prisoner or his family and relatives might feel obliged to find the money somewhere—even if it was not readily available to them—as a condition of getting the prisoner transferred to a gaol in this country.
      On 12 June, the Minister dealt with this point in Committee. He said:
      "I make it clear again that there is no question of the transfer of a prisoner being held up just because the funds were not available. We fully accept that this is one of those issues where the transfer should go forward on the normal principles, and the question of how the Secretary of State pursues, if he chooses to do so, his claim for the money can be dealt with later. There is no question of a pistol being held to the head of the prisoner and saying, 'If you do not provide the money forthwith we shall not agree to the transfer'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 June 1984;c. 22.]
      That is a fairly clear statement, and the amendment seeks only to give effect to it. It is a very simple amendment, and it will prevent any ambiguity. I hope that the Minister will accept it. It embodies the principle that he fully accepted, and it will make that clause just a little bit clearer and more satisfactory for the prisoner and his family.
      Mr. Mellor: I certainly stand by the undertaking that I gave in Committee, but unfortunately the amendment does not have the effect that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) envisages. It would prevent the Secretary of State from having the power to require an undertaking to

      421
      repay before the prisoner was transferred if no funds were available beforehand. Of course, I adhere to my previous statement that there is no question of someone not being transferred because the money is not available at that point. But the Secretary of State needs to have an undertaking to repay. In Committee, I dealt with the question of whether he enforces it once the prisoner is back. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary's discretion not to press for payment was widened in deference to the Opposition's arguments.
      The possibly unintended effect of the amendment would be that the position of a prisoner being transferred from overseas would be easier than that of a tourist who had been mugged in Malaga or Torremolinos. If that tourist went to the British consulate and asked to be repatriated, he would have to enter into an undertaking to repay when he got back. If we wish to retain support for the Bill in the wider commumity, it must be unnaceptable for a prisoner to be transferred on more favourable terms than would be applied to an ordinary member of the public.
      I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I gave in Committee, that the Secretary of State will obviously decide whether to press for repayment on the circumstances of the individual case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment, and I stand by the undertakings that I have given.
      Mr. John David Taylor: I seek clarification from the Minister on the question of expenses. We are talking about the expenses of two different people. In the first case someone is transferred to the United Kingdom, and in the second, someone is transferred out of it. If someone is transferred from the United Kingdom to another state, for what expenses will the Government be liable?
      Am I right in saying that the Government will pay all the costs of accompanying security officers on the transfer of a prisoner to this country, but that the prisoner will be liable only for the expense of transfer from the other country to the United Kingdom port of entry and that the Government will take up the cost of travel from there to the particular prison to which the prisoner will be transferred? Many of the aeroplane flights from Europe to London are much cheaper than the flights from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow or Belfast. Therefore, not only will the Government accept all the costs of the accompanying custodial officers but the major cost of transferring the prisoner himself.
      Mr. Mellor: Yes, that seems to be right.
      Mr. Dubs: In the light of the Minister's comments, I do not wish to press the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      INTERPRETATION AND CERTIFICATES
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
      '"British Islands" means the totality of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland.'
      The amendment deals with one case of the large matter which was raised by the new clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but it avoids many of the difficulties which the Minister found in accepting that new clause. In particular it avoids the
      422
      whole question of a definition of terrorism or of a restriction of the theoretically unlimited discretion of the Secretary of State. It has the perfectly simple effect of removing the Irish Republic from the scope of the Bill altogether. It therefore does in practice deal with the principal case where the questions which were discussed in an earlier debate are likely to arise.
      I want to make it clear that in proposing to remove the Irish Republic from the application of the Bill there is no question of impugning the good faith of the Irish Republic or casting doubt upon its intention to carry out agreements into which it has entered. Indeed, the amendment would be as much in the interests of the Irish Republic as it would of this country since in the present and foreseeable circumstances great embarrassment of the potentiality of public scandal exists where a transfer has taken place of a terrorist offender between one country and the other.
      Incidentally, so far as I can understand from the Bill, it is not a requisite for the transfer that the prisoner transferred out should be a citizen of the receiving country. He could be, for example, a citizen of both countries or he could be a citizen of a third country. Therefore, there are many circumstances in which pressure could well be exerted, for instance on humanitarian grounds, for the transfer of a terrorist prisoner from imprisonment in the United Kingdom to imprisonment in the Irish Republic, with the attendant risks of what might follow after the transfer. So we are dealing with a practical possibility, indeed the principal practical possibility of public scandal under the Act. It could only be to the advantage of both countries that such cases should be avoided.
      The Irish Republic has not so far signed the convention. It has been in no hurry to sign the convention and we have no knowledge of any bilateral arrangement which is proposed to be made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Therefore, I hope that that will commend the amendment to the Government at this stage. They could eliminate from the Act the one country with which we have a land frontier and the one country with which we share the same terrorist menace and thus avoid in that case the mischief which was apprehended by those who argued and voted in favour of the new clause with which the House has just dealt.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: With great respect to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), it seems to me that his amendment inevitably contains significant discrimination against the Irish Republic and, perhaps more important, undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to the United Kingdom and the Republic.
      The Bill, which has come about after many years of international pressure and the preparation of the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, is intended to deal with the harrowing problem of the numerous prisoners who are sentenced not for terrorism, but for sentences that fall within the ordinary criminal calendar and who, because they are sentenced in a foreign jurisdiction, prima facie have to serve their sentences in that foreign jurisdiction.
      There are numerous Irish citizens serving sentences in United Kingdom prisons for ordinary offences and numerous United Kingdom citizens serving sentences in the Republic. The difficulties faced by such prisoners are well documented. The most obvious are the problems of travel for their families and the fact that the prisoners can

      423
      play no part in the upbringing of their children. There are other humanitarian problems which the Council of Europe accepted, after considerable consideration, as serious and worthy of a convention.
      Mr. Forth: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that those who committed the crimes should have thought of that when they committed the crime? Is not it asking a lot of us to pick up the tab afterwards?
      Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman asks for far more sophistication than exists in the criminal mind. In some instances, the criminal should have considered those matters, and perhaps did, but his wife and family did not. Part of the basis of the convention is that it is wrong that the close relatives of a person serving a sentence abroad should be deprived of the ordinary rights that they would have if he were serving his sentence in the United Kingdom.
      It may be said that there is no problem between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, because we have a land border. However, the Bill presents the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that if there are bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Republic or if the Republic becomes a signatory to the convention, prisoners will be transferred from the Republic to prisons on the mainland of Great Britain and to local prisons near to their family home. It is of paramount importance not to thwart the purpose of the Bill in relation to the one foreign jurisdiction for which it may have the greatest utility.
      Mr. John David Taylor: I support the amendment, which is consistent with what was said in the debate on the new clause on terrorism. Indeed, I preferred the new clause, because it specifically mentioned terrorism as the matter at issue. The amendment covers all types of criminals and is weaker than the new clause.
      However, I wish to emphasise several aspects of the amendment. The first is the nationality of persons transferred back to the Republic of Ireland. Many people in the United Kingdom have dual citizenship and people could take out citizenship of the Republic after having been sentenced to prison in the United Kingdom. They need not have been born in the Irish Republic to do that. People who have been here for several generations could, if they wish, take out citizenship of the Republic of Ireland. We are opening the floodgates through which many people in the United Kingdom could, by this measure, seek transfer to the Republic.
      11.45 pm
      I said earlier, and I repeat, that the Government did not recognise that the transfer of terrorist prisoners from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland would be a major issue in the consideration of this legislation. It is clear from reading earlier debates that they did not take that aspect of the matter adequately into account. Indeed, Lord Elton in another place did not even know whether the Bill would apply to the Republic, and it was only after some hours of debate that he was able to confirm that it extended to the Republic of Ireland. That is why I support the amendment.
      Mr. Dubs: As I listened to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I thought that his usual logic
      424
      had deserted him, for it was difficult to appreciate his argument for the amendment. For example, according to the Interpretation Act 1978, the definition of "British Islands" in subsequent legislation covers the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but not the Republic of Ireland. It would seem, therefore, that we would have a confused situation if we adopted the amendment.
      I prefer, however, to discuss the amendment by dealing with the principle involved. Certain remarks were made when we were debating an earlier amendment about the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I found those remarks offensive and untrue. That Government have made clear on countless occasions their detestation of terrorism. It was regrettable, therefore, that hon. Members of this House should have attacked the Government.
      The amendment, if passed, would undermine the purpose of the Bill. Governments arrive at an agreement which makes possible the subsequent repatriation of prisoners from one country to the other. The amendment would undermine that position. It makes no sense that in respect of a country with which we have friendly and close ties and with which there is much interchange, in tourism and other matters, we should debar prisoners from having an opportunity that is enjoyed by prisoners from other countries.
      Why should we, as would be the effect of the amendment, prevent British citizens—who, say, are on holiday in the Republic and who commit a criminal offence — from being allowed to return here? [Interruption.] I suspect that Conservative Members are saying, "That is their lookout." That is an argument against the whole basis of the Bill, and hon. Members who feel that way can express their view on Third Reading.
      I support the principle of the Bill and I am not seeking to stir up trouble, directly or inadvertently. There is no reason why a country with which we have friendly ties should be excluded from the Bill's provisions.
      Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for moving the amendment in such order and for recognising that we fully ventilated the issue of terrorism when discussing new clause 1. Although he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were not successful in winning the Division on the new clause, I hope that they will be able to take comfort from the assurances that I gave.
      The difficulty posed by the amendment is that by taking the Irish Republic out of the arrangements we would preclude the transfer of a number of prisoners between the two countries who have nothing to do with terrorism, and as such I would have difficulty in commending it to my right hon. and hon. Friends. A greater difficulty even than that, though that is difficult enough, was anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. Just as he saw the point about the Interpretation Act 1978, although the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) seemed to think that he had not, he recognised immediately the argument that would be advanced against the amendment, which is that we would be ssen to be impugning the Republic if we were to separate it from every other country.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South said that in making this proposal there was no intention in his mind of separating the Republic. I accept the sincerity of that statement, but if the British Government were to have to enter a formal reservation on their signature to the

      425
      convention stating that it could not have force between the United Kingdom and the Republic, which is the only state with which we have a land boundary—the Republic is a fellow member of the Council of Europe and the European Community — I fear that that would appear to be something of an insult to the Republic. I cannot see that any such reservation would not carry such an interpretation, although I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not intend it to do so.
      It is our intention and hope that the Republic will sign the convention and that there will be transfers of prisoners. We are not concerned with terrorist prisoners. I should be astonished if a terrorist prisoner were to be transferred from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland in the circumstances that have been set out. However, there are quite a few burglars and other such prisoners, and if the Irish Government are prepared to receive them there seems no reason why burglars currently languishing in London prisons should not be transferred, and equally no reason why we should preclude such transfers.
      Mr. William Ross: Have the Government made any attempt to quantify the number of prisoners now in gaol in the United Kingdom who could apply for transfers to Irish prisons? What is the percentage and what is the total number?
      Mr. Mellor: We have the figures in a number of instances. There are about 3,100 prisoners who were born overseas in a prison population of about 45,000. Quite a few of those prisoners have the right to remain here and so would not be transferred elsewhere. I am talking generally about those born overseas, and not only in the Republic, although quite a few of the prisoners would come from the Republic. If they were to apply and if the Irish Government were prepred to receive them back, it would be for us to decide whether the circumstances made it right for there to be a transfer. In most instances the prisoners would have a right to remain here notwithstanding the fact that they had committed a criminal offence and had been imprisoned. I think it unlikely that they would ask to be transferred.
      It is not necessarily sinister that someone should want to be transferred to the Republic. The effect of the transfer would be—I say this while looking encouragingly at my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the British taxpayer would no longer have to maintain him in prison. He would be transferred only if the receiving Government were prepared to uphold the sentence that we had passed.
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: That is the point.
      Mr. Mellor: It is worth stressing that in all these arrangements the prisoners will not be transferred to their countries of origin to heroes' welcomes with ticker-tape receptions through the streets of the capitals. They will go back under the terms of a solemn obligation that their countries have entered into either formally through the European convention or through bilateral or ad hoc arrangements, that they will honour the sentences that have been passed.
      In endeavouring to quell the fires it seems that I am stirring them up, and perhaps I should shut up.
      Mr. John David Taylor: We have been addressing ourselves to the number of prisoners who would opt to leave the United Kingdom to go to the Republic if we
      426
      operated an arrangement through the convention, or a bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government. It would be interesting also to know how many United Kingdom prisoners are in the Republic who are from Northern Ireland and how many would be likely to transfer to our already overcrowded prisons in Northern Ireland, especially the Maze. Finally, it would be interesting to know whether the Government have done their homework.
      Mr. Mellor: I would require notice of that question. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about that.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is a matter of disappointment to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that the two attempts that we have made to forestall the mischief that we apprehend, and apprehend specifically in relation to the Irish Republic, from this legislation, have failed to take effect. We would not be discharging our duty to those whom we represent and to their point of view if we were agreeable to the passage of the Bill without the safeguards that we would have wished, in some appropriate form, to see embodied in it. Therefore, we shall necessarily be opposing the Third Reading, and in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      11.55 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall say a few words about the Bill to make it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support this Bill — [HON, MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—which has been courageously brought before the House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). The hon. Gentleman and I were pitted against one and another repeatedly during the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and it is a pleasure to be able to support the Government in bringing before the House a Bill, that does not necessarily have the popular appeal of Bills, to enable persons to be brought to this country to be tried for crimes. This Bill concerns the serving of sentences once such people have been tried.
      I do not agree with the argument that a Bill such as this presents a threat to our sovereignty. It does not —indeed, it is a sign of national strength that one can enjoy reciprocal arrangements on criminal justice with other countries. It is essential to the effective operation of our criminal justice system that we should have reciprocal arrangements on criminal justice. We cannot have reciprocal arrangements on criminal trials and then say that we shall not have them for criminal sentences.
      I hope that this Bill is part of the increase in those reciprocal arrangements. The problem of such arrangements on criminal justice has been a thorny one. This has been exemplified and highlighted in the past few days by the allegations that safe havens are enjoyed elsewhere by people guilty of serious crimes within the United Kingdom. I hope that this Bill, which I support, will be part of the trend towards full reciprocation in criminal justice.
      11.57 pm
      Mr. Forth: I welcome this, the first opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate on this controversial measure. I am grateful for the fact that this

      427
      opportunity has now arisen, because all previous discussions on this Bill have been dealt with either in the other place or in Committee. It has always been a sufficiently important matter, both in principle and in application, to have deserved the most thorough possible airing. I regret that it is only at this late stage, and only at this late hour, that we have an opportunity to do so.
      I have severe reservations about the Bill for three reasons. The first is that it has the whole-hearted support of the Opposition. That always makes me suspicious of any measure. It is made worse by the fact that it is one of those measures that is surrounded by that cosy, comfortable unanimity that always makes me think that there is bound to be something wrong with it.
      12 midnight
      The position gets worse when we realise that it is one of those measures—we have had them before and will no doubt have more in the future—which have arisen from a convention. In this case the convention comes from the Council of Europe, a most peculiar international body, the sole purpose of which seems to be to dream up conventions of this sort, which often bear no relationship to real people's problems or to the real demands of the day. But they are brought to this House, based on some sort of international argument, and we are expected to swallow them simply because they originate in those august places.
      My next problem arises precisely from the word "humanitarianism", one of those cosy and pleasant words which are nowadays attached to measures which are expected to receive universal approval. When we consider the meaning of the word "humanitarianism"—promoting welfare and social reform, let us say—we are forced to ask: whose welfare and social reform are we talking about? [HON. MEMBERS: "The criminal's."] Yes, we are talking about the welfare principally of criminals—those convicted of offences—and their families. Most of us seek to uphold the principle of the family. On that basis the criminal himself is primarily responsible for the welfare of his family, and that should be the case.
      I have the gravest suspicions of the measure. As I have said, it is controversial and I regret that we did not have an earlier opportunity to debate it. When introducing the measure in another place, Lord Elton said:
      "The Bill is a new departure in the administration of criminal law and it introduces an entirely new form of procedure."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 751.]
      That aspect was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). That is why the Bill warrants more than a passing glance; it warrants close scrutiny. The Bill also involves the expenditure of public moneys over and above those which are presently provided for. In this case it is to ensure that criminals—those convicted of offences of a lesser or greater kind—are brought back from far places in order to serve out perhaps only some of their sentences in this country. I should like to return to that aspect later.
      Therefore, the matter is not uncontroversial; it is a matter of some great argument, both in principle and in practice. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister said himself in Committee that there are quite a number of people who are not very much persuaded even of the principle of the Bill. I wholly agree with him.
      428
      I have some questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, if it is not too late now to raise them. The first has not yet been referred to in these proceedings and I do not believe that it was referred to in the Committee proceedings. The Bill allows for the repatriation not only of United Kingdom nationals but of-those who have "close ties" with the United Kingdom. I am anxious to know just what that might mean. It could, depending on the way in which it was interpreted, mean that if a considerable number of people had ties which were unspecified and not dealt with in the Bill, the door could be open potentially to the repatriation to our prisons of a number of people who are not nationals. That requires much more explanation than has been given.
      We have the estimate of the additional cost given in the memorandum—about £100,000 per annum. I have grave doubts about that figure as well. Although, as has rightly been said earlier, the prisoners themselves will be asked to pay for the costs of their transport back—I shall be interested to know how it will be enforced in those cases where they are unable or simply unwilling to pay—more importantly there are the costs, which will be borne by the taxpayer, of providing the police escort from wherever the prisoner is being repatriated. In the case of a far-flung country that could be a very considerable cost.
      There are other costs involved. Will there not be a requirement, for example, for additional prison places in Britain because of what I would call the differential effect? It is very likely that most United Kingdom nationals who are in prison in, say, Turkey, will be very anxious to come back and serve out their sentences here. I do not imagine that too many Turkish nationals would be in a great hurry to go back to the prisons in their country. If that is the case, this measure will mean increased pressure on prison places in the United Kingdom because of the differential effect. The cost estimate in the Bill is likely to be an underestimate.
      I come to the important matter of sentencing policy. Lord Elton said in another place:
      "It seems to be generally accepted that following transfer the enforcement of a sentence, including arrangements for remission and conditional release, should be in accordance with the law and practice of the receiving state." —-[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 756.]
      The House should receive a full explanation of the meaning of that utterance.
      I am greatly worried that there is more than a possibility that people who have voluntarily gone to another country and committed a crime and have been convicted and sentenced, will be repatriated and receive a lighter sentence and gain earlier remission here than they would in the other country. That raises an interesting point. We often slide into arrogance in assuming that our judicial system and remission and parole procedures are superior to those in other countries. If another country has the gall to imprison one of our nationals for a serious offence, he may, on repatriation, be released in Britain much earlier than he would have been in that country. That point raises an important issue of principle.
      For all those reasons, I am unable to support this measure in its present form. I hope that we will receive a fuller explanation of some of the important questions, including my question about close ties, which may have been raised for the first time.
      12.6 am
      Mr. BerminghamHaving listened to the reasons given by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on why he cannot support the Bill, I begin to shudder at the thought of what five years in the European Parliament will do to some of those who have recently been elected. Five years in the European Parliament have seemed to make the hon. Gentleman believe that, because a measure receives all-party agreement, it must perforce be bad, and that because the Council of Europe—which has served many honourable causes and on which many hon. Members have served with distinction—had the temerity to suggest that the measure might be a good idea, he is opposed to it.
      The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the idea of transferring prisoners is not new. The Americans and Canadians have entered into it already. It is realised that one of the factors that must be considered in the rehabilitation of an offender—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this point—is the importance of family ties. Family ties should be enhanced. I note that the hon. Gentleman looks askance. I appreciate that some Conservative Members do not accept that criminals can be rehabilitated. Believe it or not, that is the objective of any incarcceration system. [Interruption.] I thought that that statement would flush out the Conservative Members.
      There are two schools of thought in penology—the barbaric school which says, "Screw them into the ground and keep them there", and the humane school which says, "If someone has committed a crime, by all means incarerate him if necessary, but at least have a purpose behind that incarceration."
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should give them a gun.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman is his usual, natural, humane self again tonight.
      If, during his five years in Europe, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire had spent a little time looking into the suggestions of the Council of Europe on what lies behind the convention, he might have learnt something.
      It is not a question of terrorism, on to which we were sidetracked earlier, but of people incarcerated in gaols abroad, sometimes for acts that are offences in other countries but not here. To take a simple example, I know that some of the Conservative Members who have been trying to interrupt are partial to the occasional mild alcoholic beverage. If such a partiality came to the fore during a trip to the middle east they might be locked up. Is it suggested that we should not seek bilateral agreements to bring them back to serve out in this country the sentences imposed on them abroad? I agree that if one breaks the law of another state it is fair enough that one should pay the price, but let us bring the people concerned back to this country where they have family and other close ties.
      That is really the principle behind the Bill and the principle that anyone with any thought for humanity should support. If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire cared to ponder a little more generously towards humanity he might find himself able to support the Bill. Incidentally, if he had been so interested in the subject it would not have been too difficult for him to ask the Government Whips to see that he was appointed to the Second Reading Committee or to the Standing Committee
      430
      on the Bill. It is possible to apply to serve in that way if one feels strongly about an issue, although the duties involved are bound to take up a little of one's time.
      I tabled an amendment in Committee to deal with the position of people who are mentally or physically handicapped. As the consent of the person is essential under the Bill, it was suggested that the Home Secretary might take the decision for people whose handicaps rendered them incapable of doing so themselves. The Minister agreed to consider the matter and I sought leave to withdraw the amendment. The Minister has now replied, in a letter dated 28 June, in accordance with the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I ask him to reaffirm for the record the contents of that reply.
      The Minister suggested in his letter that a review panel would be set up by the Home Secretary similar to that which exists under the Mental Health Act and that that panel would make the decision on behalf of persons so mentally incapacitated as to be unable to do so themselves, and I agree that that might solve the problem. Such cases will be extremely rare. We should not expect many in the next 20 years. If the Minister will confirm that a panel could take the decision on behalf of prisoners or patients confined as a result of criminal proceedings to mental hospitals, and incapable of making the decision themselves, I shall rest content and thank the Minister for his efforts as I believe that his ideas and mine are ad idem on this.
      I understand that a similar review panel of doctors would be established for severely physically handicapped people in the same position.
      I do not often say this about the Government's measures, but I believe that this is a good Bill which goes to the root of an international problem. It seeks to bring a little humanity into the prison system and to help in the rehabilitation of those who offend abroad. I ask the House to support it.
      Mr. Dubs: I welcome the Bill. It represents the culmination of many years of effort by hon. Members and people outside the House. In particular, I pay tribute to members of the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, which has. campaigned ceaselessly and energetically over many years and is to be congratulated on its success in a Bill that I hope will be passed by the House tonight. The National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad campaigned hard, with limited resources, and I am glad for the help that it gave to me and to other hon. Members in the various stages through which the Bill has passed.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked the Minister how many British citizens were detained in prisons in the Irish Republic. It is not really for me to answer on behalf of the Minister, but it may be of interest to the House to know that a question that I put to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that was answered on 8 May revealed that there were altogether 923 British citizens abroad. They were not necessarily all convicted. Some of them may have been awaiting sentence. In Second Reading Committee the Minister said that that number could probably be whittled down to 250 coming within the terms of the Bill, because it did not apply to prisoners serving short sentences.

      431
      According to the answer to my parliamentary question, there was one British subject in prison in the Irish Republic on that date, although it did not say whether he originated in Northern Ireland or on this side of the water.
      I emphasise that, in supporting the Bill, there is no intention of being soft on criminals. Indeed the reverse is the case. As regards Britons serving sentences abroad, in some countries prison regimes are more onerous than ours. However, there are also other countries where prison conditions compare well with, or are even better than, those in many of the old, Victorian prisons in this country.
      Mr. Forth: Would it not be reasonable to suppose in that case that a prisoner would opt to stay in more pleasant surroundings rather than to come back? The prisoner has it either way.
      Mr. Dubs: The Bill rightly gives that choice to the prisoner. There is nothing wrong in that.
      Mr. John David Taylor: On the point about the numbers of British prisoners in prisons in the Republic of Ireland, I suspect that the reply received by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) referred to persons from Great Britain but certainly not to persons from the United Kingdom. It was to that that I specifically directed my question. There are many from Northern Ireland, who are British citizens, in Portlaoise gaol. Most of them will ask for transfer back to Northern Ireland in the same way that IRA prisoners in English gaols continually request the Home Office for transfers back to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Dubs: It is not for me to interpret the meaning of a question answered by the Government. [Interruption.] It is not for me to interpret for the right hon. Gentleman. I asked the question before the Second Reading Committee to find out how many British subjects would be involved. I received an answer, and the Minister has helpfully explained during the debate how many prisoners might benefit from the Bill. That is surely relevant, given the question asked by the right hon. Member for Strangford, about how that would affect our already overcrowded prison system. That is relevant. I was merely trying to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he does not want that help, I am sorry that I endeavoured to help him. If he wishes to proceed down the path of interpretation it is up to him to ask the Minister to explain the matter further.
      I was saying a few moments ago that there is no intention in the Bill of being soft on criminals. It is a matter of common sense and justice and of protecting our society when Britons sentenced abroad are eventually released. I say that for the following reasons. There are particular and additional problems for prisoners who are not in their own countries — differences in language, culture, diet and religion. Above all, there is isolation from their families. It is not a matter of pandering to people who should have thought of that in the first place; it is a matter of ensuring that, apart from common humanity, when prisoners are released into society—and British prisoners will, in most instances, return to this country—it is in circumstances that will help them to go straight and to play their part as law-abiding citizens.
      If the prisoners are helped in that process by serving the remaining part of their prison sentences in closer proximity to their families and friends, that is something of which we
      432
      should be proud because it will be helpful to us and to the way in which prisoners are eventually allowed to take part in our society. It is not only a matter of benefiting prisoners—it benefits us all.
      I suspect that in many European countries the conditions for parole are better for certain categories of prisoners than they are here, especially following the Home Secretary's latest changes in and restrictions on parole for long-serving prisoners—those serving over five years for drug offences, using firearms or life sentence prisoners. It is not all one-way traffic; it is not that our system is better than those abroad.
      I regret that we do not have similar legislation that would allow prisoners in any part of the United Kingdom, especially Northern Ireland, to move nearer to their families. That does not always happen. I wish it did, because that would make sense. However, it is not within the scope of the Bill.
      I hope that the Bill will be passed by the House and quickly implemented. I hope that the Government will be successful in securing arrangements with as many countries as possible. It will be of benefit not only to prisoners but to our society as a whole.
      12.22 am
      Mr. Mellor: Because of the hour, I shall be very brief—[Interruption.] That is the most popular thing that I have said this evening. I have left it to a late hour, but by the law of averages we always pick a winner when we try hard enough.
      It is a modest but significant humanitarian measure that I am proud to bring before the House. I take the somewhat unfashionable view—I take it nevertheless—that I am glad that there are some Bills that can command widespread support and are not the subject of partisan controversy.
      I have enjoyed our debates on the Bill. I have taken seriously the amendments proposed, from whichever side of the House. Indeed, we have accepted some amendments, and the Bill has been improved thereby. I hope that all those who have played a part in the passage of the Bill are pleased to have done so. I shall not, in deference to the hour, say any more about the measure. I made my points in the Second Reading Committee. However, I warmly endorse what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said in favour of the Bill.
      I certainly stand by the commitment I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I shall not repeat the text of the letter because of the lateness of the hour. I shall place a copy in the Library so that it is on the record. He made a valuable point, which we have accepted.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) feels so alienated from the principles of the Bill. I am sure that he is not right to feel so because we are not saying that criminals should not be punished. We are saying that, in addition to the deprivation of liberty in prison, which is involved in any transfer under the Bill, there is no reason to impose the extra deprivation of being in a prison of a quite different character from a British prison. Some of the prisoners would not be imprisoned at all, or for the same length of time, under our penal code, so some sympathy for their predicament might be appropriate.

      433
      On my hon. Friend's specific points, there is no question of our abrogating the normal immigration rules on close ties. They will be applied with the same rigour as always. An example of a case where the Secretary of State's discretionary powers may be used is that of a foreign spouse of a British citizen who, although resident in the United Kingdom for many years, still has citizenship in his country of origin. We expect that the power will be sparingly used.
      In answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), may I say that costs are involved in escorting prisoners, but we do not think that they will exceed our estimate. We have no reason to believe that there will be a net addition to the United Kingdom prison population as a result of the measure. If anything, a net diminution is likely, although one cannot be confident about the figures. More people are eligible to be transferred overseas from British prisons than British prisoners are eligible to be transferred from foreign prisons to Britain. I do not accept that it is less likely that prisoners in British prisons will want to be transferred back to their own countries than British prisoners in gaol overseas who will wish to return to Britain. There is no reason to think that.
      The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the conditions under which people will be transferred. The convention provides that the normal rules of the prisons regime of the recipient country should apply. For good order and discipline in our prisons, we have provision for automatic remission and, in most cases, eligibility for parole. It would be inappropriate if those regulations did not apply to a transferred prisoner. If that transfer comes under the Council of Europe, they will apply. However, if it is necessary to negotiate bilateral treaties, one cannot guarantee what their terms will be. It would present difficulties if a country insisted that the full term should be served.
      Mr. John David Taylor: If, for example, a person was in prison in Saudi Arabia because he was caught with a glass of sherry in his hand, or if someone in the Republic of Ireland was caught with a contraceptive in his hand, and sought a transfer to a prison in the United Kingdom, would it mean that they would receive immediate remission or freedom in accordance with the laws of this country?
      Mr. Mellor: No. That is why the measure is not the beer-and-skittles arrangement that some seem to think it is. The person would have to serve the sentence imposed on him. That will pose problems, especially if the sentence were passed, for example, for a breach of the apartheid laws in South Africa. These arrangements are not as uncomplicated as some think. However, it is right that if the option of a transfer exists, it should exist, and if a person prefers to serve a sentence in Britain than under the conditions that would exist in some other countries, it is fair enough that he should be allowed to do so. That is the basis for the measure.
      I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen representing Northern Ireland feel obliged to oppose the Third Reading. I hope that when the Bill is enacted they will not find any reason to believe that I have gone back on any commitments on the transfer of terrorist prisoners. I hope that even at this late hour they will find sufficient good in the Bill not to oppose it. I commend the Bill to the House and take pride in so doing.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 8.

      Division No. 392]

      [12.27 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Mather, Carol

      Ancram, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ashby, David

      Mellor, David

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Merchant, Piers

      Baldry, Anthony

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Beith, A. J.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Murphy, Christopher

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Needham, Richard

      Best, Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter

      Norris, Steven

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Osborn, Sir John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Ottaway, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Powley, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Butterfill, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Cash, William

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Chope, Christopher

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Conway, Derek

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Cope, John

      Spencer, Derek

      Couchman, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Stern, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Dover, Den

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Evennett, David

      Sumberg, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Fox, Marcus

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Tracey, Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hayes, J.

      Waddington, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Walden, George

      Jackson, Robert

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Watson, John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Watts, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Whitfield, John

      Lord, Michael

      Whitney, Raymond

      MacGregor, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Maclean, David John

      Wood, Timothy

      Major, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marland, Paul

      Mr. Donald Thompson and

      Mates, Michael

      Mr. Archie Hamilton.

      NOES

      McCusker, Harold

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Nicholson, J.

      Tellers for the Noes:

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

      Rev. Martin Smyth and

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Mr. William Ross.

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

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th July, the Motions relating to Trade and Industry, Education, Science and Arts,

    435
    Environment, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, and Welsh Affairs may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Neubert.]
    Hon. Members: Object

    Royal Air Force (New Training Aircraft)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Neubert.]
    12.37 am
    Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): The whole House will acknowledge that this is a most important debate, in that it affects a vital area of our defence—the training of Royal Air Force pilots. It is a real and personal pleasure for me to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on the Front Bench to reply. I can only apologise for having commanded his presence at such a late hour. I anticipate that he will tell me that his remarks must be limited as the decision on the new RAF basic trainer is, in effect, sub judice. Let me assure him that the object of this debate is not to try to tease out of him statements in favour of any particular aircraft design but to set the record straight and assuage some fears. It is also my purpose to set out my reasons for believing that, this time, it would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the RAF to purchase the Firecracker aircraft.
    Invitations to tender were issued on 18 June and it is the Government's intention that tenders should be returned by about the middle of September. There are really four contenders which comply with air staff target 412. Three are foreign and one is British. The foreign competitors in this contract have found British partners to build in part their aircraft in the United Kingdom, but it is interesting to note in respect of all the foreign designs that none came from countries which are members of the EEC and NATO, organisations that we in Britain must support. Moreover, all competitor aircraft have been ordered by, or are in service with, their own Governments; and none of those countries invited Britain to tender for their new basic trainer requirements. I stress to my hon. Friend that I do not intend in any way that my speech should be a jingoistic appeal to the Government to buy British regardless of other factors but merely to point out that in Britain we have an aircraft in the Firecracker which meets the RAF's essential technical requirements, is cheaper than the foreign competition and can demonstrate substantial exports with the result of jobs for Britain. With all these factors in favour of Firecracker, I do not think that it is wrong, in addition, to be patriotic.
    In a written answer on 30 April 1984 my hon. Friend indicated that manufacturers of foreign aircraft would be asked to show the content of British equipment in their aircraft and to demonstrate any potential offset arrangements. Indeed, I understand that the tender documents ask for an offset to be demonstrated from foreign aircraft companies. As far as the content of British equipment is concerned, I regret that an answer in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne may, unwittingly, have conveyed a misleading impression. On 13 June it was put to him that the Firecracker is the only all-British design company which is capable of producing an all-British aircraft other than the engine. My noble Friend replied that, although the engines of all the four contenders for the contract are in fact of non-British design, in regard to the Firecracker no less than 90 per cent. of the equipment in terms of cost was of non-United Kingdom origin. That is not accurate.

    437
    It is true to say that the turbo Firecracker built as a civil trainer was, necessarily, to the United Kingdom certificate of airworthiness requirements and there was a large input of foreign equipment because either British equipment was not available or was too expensive to meet such requirements. The design that has been put forward for the RAF basic trainer is not the same thing at all. In his reply, I hope that my hon. Friend will remedy this unfortunate misunderstanding. In any event, there is about a 50 per cent., not 90 per cent. foreign content in the existing two Firecracker aircraft which fly under CAA rules.
    The Swiss Pilatus PC9 has not yet been certificated by the Swiss authorities. This will take place at the end of 1985. It has a more powerful engine than the Firecracker and better performance figures but it is way in excess of RAF requirements. The penalty for this extra performance is a vastly increased cost of purchase. I can well understand why the RAF itself might favour such an aircraft, but can the Government, acting with financial prudence in the interests of the whole defence budget, afford this extra luxury? There is a fifty-fifty work sharing agreement with British Aerospace and it is understood that this company will manage the project and do the final assembly in the United Kingdom.
    I should point out, however, that even British Aerospace is not confident of Switzerland buying Hawk aircraft if we were to purchase the PC9 trainer. So what is the advantage of buying a Swiss aircraft which is known to be more expensive? An authoritative view is that it could take 10 years for sales of the Hawk to Switzerland. May I remind my hon. Friend that of the past 350 aircraft sold to Switzerland 75 per cent. were made under licence in Switzerland and the other 25 per cent. were fitted out there. Even the latest Rapier contract will be built in Switzerland under licence. So where are the British jobs? Many hon. Members will be watching closely this aspect. My hon. Friend will know that a promise of future sales is not the same as a firm offset agreement.
    The Brazilian aircraft, the Tucano, is built by Embraer which has signed an agreement with Short Brothers which provides for 100 per cent. manufacture of the Tucano in Belfast except for the first 25 aircraft which would be built in Brazil. It is a good aircraft but more expensive than the Firecracker and the co-operative agreement with Shorts for joint projects seems to favour only the Brazilians. One has to question Shorts' ability to build this aircraft in view of its other commitments. My hon. Friend will not need to be reminded that Brazil has the third largest world balance of payments deficit and, in such circumstances, it is difficult to know how we might have a viable offset which, indirectly, would be paid for by Brazil's international creditors including the United Kingdom. It is fair to say, also, that Brazil is in a politically sensitive part of the world and any purchase from Brazil could create considerable political difficulties for us here.
    The Wamira AAC-A20 from Australia is a paper aircraft, as it is not due to be ready until 1986. It cannot be a serious contender even though it is tied up with Westlands which wants to sell helicopters to Australia. We would be unlikely to see even a prototype to meet in-service dates of new aircraft from 1986 to 1989 and, in any event, why should we fund the development of an Australian aircraft when we rejected a proposal by British Aerospace to fund its own project?
    What, then, can Firecracker offer to Britain other than being the only British designed and built contender? First,
    438
    current figures show that the aircraft will be between 15 and 20 per cent. cheaper than the competition, a major consideration in our present economic situation and demands on our defence budget. Secondly, and very importantly, all jobs in the building of the Firecracker aircraft for the RAF would be British jobs and not just ones provided for the final assembly after the aircraft had been built abroad. In addition, further jobs will be created in order to build aircraft for the export orders that will result from RAF endorsement of the Firecracker. It is likely that those jobs would be in development areas of Britain where skilled aerospace personnel are available such as Cardiff, Deeside, Humberside or Prestwick.
    Exports are a crucial factor in the award of the RAF contract. The defence sales organisation believes that there is a world market of about 1,200 turbo prop training aircraft in the next 10 to 15 years. A large number of those aircraft would be for countries which look to Britain and the RAF for their export lead. Based on sales figures of previous training aircraft, it is not unreasonable to assume that exports of 400 aircraft could follow from RAF procurement of a new turbo prop trainer. Those export sales would not go to Britain if a foreign design were selected and it would, instead, merely enhance some other country's export market at the expense of British jobs and British exports. It is true that foreign manufacturers claim that they would permit some aircraft to be built in the United Kingdom for export, but they would never allow Britain to supply the proposed markets in total, and., no doubt, they would seek to satisfy those export markets principally with their own produced aircraft. Only the selection of a British aircraft would ensure that Britain's traditional markets are not lost irrevocably.
    I know that in his reply my hon. Friend will want to mention that Firecracker Aircraft Ltd is restructuring the company to allow a controlling interest to be taken by a very large group of companies and a merchant bank. That will give Firecracker the industrial base about which so much concern has been expressed on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The combination in this new company of project management, industrial capability, financial stability and product support must put at rest the Ministry's fears. My hon. Friend will be aware that the group produced the last three basic training aircraft — the Prentice, the Piston Provost and the current Jet Provost.
    My hon. Friend and I share a common pride in our country and its products. Neither of us wants to see foreign competitors laughing at us. That is why it is particularly noteworthy that in volume 5/1984 of the English edition of "Interavia", a Swiss magazine, there was an article entitled "Firecracker: Looking for a Home Market". The article begins:
    "It is typically British to set up a competition for a new basic trainer for the Royal Air Force in which manufacturers are invited to compete with an excellent home produced aircraft. Other potential customers must wonder what can be wrong with Firecracker."
    The article ends:
    "Final impressions: a real aeroplane, superbly responsive. No ordinary aeroplane can match Firecracker… Firecracker should make tigers, not just aeroplane drivers like those spineless small jets."
    Apart from Firecracker being technically superior, cheaper and all British, it would benefit both present and future jobs in export orders rather than enhancing the prestige of a foreign competitor. There are also excellent philosophical reasons why Firecracker should be

    439
    preferred, as will be appreciated only too well by my hon. Friend. Not only is it the only British-designed and built turbo prop military training aircraft currently flying and in production, but it was also built by private initiative and private investment at no cost to the taxpayer.
    The cost of purchasing 130 Firecracker aircraft as the new basic trainer is approximately the same cost as refurbishing the 25-year-old Jet Provost. Firecracker is being designed with rugged yet simple systems which require little maintenance and as a lead-in trainer to the British Aerospace Hawk. It can be used for weapons training or delivery and can be exported in this role in addition to the training one. Large export orders have resulted from RAF endorsement in the past and this potential would be destroyed if a foreign aircraft were selected.
    Firecracker is in the direct tradition of private initiative in British aviation. If British initiative and skill is not encouraged in this vital area, who will ever again risk private investment in Britain's defence industry?
    "The importance of the aerospace industry to the British economy cannot be over-estimated. Indeed, if we had to produce an ideal example of an industry with high value added export products, we need look no further than aerospace."
    Those are not my words, but those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking in September 1980. Although the foreign competitors have arrangements with British companies, both Westlands and Short Brothers have indicated that, if Firecracker were selected by the RAF, they would be prepared to participate in production of the aircraft.
    This Government and the Prime Minister have set out to encourage private enterprise. It has been their stated requirement to buy British when products can create jobs, demonstrate an export market and be of the right quality and price. Firecracker has invested private money to meet a specific gap in the market that will create jobs at home and sales abroad, at a competitive price. Firecracker is also in the direct tradition of private initiative in British aviation.
    We have in Britain a company which has designed and built an aircraft with private money, which meets the RAF's essential specification. It is cheaper than the foreign competition and can demonstrate the creation of jobs and a large potential export market. It has firm industrial backing and expertise to support the RAF for a 25-year in-service period. Surely the Government must support an aircraft and an organisation which have fulfilled the very industrial guidelines that the Government have laid down.
    Although my hon. Friend may not be able to do more at this stage than acknowledge these comments, I have every confidence that he will take on board the points that I have made and that the Government will come to the inevitable conclusion that they should select Firecracker as the RAF's new basic trainer.
    12.52 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys M ôn (Mr. Best) for raising this subject, and I congratulate him on obtaining the debate.
    The RAF's quest for a solution to its basic training requirement in the 1990s and into the next century has
    440
    aroused a good deal of interest, and now that tenders have been invited for the four short-listed designs for a possible successor to the Jet Provost, this is a useful opportunity to take stock of where we are. While Firecracker supporters will applaud my hon. Friend's speech, others no doubt will not be best pleased.
    To set the scene, I should like first to say something about the general nature of the requirement. The RAF currently has a total inventory of around 160 Mk 3 and Mk 5 Jet Provost aircraft for basic pilot training. This training is built on the assumption that the student has in fact already gained some initial flying experience either before joining the RAF or immediately afterwards. It lays the foundation for the advanced training, where the student specialises on a type of aircraft relevant to his expected future employment; thus, for example, someone destined to fly fast jet combat aircraft progresses from the Jet Provost to the Hawk.
    The Jet Provost has been in service since 1960. It is outmoded and suffers from shortcomings which detract from its training effectiveness. These included outdated avionics, high fuel consumption, side-by-side seating and a poor ratio of support man-hours to flying utilisation.
    The aircraft has already undergone a number of life extension and update programmes to prolong its employment at an affordable cost. Without a major refurbishment programme, it would be impossible to meet the envisaged pilot training task beyond 1987–88. The alternative is to look for a replacement aircraft.
    Refurbishment would, among other things, entail the replacement of wings and the centre section of the fuselage, together in many cases with new fins and strengthening of the rear fuselage. This would enable us to keep the Jet Provost in service until the mid-1990s, after which its replacement by a new aircraft would become inevitable.
    We have not yet finally decided which course —refurbishment or immediate replacement—to adopt, but we have on the evidence so far available made a provisional judgment that replacement makes better economic sense, and we are progressively exploring the replacement option with industry.
    Our discussions with industry were formalised last September, when we issued air staff target 412, together with a questionnaire asking for technical and cost information. To take full advantage of the large number of trainer aircraft in this sector of the market, we gave the staff target and the questionnaire wide circulation among both national and foreign firms. We had received information on 23 candidate designs from 17 companies by the November deadline.
    Some of the information supplied was not sufficiently detailed to facilitate proper analysis, but 18 were subjected to a technical and budgetary cost examination, on the strength of which they were reduced to a short list of four, the names of which we announced in a written answer on 16 March. The four are the Australian Aircraft Consortium A20, Firecracker NDN-One T, Pilatus PC9 and the Shorts-Embraer "Tucano".
    We compared the costs of the designs submitted in response to AST 412 not only with each other but also with projections of the cost of refurbishing and running on the Jet Provost. The conclusion we reached was that refurbishment looked increasingly unattractive, and this was referred to during the RAF debate on 2 February. It will be appreciated that I must still exercise a certain

    441
    amount of caution on this point, in advance of having firm and detailed cost proposals for possible replacement designs, and we shall, of course, be looking to such proposals to confirm the provisional judgment.
    I wish to draw attention to two features of the staff target, the seating requirement and the type of engine. The Jet Provost has side-by-side seating, but it is the RAF's policy to rely in future on tandem seating in training aircraft—the Hawk has this—because students will be more quickly acclimatised to the cockpit environment of combat aircraft. As for the engine, AST 412 invited both turbo-fan and turbo-prop designs. The Jet Provost is, of course, powered by a pure jet, but turbo-prop design has in recent years reached the stage where such engines are well matched to the training requirement and offer a credible alternative to the turbo-fan, with the advantage of significantly cheaper running costs.
    Our approach to AST 412 was, however, to judge the various designs entirely on their merits, and I emphasise that the absence of turbo-fan solutions from the short list implies no operational objections to such an engine in a trainer. The adoption of a turbo-prop design would be an important innovation, and I would not wish to minimise that. One consequence would be that the syllabus could include a higher proportion of solo flying; various features of the Jet Provost demanding close supervision have meant that only 27 per cent. of basic flying training was done solo, and experience shows that it is solo flying which develops the confidence essential to a ready transition to high performance aircraft.
    On the other side of the balance sheet, a turbo-prop design would necessitate an additional 15 hours in the advanced Hawk training for each fast jet student, because even the best available turbo-prop designs fall about 50 knots short of the 300 knots required for low-level navigation training and general aircraft handling exercises. Needless to say we have allowed for this in our calculations, and the overall costs associated with the turbo-prop designs would still almost certainly be appreciably lower.
    Following the announcement of the short list, work proceeded on the drafting of a detailed specification for the Jet Provost replacement, and this was issued on 18 June, together with the formal invitations to tender. The documents were sent to the four principal firms and, in parallel, to the four manufacturers in the United Kingdom with which production agreements had been reached.
    In addition to the well-known link-up between Shorts and Embraer, the Australian Aircraft Consortium has reached agreement with Westlands; Firecracker Aircraft Ltd. with, I understand, Huntings; and Pilatus with British Aerospace. The tenders which are due to be returned in September, will be examined along lines similar to those governing our examination of replies to the questionnaire last autumn, but the financial part of this analysis will be extended to include a definitive comparison with refurbishment of the Jet Provost, by means of an investment appraisal. I hope that the analysis will be completed by November and expect to have reached a final decision towards the end of the year.
    The invitations to tender specify a numerical requirement of 130 aircraft with an option to build another 15. This is of course less than the Jet Provost fleet and reflects the expected improvement in the replacement aircraft's efficiency. The House may like to know that in parallel with the tendering process we are affording
    442
    facilities for handling and engineering evaluations by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. We have invited Firecracker Aircraft, Pilatus and Shorts/Embraer to make their aircraft available at different times during the summer for this purpose. The Australian A20 cannot be included in this exercise, however, since it has not yet flown.
    In connection with the replacement competition I should like to mention two factors which will play an important part in our deliberations and on which my hon. Friend rightly laid stress. The first is the question of the work content for firms in this country and the second that of exports.
    I note my hon. Friend's remarks about what was said on the subject of Firecracker in another place by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces, who observed that 90 per cent. of its equipment in terms of cost is of non-United Kingdom origin. This referred only to the systems fitted into the aircraft, not the total aircraft including the airframe. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding that there may have been that my noble Friend was referring to the aircraft as a whole.
    I should also like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the figure given was derived from the information given to us by Firecracker Aircraft Ltd. in answering the questionnaire we sent out with the air staff target last September. To some extent this is now history since things have moved on and we have now issued invitations to four short-listed firms to put in formal tenders. Clearly it is impossible for me to anticipate now what changes may be made to these aircraft in response to that invitation. Only when the tenders have been returned and evaluated will we know the true balance between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom equipment in each case. Naturally this is something we shall be looking at closely.
    I think that it is now well understood that the Government are anxious to encourage our own industry to become an effective force in meeting the requirements of the armed services to the fullest possible extent. It has become standard practice to take into account the opportunities for British firms in all defence procurement, and the replacement of the Jet Provost will be no exception. Where foreign manufacturers are concerned, they know that we shall seek a clear indication of the extent to which firms in this country would be allowed to participate in production. As the House was told during the RAF debate, I would hope that any new training aircraft would at least be built in the United Kingdom. Obviously we shall not lose sight of the primary objective, which is to secure for the RAF the most cost-effective trainer to meet its needs over the next two or three decades, but within that framework we shall of course be looking very hard at all the industrial implications.
    Having said that, I would add one note of caution: the industrial interfaces in the production of defence equipment are nowadays highly sophisticated, and initial impressions about the national content of a complicated product like an aircraft can be rather unreliable. Thus, for example, all four of the shortlisted designs to AST 412 would use variants of the PTO engine made by Pratt and Whitney of Canada, and all would embody British and foreign components.
    Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Lee: I am sorry, no. I have an extremely tight schedule.
    Where export opportunities are concerned, we are aware that the prospective world market for basic trainers is fairly large.
    The RAF's requirement for a future basic trainer is unusual in the scope it has presented for consideration of a very wide range of possible new designs. Inevitably, the sifting of these designs has involved disappointment for some contenders, and the process has been complicated by the need to weigh the possible replacement aircraft against the alternative of refurbishing the Jet Provost. We have, however, to ensure a solution which is both cost effective and operationally effective, and I make no apology for the length of time that that is taking. The House will understand that there is little more that I can say now that formal tenders have been invited. I am, however, confident that at the end of the day the RAF will be well satisfied with its ability to meet the training commitment, and that, moreover, we shall achieve this objective in a
    444
    way which exploits to the full the competitive potential in this crowded market place, whilst nevertheless providing the maximum reasonable opportunity for our own industry.
    Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering my questions at such length. I appreciate that he has gone as far as he can in the circumstances. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I appreciate that the issue is very much sub judice. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that a foreign aircraft would be produced in Britain. I hope that the Government will make it a requirement that any foreign aircraft, if it is to be considered, will have to be built in Britain. However, I hope also that the Government will be choosing the Firecracker in due course. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Maze Prison Escape (Prosecutions)
  Maze Prison Escape (Prosecutions)
WALES
  Physiotherapy Services
  Physiotherapy Services
DEFENCE
  Departmental Leaflets
  Departmental Leaflets
  Asbestosis (Compensation)
  Asbestosis (Compensation)
  RFA Sir Tristram
  RFA Sir Tristram
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Contracts
  Overseas Contracts
PRIME MINISTER
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs Procedures
  Customs Procedures
  On-course Betting Duty
  On-course Betting Duty
  Import Duties and Levies
  Import Duties and Levies
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Loan Interest Rates
  Loan Interest Rates
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Mr. Telliez (Milk Subsidy Payment)
  Mr. Telliez (Milk Subsidy Payment)
  Disabled Persons (Car Tax Relief)
  Disabled Persons (Car Tax Relief)
TRANSPORT
  Warminster Bypass
  Warminster Bypass
  Quarry Hills Lane, Lichfield
  Quarry Hills Lane, Lichfield
  A1(M) (Hatfield)
  A1(M) (Hatfield)
  Crash Helmets
  Crash Helmets
  Motorways (Delays)
  Motorways (Delays)
  Ferndown (Bypass)
  Ferndown (Bypass)
  Passenger Vehicles
  Passenger Vehicles
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Records (Access)
  Police Records (Access)
  Northern Ireland (Fatalities)
  Northern Ireland (Fatalities)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Halvergate Marshes
  Halvergate Marshes
  Milk Imports
  Milk Imports
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  European Community (Food Exports)
  European Community (Food Exports)
  Common Market (Expenditure)
  Common Market (Expenditure)
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
ENVIRONMENT
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Green Belt and Land for Housing
  Green Belt and Land for Housing
  Schoolchildren (Blood Lead Concentrations)
  Schoolchildren (Blood Lead Concentrations)
  Government-sponsored Research
  Government-sponsored Research
  Rent Controls (Abolition)
  Rent Controls (Abolition)
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Planning Policies
  Planning Policies
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Laybys (Flower Stalls)
  Laybys (Flower Stalls)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Open University
  Open University
  Teachers (Non-teaching Activities)
  Teachers (Non-teaching Activities)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Review)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Review)
  Secondary Education (Trafford)
  Secondary Education (Trafford)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
ENERGY
  Total B Contract
  Total B Contract
SCOTLAND
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  EC (Intervention Food Stores)
  EC (Intervention Food Stores)
  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Dentists (Earnings)
  Dentists (Earnings)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Roads (Grampian Region)
  Roads (Grampian Region)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Police (Disciplinary Procedures)
  Police (Disciplinary Procedures)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Local Enterprise Week
  Local Enterprise Week
  Scented Products (Safety)
  Scented Products (Safety)
  Paper and Board Imports
  Paper and Board Imports
  Communications Satellites
  Communications Satellites
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Spanish Steel Industry
  Spanish Steel Industry
  Floating Exchange Rates
  Floating Exchange Rates
  Mexico
  Mexico
  Press Takeovers
  Press Takeovers
  Manufactures (Balance of Trade)
  Manufactures (Balance of Trade)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Export Promotion Exercises
  Export Promotion Exercises
  Regional Industrial Development
  Regional Industrial Development
  Securities Industry
  Securities Industry
  Management Buy-outs
  Management Buy-outs
  Jaguar Cars
  Jaguar Cars
  Non-solvent-based Adhesives
  Non-solvent-based Adhesives
  Travel-to-work Areas (Review)
  Travel-to-work Areas (Review)
  Steel Production
  Steel Production
  Tourism (Private Capital)
  Tourism (Private Capital)
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Medicines (Patents)
  Medicines (Patents)
  Basildon
  Basildon
  Counterfeiting
  Counterfeiting
  Trade Promotions
  Trade Promotions
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  EC (Trade Restrictions)
  EC (Trade Restrictions)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Maritime Training (Wales)
  Maritime Training (Wales)
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Clothing and Footwear Production
  Clothing and Footwear Production
  Unsafe Electrical Products
  Unsafe Electrical Products
  Electric Ligh Bulbs (Imports)
  Electric Ligh Bulbs (Imports)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Business Confidence
  Business Confidence
  Director-General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Director-General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Patents (Litigation)
  Patents (Litigation)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Minimum Wages
  Minimum Wages
  Speedway Riders
  Speedway Riders
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Funfairs (Health and Safety)
  Funfairs (Health and Safety)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. James McMahon
  Mr. James McMahon
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board (Private Insurance)
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board (Private Insurance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Young Children (Day Care)
  Young Children (Day Care)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Claimants)
  Benefits (Claimants)
  Mr. Arthur Doyle
  Mr. Arthur Doyle
  NHS (Staff Recruitment)
  NHS (Staff Recruitment)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Hospital Waiting Times (Greater London)
  Hospital Waiting Times (Greater London)
  Prescription Pricing Authority (Computers)
  Prescription Pricing Authority (Computers)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Portable Pensions
  Portable Pensions
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Pensions (Emergency Payments)
  Pensions (Emergency Payments)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Dialysis Visits
  Dialysis Visits
  Benefits (Departmental Reviews)
  Benefits (Departmental Reviews)
  Charities (Grant Allocations)
  Charities (Grant Allocations)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Travel Visas
  Travel Visas
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  British Citizens Abroad (Accidents)
  British Citizens Abroad (Accidents)
  Mr. William Tate
  Mr. William Tate

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

Local Authority Services: Tendering
Lord Harris of High Cross: 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 they have any plans for requiring local authorities to put specified services out to competitive tender.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, in view of local authorities' slow progress in putting their services to the test of competition, we are giving general consideration to what measures can be taken to speed up the process.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat Delphic reply. I want to ask him this: in view of the established long success of the specialist contractors in handling the collection, treatment and disposal of waste of almost all industrial and commercial companies, as well as building up valuable overseas contracts in this matter, should they not now be given as a matter of great urgency the opportunity, as in most European countries, to tender for local government services where they can achieve savings commonly of between a quarter and a half of the local authority costs?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the question that the noble Lord raises. The question really is only to what extent, and how, they should be given that opportunity. Of course the opportunity exists already. It is merely a matter of how far one would want to proceed down the path of legislation, and that is something which, as I say, is an option and must be part of the consideration.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, why not abolish local government altogether and appoint Tory gauleiters to run all these local services? Is not that the end of current thinking in the Minister's party?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I were to answer that it would just be to give some credence to a question which really deserves none.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the evidence of annual savings of some £7 million from over 20 contracts so far let for refuse and street cleaning, not one of the councils concerned is under Labour control? Why should both ratepayers and taxpayers in all the areas where Labour councils preside suffer as a result of this political dogma?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can only say that I find it astonishing when noble Lords express concern about local government and all that goes with it that they should be willing, if you like, to sustain a view that is totally unprepared to even look to see what others can provide the same level of service for. I find that almost impossible to understand. It is quite different from saying that you will accept what is there. Not even to want to look, or to know, or to ask, I find astonishing.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, in view of the disastrous consequences of giving out to private tender many local government services—and if the noble Lord requires them I shall send him the details—would he not agree that it is in the best interests of the public that these services should be run by local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord certainly will have to send me the list to which he refers. I would ask him at the same time to consider to what extent he knows of the disastrous consequences of services provided by in-house organisations which do not receive the same kind of publicity as may have been received by individual situations of the kind to which he refers.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, has the Minister had the opportuntiy of looking at the survey carried out by the Local Government Council? Its main conclusions are that the number of authorities examining privatisation has dwindled, and that the vast majority of those examining it have rejected it. I wonder whether the Minister, in the spirit of giving freedom to local councils—like he did yesterday in reducing the quorum for councils and also giving directions on discretionary grants—would give a direction to those councils which have gone private not only to publish their experience, but to publish it against the promises that they accepted all too glibly from private contractors?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I hope very much that there will be the maximum publicity for what has been achieved by those authorities which have placed services out to the private sector. That would be very salutary to note. I hope at the same time that authorities will publish the success which they may have had even from going in-house after they have changed the basis upon which they have been working for so many years—
A noble Lord: A disaster.
Lord Bellwin: —because I think it is fair to say not that it is a disaster but quite the opposite, and that, because the private sector has thrown a spotlight upon the opportunities that exist to do things better, there are now services being provided all over the country at a fraction of the cost they were provided for for many years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has the information at his disposal to enable him to exude such confidence, would he kindly publish the statistics in regard to this, showing exactly the basis on which he founds his contentions? Particularly in view of the provisions of

275
the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1982, would he also be kind enough to publish the results—which I believe he is required to do—of the comparative tender position in relation to direct-labour organisations in the case of building works on behalf of local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the DLO legislation and certainly there is no reason at all why all the information available should not be published. So far as I am aware, statistics are not kept separately for all that each local authority does by way of contracting out its services, though I am told that some information has recently been published by the private sector and the statistics of what has been achieved have been collated. So far as I am aware, there are no overall statistics available because, as the noble Lord will agree, this is something which applies not just to one department but goes across all departments.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, either the noble Lord is being so confident about it on the basis of information that he has, or he does not have the information. Will he kindly publish the information on which he bases his answers?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the information that I have is that which comes within the purview of the Department of the Environment. There we have information which comes to us from the local authorities concerned; I point out that it is information that comes from authorities. We have not as yet collated it, but there is no reason why we should not do so, and your Lordships should have no doubt that when we do the figures will be seen to be dramatic.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, by way of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may I urge the Minister, if there is anxiety about taking stronger action, to consider the powerful effect that might be derived from more publicity which could be collected, even if it is not collated? May I ask him whether he would incorporate in his publicity the fact that when Birmingham put out its refuse collection to tender its own direct labour force swept the board and won the contract by volunteering to cut manning by 37 per cent. and the number of vehicles it had been using by 40 per cent.? Surely that would be a good beginning.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that that is the information I have as well. As I said before, when taken together with the other information, it will only help to make the picture dramatic. As a result of this question I shall consider the matter and the possibility of collecting together all the current information, to see how it can be better publicised.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister arrange to publish the information from the Birmingham council refuse disposal department? I shall be very interested, as 70 years ago I was chief cost accountant for the refuse department of Birmingham Corporation.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one difficulty is that it is not the refuse disposal department, but the refuse collection department.
Lord Leatherland: It is the same department, my Lords.

Coal Reserves
2.47 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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, in view of the need for all relevant facts to be available to Parliament and public (including trade unions) if future energy policy is to be soundly based, Her Majesty's Government will now require the NCB to publish full details of their estimates of recoverable coal reserves in Britain, their wherabouts, and the cost of mining them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the National Coal Board estimate is that it has operating reserves—coal which is proven and accessible—of 5 to 6 billion tonnes. It is for the NCB to plan its extraction of those reserves. In doing so the board will obviously take into consideration all relevant factors, including in particular the expected costs of production relative to the forecast selling price of coal and competing fuels.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while we all respect the sincerity of the Government's non-interventionist bigotry, would it not be a good thing if they required the board to publish details of where the reserves are, as asked in the Question, as well as the noble Earl's estimate, and the cost of working each particular geographical reserve? Would it not be a good thing if they paid attention to the urgent suggestion of a recent report of the Select Committee of this House to that effect? Might not full publication of the facts serve to lessen the tendency of the British public to tear itself to pieces in the dark, as it is now doing?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that there is, as it were, an intention to hide this; it is a question of how it can best be done. I would welcome further discussions between the National Coal Board and the British Geological Survey to clarify, and, if possible, to resolve their different approaches to this matter. I am not sure that this need require Government intervention.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, having regard to the fact that our recoverable reserves stretch at least as far into the future as the Industrial Revolution stretches into the past, might it not be otiose to waste time estimating recoverable reserves in terms of centuries?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is why in my original reply I was very careful to give details of those reserves which are actually accessible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: But, my Lords, surely under present circumstances—and, indeed, in terms of the foreseeable future—it is not good enough for the Government to say that this is a matter simply for the coal board, since energy policy overall is clearly a matter for Government. Is it not necessary to bear in mind these long lead times and the fact that we shall run out of oil and gas reserves in the fairly near future? Would it not be correct for the Government to estimate and to identify the reserves that we have, so that plans can be made and the reserves can be extracted, not only for burning in power stations, but also for coal gasification and liquefaction, which we shall certainly need within the next 50 years? Planning really is necessary at this stage.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, in his wide-ranging survey, underlined the difficulty of his planning approach, which I would consider to be more interference. The Government's approach is to encourage the maximum economic exploitation of our energy resources, not by central direction, but by clearing the way for producers and consumers to reach the best possible understanding in the market. Our aim for coal is a future secured by a massive investment programme, designed to produce coal at a price at which customers at home and abroad will increasingly buy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that immediately the National Coal Board provides the relevant facts from its special knowledge. those facts are denied by individuals for reasons which are very much their own and are very partisan?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should not like to enter into that discussion at this moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to come back on this, my Lords, but is it not a fact that to build a coal liquefaction or a coal gasification plant needs perhaps a 10-year lead time, and such facilities and such programmes as this cannot be left to the forces of the market?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, a research and development programme is continuing in both these fields.
Lord Gormley: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me how he can reconcile two prices of fuel? Are they going to remain constant, or are they going to fluctuate up and down?—because coal today can become cheap or it can become expensive. Is he in favour of a deliberate guaranteed price policy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government believe that the coal industry can have a good future if it can bring its costs under control and become competitive in the market place. They believe this, not because of any assertions about quantity, but because of what our best mines, operating with known coal reserves, are capable of doing today.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree, in response to my noble friend's supplementary
278
question that, in fact, the Select Committee of this House specifically suggested and recommended that the Department of Energy should play a part in ensuring that an authoritative assessment is made of coal reserves in this country on the same basis as oil and gas? From the noble Earl's earlier reply, it seems that the Department of Energy is backing off that responsibility.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there was a report and, as I said in my earlier reply, the noble Lord is quite right. The Government are not sure at the moment whether they should intervene in this. However, we are keeping it under review.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that, in assessing the size of our recoverable coal reserves, an important question is the cost of recovering them? Since a very large part of this cost is wages, if any such figure is to be given, should it not be given against a scale of wages, as, obviously, if the wages are high, the amount of valuable coal which can be recovered will be considerably lower?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, there are a lot of factors which are taken into account. Price is one and, of course, suitability is yet another.

Royal Marines Bands
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: 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 they will state their future policy in regard to the bands of the Royal Marines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to maintain the band service of the Royal Marines in the size and shape which best meet the needs of the naval service, taking account of the need to shift resources from the support areas to the front line. Thus two out of the nine existing Royal Marines bands are being disbanded: the Band of Commando Forces in 1985 and the Band of Flag Officer 3rd Flotilla in 1987. The seven remaining bands are planned to continue.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that I am not very pleased with that reply, especially as the number of bands has been cut from 40 to 7 since the war? May I ask him whether he agrees that in war the bandsmen are very efficient, especially in casualty help, and that this was shown in the recent Falklands campaign? Furthermore, the intimate relationship between the Royal Marines and the Commandos in their training is very beneficial to them both. They are also a powerful recruiting agent, and a tourist attraction. Finally, may I say that the Plymouth band, which is the oldest, being 217 years old, has given very good service to the country, and also has now received the freedom of the City of Plymouth.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the structure of the band service in the Royal Marines has undergone a large number of changes in this century at least, and, indeed, in previous centuries. I am not sure that it is necessarily accurate to say that a particular band today is directly descended from some other band of years past. It is possible to suggest, for example, that the Band of Commando Forces was called something quite different not too long ago. There was a band called the Plymouth Group Band, which I understand played at the investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales some years ago, and that has been called by some a descendant of the Band of Commando Forces.
It is true, as my noble friend has said, that bandsmen act as stretcher bearers and nursing auxiliaries in time of war, but I can assure my noble friend that there will be more than sufficient bandsmen remaining in the Royal Marines band service to fill these important roles.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, is it not regrettable that two of these Royal Marine bands are to be disbanded or abandoned? Will that not be greeted with very great regret indeed throughout the country? And would the Minister not agree that apart from their strictly service role (which not only includes their normal service duties but also includes the very big part that they play so far as morale is concerned) these bands also have a much wider public role in the public relations service which they perform? Will the Minister at least confirm that that particular role will be borne very much in mind so far as the future of these bands is concerned, and will he reconsider, and ask his right honourable friend to reconsider, the position of the bands as a whole?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord that the role to which he refers is an important one and one which we have had very much in mind in reaching this decision. There will continue to be at least three bands available in the West Country, one of which, the Band of the Flag Officer Plymouth, will be in Plymouth. In addition to that there will be the Band of the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth and the Band of the Commando Training Centre at Lympstone, all of which will be able to perform the role to which the noble Lord has referred, together with the other bands which are remaining.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these Marines bands are the smartest and best that anyone could want? Will he say what is the cost of a Marines band compared with, for instance, the cost of Trident?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I need precisely answer that amusing if irrelevant supplementary, but I can tell the noble Lord that the total cost of the Royal Marines band service is of the order of £8·1 million, and the Band of Commando Forces, to which my noble friend referred, costs about £900,000.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that his Answer to the noble
280
Baroness, Lady Vickers, causes as much dismay on this side of the House as on his own side? Bearing in mind that people get sick and tired of saturation at weekends by highly-paid and under-talented musicians in the various areas of entertainment, or what pass as such, why are the Government going to pursue this policy of dismantling two bands which have become household names and the envy of the world over? Can the noble Lord's right honourable friend reconsider the decision, please?
Lord Trefgarne: Naturally, my Lords, I would prefer it if we could retain large numbers of bands, including the very distinguished bands to which I have referred; but the fact is that the defence budget is a finite budget. It is absolutely necessary. I believe, to ensure that we get the best value for money out of that budget, and that we ensure that the maximum proportion of the resources that we make available is devoted to the front line rather than to the support lines, of which these bands form a part.
The fact of the matter is that they are very expensive to maintain, and the Government have had to take a decision about the priorities. The noble Lord asked how much. The answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, just now is that the Royal Marines band service costs £8·1 million in total a year, and the particular band mentioned costs about £900,000.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how the bands that the Army has compare both in cost and numbers with those of the Royal Marines? Could he further tell me what band is going to replace that which is currently allocated to the 3rd Flotilla?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Army band service is under the same close scrutiny as that which the Royal Marines band service has been under. If my noble friend would like me to write to him with details, I shall be happy to do that. We are not specifically replacing bands which are being disbanded (if that is the right word) by other bands; but just now I gave a list of bands which are to be retained, any one of which, on a particular day, could replace the services provided by one of the others. I should perhaps add that, although the bands have in many cases discrete names, they are not necessarily individual bands with individual members, because musicians very often play in more than one band in any particular period of time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government considering rationalising and possibly centralising music teaching in the armed forces as a whole, even bringing together all the military music schools in one place? If so, will they be very sure that they do not remove it from London, thereby making it impossible for musicians of the great national orchestras to teach military bandsmen how to play their instruments in the future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that we have decided there should be a single defence school of music covering the musical training of all three services. We are at present considering where this should be.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all military bands are bands of hope and glory? Does he really think it is possible to assess their value in terms of pounds?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise that these are difficult decisions and a number of emotional considerations very often come into play in these matters. But in the end we have to take account of the very considerable costs these bands represent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while the cost of military bands as a whole exceeds that of the Royal Opera House, it is nevertheless a very small part of a very large defence budget? Having regard to this, and that military bands might conceivably encourage us, it is a much better bet than Trident which only succeeds in frightening us.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that the total cost of the bands I have referred to is a comparatively small part of the defence budget as a whole. On the other hand, I am persuaded that the defence budget as a whole is best contained by having regard to all the small elements that go to make up the larger whole. That is why we have had to have regard to the cost in this matter.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I would like to ask the Government if they have no proposals for privatising these bands. Have they no faith in their own principles?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion from the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that what all of these supplementary questions really amount to is that the Royal Marines bands ought to be allowed to continue their various ceremonial functions and that really it ought to be the Government who should be solely confined to beating retreat?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope I can dispel the fears of the noble Lord that there will be any significant reduction in the ceremonial activities of the Royal Marines bands service. We have been careful to do what we can to ensure that that should not take place.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that some noble Lords like myself are somewhat bewildered by the statement that members of one band seem to be able to play simultaneously in another band? But that having been said, would the noble Lord agree that if one has to make these decisions between one type of expenditure and another, the expenditure ought to be concentrated on those troops in NATO and elswhere who are in the front line and that this must have priority?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. I shall do my best to ensure that musicians are not called upon to play in two bands at the same moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, might I declare an interest in that more than 40 years ago I was proud to march behind a Royal Marines band as a Royal Marine. At that time the Royal Marines bands were looked upon with pride. Since then they have not only brought pride but great profit to this country, not least in respect of the tourist attractions that they provide. Will the Minister not listen very carefully to the powerful case that is being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, recognise that she has allies all round the House, and draw the proper conclusion and act accordingly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I will certainly want to take note of the views expressed by your Lordships during the course of this exchange. My noble friend—and I am not sure if this was in the mind of the noble Lord as well—has referred to the funds and fees that these bands can earn. But I should say that the great majority of the fees earned by Royal Marines hands at private engagements are paid to the musicians themselves. Indeed, only about £600 of the fees earned last year went to the Ministry of Defence.

Apple and Pear Development Council: Review
3.7 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, which deals with a slightly more mundane matter than the subject we have just been discussing.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to conduct the quinquennial review of the Apple and Pear Development Council.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Apple and Pear Development Council, the National Farmers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union are being consulted, and a survey of the views of all growers registered with the council and liable to pay its annual charge is currently under way. The observations of other interested parties are also being welcomed and will be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, I would ask whether he is aware that there is a rumour—I hope it is only a rumour—that the Government are thinking of doing away with the Apple and Pear Development Council? This would b a huge mistake in the circumstances of today in which we have a lot of EEC fruit coming in. I hope he can scotch that rumour straight away.
Would he agree that, in spite of some difficulties, the council has done a good job over the years? One could instance the United Kingdom Scheme which has really put British apples on the market in first class order. Any curb to those activities would be a huge mistake. The next question I would like to ask is on research. Fruit growing is a very technical subject and research is very important and has helped the fruit industry in this country to a tremendous extent. As we

283
all know, the Government have reduced research in the agricultural industry. If a scheme is to come forward—I would ask if he is agreeing with what I am saying; the noble Lord is nodding—would he agree that to curb research in this very important industry would be a mistake? There has been a suggestion that the industry itself should provide some of the finance. Will the noble Earl give this time to develop before curbing any finances for research, at East Malling in particular?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, personally I would like to squash completely the rumour, if this is a rumour that is going around. It is certainly contrary to any rumours I have heard. As I understand it, the NFU has already indicated that it supports the council's continuation and the TGWU has formally recorded that it believes the council should continue in being. Also, the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades is in support of the continuation. My right honourable friend will obviously take all these views into account and I cannot foresee what his decision will be, but I would have thought it was more likely to be Yes than No, if I am not going too far. So far as research is concerned, there is very much a suggestion that the APDC does some funding of this and it is a matter for their own council to decide.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the answer of the noble Earl the Minister mean that the Government believe that this council ought to continue in existence? The answer from the noble Earl seemed, if I may say so, surprisingly confused. In particular, would great care be taken over the maintenance of the research work of the council? This has enabled the industry to increase the fruit yield, despite falling acreage, and improve the quality of the fruit, particularly of the best apple in the world, Cox's orange pippin.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I hoped that I was not giving too confusing an answer. As I said, it is up to my right honourable friend, but I suspect that there are good vibes rather than bad vibes, if I can put it like that. Obviously I cannot say what my right honourable friend's decision will be. I think I answered the question on research. So far as the Cox's orange pippin is concerned, I would agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord. In fact, I heard recently of a friend of a friend of mine who had an idea. He was going to do a little advertising on his own in France for that particular apple. His idea was to take an aeroplane across and on it he would have an individual Cox with a little parachute on it and a message that said, "Every little French tart deserves an English Cox". Unfortunately, my Lords, he lost his nerve at the last moment.

Foreign Secretary's Visit to Moscow
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow on the 2nd and 3rd July.
Portsea Harbour Company Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Aylesbury Vale District Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Deprivation
3.10 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell Lord Wells-Pestell rose to call attention to the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom and the need to break into the cycle of deprivation which condemns families to poverty: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate is to enable the Opposition to draw attention to the widening gap between the rich and the poor and to encourage the Government to do something to narrow that gap. Let me be perfectly frank and say that I do not see this debate as an occasion for a political knockabout, although I fear that some of my noble friends may feel otherwise. I am only too well aware—I want to admit this at the very beginning—that all was not well between the rich and the poor under the last Labour Government. The gap was then very wide, but my point is that the gap is now much wider, and there is abundant evidence to show that.
I have never made any secret of the fact that I have a great admiration for the ability, competence and knowledge possessed by Members on all sides of your Lordships' House. However, I view my task this afternoon with some diffidence because I feel that very few, if any, noble Lords opposite know anything about the poor or the problems resulting from poverty and how they live their lives. I think that may well be borne out, because there are only three Members of the Government party taking part in this debate this afternoon: two noble Baronesses and one noble Lord. I am sure that, so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is concerned—and I hope she will not take this too unkindly—we shall hear the voice of official Toryism.
Since 1979 there has emerged a very different Conservative Party, which, measured against the past, leaves—shall I say?—a lot to be desired. Today it is in the main a party of extreme policies and continuous confrontation, led, if I may say so, by a very arrogant Prime Minister—
A noble Lord: Oh!
Lord Wells-Pestell:—who cares little or nothing for the effect of those policies on the ordinary people of this country—
Noble Lords: Oh no!
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, if I think that, I shall say it: make no mistake about it. I took part in the 1929 general election and can look back at the Tory

285
Party's beliefs in action since then. The original heartland of the Tory Party was paternalism, which many of us found unacceptable, but, if I may say so, it was very preferable to the callous indifference of the present Prime Minister's policies in relation to the needs of the poor. Speaking for myself (because that is all I can do) I would much sooner see some of the Tory Ministers today come out of the mould which produced Ministers like the Leader of the House, Lord Whitelaw. I feel that years ago they brought a different attitude, a different belief and a different understanding to our particular problems.
Today it is a very different Tory Party from what it was, and it is not surprising that there is division within the Tory Party today and outspoken criticism coming from some of the senior and most respected Tory Members. Since 1969, because of the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, we have had more newspaper articles, more investigations and more reports than ever before on the plight of the poor, all of them establishing beyond any doubt whatsoever that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. I want to quote from something that a Member of your Lordships' House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, Dr. David Sheppard, said quite recently:
"If those who are better off go on excluding the poor the price will be high. It will cost us our fraternity and national unity.".
I believe that that is putting it mildly. The belief held firmly by the Government that mass unemployment must be suffered by the poor as the price of wealth creation can only lead to disaster and physical violence, and we need to keep always in the forefront of our minds that violence is the language of the hopeless, the frustrated and the depressed.
I did not want to make any reference, for fear of being misunderstood, to the miners' strike. I do not approve of violence and I am very much opposed to it: but I do wish that some noble Lords opposite and the Conservative Party as a whole would look at what is the basic cause of this trouble. The basic cause is the closure of pits, the loss of work, the possibility of having to sell one's house because one will not have a job and therefore will not be able to pay the mortgage, and of having to move away leaving what we have found over the years in Cornwall—derelict villages, derelict land where the old tin mines used to be. That is what will happen in a large number of our coalfields if they are closed. We ought to think of the destruction that unemployment brings and creates for the individual. We ought to try to weigh up how we would feel if it meant no job, no home and no community. I think I would be on the fighting end if it happened to me, and I am rather a passive individual.
The Policy Studies Institute research just published was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security. It reports that there are 4 million people and their families on supplementary benefit. While there is no official definition of poverty, the supplementary benefit levels are the nearest that we have to such a definition, since the amounts are set each year by Parliament as the level below which the income of those not in full-time work shall not fall. Today a single person receives £26·80 a week and a married couple receive £43·40 a week on supplementary benefit. I know that certain additional
286
amounts are paid, but, after those additional amounts are used for the purposes for which they are given, these people are on the supplementary benefit level, which is the nearest that we have to a definition of poverty, and anybody receiving less than that is in fact living in poverty.
I suppose that some of your Lordships would take it amiss if I suggested that some of you spent probably considerably more than that in one afternoon or in one day at Ascot a week or two ago, though I do not think that I should be far wrong. Do your Lordships not think it is immoral—I do—that we should have a society which enables a large section of the community to spend in one afternoon a sum considerably more than one person or two married people receive?
According to the recently published official statistics, some 7¾ million people, or one in seven of the British population, had an income in 1981 at or below the supplementary benefit level—the poverty line. We ought to be ashamed that such a situation exists in Britain today. Official figures show that in 1981 half a million children were living in families with an income below the supplementary level and that 3½ million children were living in families defined as low income.
It was a group of Conservative Members of Parliament who in 1981 said:
"The greatest threat of all to family life comes from poverty. The greater part is concentrated on the poor with children. This is not tolerable".
Has their own party taken any notice of that statement? It is not surprising that we get increased violence, increased crime and increased drug taking, or that they have increased considerably during the lifetime of this Government. It makes an absolute mockery of the Prime Minister's proclamation on entering Downing Street on 4th May 1979, when she said:
"Where there is discord may we bring harmony.
Where there is error may we bring truth.
Where there is doubt may we bring faith.
Where there is despair may we bring hope."
It is the biggest piece of humbug that has been uttered in this country for years.
The responsibility of the Government is to pursue policies which will create a caring and compassionate society and this is a matter with which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will deal. It is really the only one that I want to put to him. If we have a moral responsibility for seeing that people are properly looked after, properly fed and allowed to have a normal existence—and I believe that we have—we should be prepared to sacrifice almost anything to see that people, particularly when they constitute one-seventh of the population, are raised well above the poverty level.
A large number of our elderly people have to spend every other day in bed in the winter because they cannot afford the money to buy coal. One old lady told me that it also saved her a meal, because she did not feel so hungry if she stayed in bed. Is this the kind of society that we want, where the old people are proving by their existence that there is life after death?—because many of them are really dead.

287
Can we afford—and I do not speak as a unilateralist, because I am not a unilateralist; at least, not yet—to spend the amount of money that we are spending every year on armaments when we have a situation like this? How can we call ourselves Christians, a Christian nation or a religious people if we allow this extreme wealth to walk not side by side, but hand in hand with extreme poverty? I believe that in 1984–85 we shall be spending £17,000 million on defence. The noble Lord will put me right if I am wrong about that, which I may be. In 1985–86, we shall be spending £18,700 million on defence. Can that really be justified?
I know the arguments, but can we really justify that kind of expenditure at the expense of the daily lives of millions of our people in this country? If it is because America wants England as her front line of defence, then she ought to pay for it—every penny of it. I know the argument is that it is for the defence of our own people. I am not asking that we should switch 100 per cent. from defence expenditure to the support of people, but surely to goodness a sufficient amount of money can be saved not to raise them to the level of luxury, but to raise them to a level that is very much higher than the poverty line on which so many of them have to exist today. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has, as we all know and appreciate, a great sympathy and understanding for those who are unemployed or sick, or who suffer poverty or deprivation. His concern is a very deeply held personal one, but that ought not to blind him to the fact that these concerns are widely held, not least by members of my own party. I must in this respect entirely refute some of the comments that he has made about my party, my colleagues and the Government that I represent.
May I remind him of the words that Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
"In faith and hope the world will disagree: But all mankind's concern is charity."
Compassion, like charity, is the concern of all mankind. It is not the prerogative of one political party or of one group in the community. It is something which transcends all barriers of class and party. As John Donne, the divine, said, we are all "involved in mankind". Where we differ, therefore, is not in our perception of the problem, but in our perception of how to deal with it.
Here there is a fundamental divide between the parties. The Opposition are—and always have been—obsessed with the question of the distribution of wealth. We on these Benches believe that the primary objective must be the creation of wealth—the creation of wealth in the form of increasing the production of goods and services and investment which creates that production.
Without that more abundant wealth, the springs of compassion must run dry. What mankind needs is not the wringing of hands or lamentation in the night but
288
the creation of a society which is vigorous, enterprising and self-reliant, a society which fosters and encourages independence of mind and means alike but equally one with the will to succour those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide for themselves, and above all a society with the means to do so.
Nothing is more tedious, more destructive of good debate, than a long recitation of facts. But, as Browning said:
"Facts are facts and flinch not".
So let us start with the facts. A hundred and fifty years ago, Shelley wrote in his essay A Defence of Poetry the words which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, no doubt had in mind:
"The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer".
These are fine poetic words which have been quoted down the ages by those with neither poetry in their hearts nor understanding in their minds. Shelley's words related to one of the darker periods in our history and they reflect a world long since gone. Over the years there has been a very great change in the distribution of wealth. The evidence of this is all around us. The great landed estates of the 18th and 19th centuries have largely been broken up. The historic houses which form part of our national heritage can rarely now be lived in simply as private dwelling places. Many have been demolished; many survive only by the revenue secured by being open to the public. There is great public concern about the way that private collections of pictures and other works of art are being broken up under the pressure of economic circumstances, often being scattered from these shores.
If one does not believe the evidence of one's own eyes, one can always turn to statistics. The source document is the first report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and supplemented now by the reports of the Board of Inland Revenue. In 1911 the top 1 per cent. of the population owned 69 per cent. of total personal wealth. By 1960 this had dropped to 42 per cent. If one includes pension rights—the most important source of savings and of property—the figure today has fallen to 12 per cent.—a very dramatic change.
But more important than this, important though it is, is the immense spread of personal wealth among the broad mass of our population—a development which has received help, encouragement and impetus under this Government. Today, 12½ million people own their own homes; 11 million people are in occupational pension schemes; 20 million people have money in a building society; 10 million people have National Savings accounts; 2 million people own shares in companies. On a more mundane level, 79 per cent. of households have a washing machine; 93 per cent. have a refrigerator; 97 per cent. have a television set; 76 per cent. have a telephone.
Is this, my Lords, the picture of a country where the rich are growing richer and the poor poorer? Of course it is not. It is a picture of a country where the ownership of wealth is steadily extending throughout the whole of our society, and a very good thing indeed it is. It is no answer to these plain facts to claim that millions of people are living in poverty because they do

289
not possess television sets or washing machines, or because their incomes are below supplementary benefit levels. The very measures which are chosen in these attempts to demonstrate the extent of poverty are indeed measures of relative affluence rather than of poverty. Let us therefore put on one side this obsessive preoccupation with the distribution of wealth and these attempts to demonstrate the existence of poverty and turn our attention to the real problems which exist.
It is all too easy to deal with symptoms, not with causes. It is popular—at least in the short run—because government appears to be taking direct action to deal with the problems that worry people. Thus, price control to curb rising prices; pay control to stop excessive wage increases; exchange controls to stop money going overseas; public expenditure as a cure for unemployment; government grants to encourage this activity or that, and so on ad infinitum. We tried this, under successive governments in the 30 years after the war. But it simply does not work. The dismal record of the 1970s amply demonstrates that: money incomes up by 312 per cent. and output up by 25 per cent. You simply cannot succeed by treating symptoms in this way. Fundamental problems need fundamental solutions.
To do justice to the Labour Party, this basic truth had begun to dawn upon them when they were forced to go cap in hand to the IMF. This was very fully recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in the spirit of frankness which overcame him when he came to write his memoirs. I hope he has taken this opportunity of rereading that fascinating account of the road to "doom and gloom". Those are his own words. I would not claim to have invented that memorable phrase. Unfortunately, for all the noble Lord's good intentions, once the immediate crisis was over the Labour Government plunged once more down the path of fiscal and economic irresponsibility. It was left to this Government in 1979 to turn to the task of establishing a firm foundation for the future—a task made doubly difficult by the second great oil price explosion and the resulting world recession.
Sound money is the foundation on which progress must be built. Without sound money, there can be no confidence in the future, and investment languishes. Without sound money, wages chase prices, prices chase wages in an ever-increasing spiral of inflation. Without sound money there can be no certainty in the present, no saving for the future. We now have the lowest rate of inflation for half a generation. Inflationary habits die hard. We cannot relax. We must make further progress. But we have established the firm foundation, the rock on which to build for the future.
On that rock, we must build three things: first, a higher standard of living for all our people; second, better job opportunities, whether in employment or in self-employment; third, the freedom that comes from wider property ownership.
A higher standard of living can only come from higher output. There is no real solution to be found in shorter working weeks or early retirement. All too often, devices of this kind result in less output, not more, in higher costs, not lower costs.
290
The road to higher output comes, and can only come, from producing the right goods, at the right price, and of the right quality. What you produce you need to sell, and you will sell only if other people are prepared to buy. In the last 20 years or so, our share of world trade has halved, and import penetration into this country has gone up by 50 per cent. But for this, we would today enjoy a higher standard of living and a higher level of employment. There have been many factors at work, but lack of competitiveness on the part of British industry has been the most important. This was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in commenting on the Labour Government's performance. What he said was this:
"Nothing had been done to change our underlying problem of poor industrial performance".
He went on to prophesy:
"The really depressing thought … was that there did not seem to be much that any Government could do about that".
But events, I am happy to say, have proved him wrong. The tide has turned. Under a different Government, with different policies, very considerable progress has been made.
Output per head in manufacture now stands at record levels—nearly 23 per cent. higher than the low point in 1980. Unit wage and salary costs in manufacture increased by only 2¾ per cent. last year—the best performance since the 1960s.
But we must not relax. Some of our major competitors—the United States, Japan and Western Germany—are doing better than we are. Continued restraint in pay settlements is essential if we are to maintain and improve our competitive position. Upon this rests the prospects for growing employment and lower unemployment.
There is no evidence that Governments can themselves directly reduce unemployment. Indeed, all the evidence points to the contrary. Despite repeated attempts in years gone by to reflate the economy, the level of unemployment has inexorably moved upwards. Every single Government since the 1950s have presided over a higher average level of unemployment than their predecessors. The effect of reflation has simply been to generate inflation, higher interest rates, higher costs, a loss of competitiveness, and ultimately a loss of output and employment. The steadfast faith of those who still cling to these supposed remedies may be admired for its loyalty, but not for its wisdom.
What Governments can do is to take action to improve the way the economy works, to improve its flexibility and its responsiveness to change, and to remove the obstacles which stand in the way. This is the path we have consistently followed: the removal of controls, on pay, on prices, on hire-purchase and exchange control, all of which entrenched the old and hampered the new; the reform of the labour market, including the restriction of trade union power so often misused to obstruct progress; changes in the employment protection Acts which so often destroyed, not protected, jobs.
In the fiscal field there have been: the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the reconstruction of corporation tax—two measures designed to remove the bias in favour of machines and

291
against the employment of people; changes designed to improve incentives—reductions in direct taxation, improved share option schemes, reliefs for small businesses; measures to improve mobility—such as the reduction in stamp duty on house purchase; a massive new effort in training to ensure that our young people are better equipped to face the challenge of the new technological world. The list is endless.
The United States' economy has performed distinctly better than our own despite the incubus of the Budget deficit, with a higher rate of growth, a lower rate of inflation than we have, and nearly 5½ million new jobs created in the last 17 months. The answer lies in the greater flexibility of the American economy—its ability to adapt to change; an innovative outlook and an enterprise culture; and a government who take a much smaller proportion of the national output. If we are to live successfully in the modern world, these are things we must match.
It is only by progress along the path I have indicated that we can provide a secure future for our people. But our preoccupation with the future must not blind us to the serious problems faced by those who are unemployed today. In the last few years the standard of living of those in work has been higher than it has ever been. The burden of the recession has had to be carried by those out of work.
The unions, and particularly their leaders, bear a major share of the responsibility for this. Excessive pay increases extracted by the union leadership have left employers with no alternative but to reduce employment in order to stay competitive and remain in business. It is one of the great social and moral disgraces of our age that a movement born in the concept of the brotherhood of man should have destroyed the livelihood of so many of its own members to enable others to enjoy the profits of a higher standard of living.
All this was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—if I may be forgiven for quoting him again:
"If the trade union movement insists",
he said,
"on using its strength to obtain increases in pay that have not been earned, then the net result will be to redistribute"—
that is, to redistribute the national wealth—
"in favour of those who are fortunate enough to remain in employment. And with pay increases in excess of increases in productivity, there is no way in which even present levels of employment can be maintained".
Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
Of course it is not only the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and myself who recognise these evident truths. The people of this country are recognising them, too. No wonder that trade union membership has fallen to its lowest level for 10 years. No wonder that there is a widening rift between the members and their leadership. It may well be that the members have a greater sense of responsibility to their fellow men than do their leaders. If this is so, it offers hope for the future.
Perhaps I may now leave these economic issues and turn to other matters. I imagine that in the course of this debate we shall hear a great deal about the
292
Government's record in the field of the social services—some of it critical. In this connection, I will remind your Lordships of the words of Edmund Burke:
"It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare".
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur, when replying to the debate, will deal with specific points which may be raised. Meantime, I shall simply place the following facts on record. Total expenditure on social security and health will have risen from £23·8 billion in 1978–79—the last year of Labour Government—to £52£ billion this year; an increase of 23 per cent, in real terms. Pensions will have risen by 83 per cent, against a rise in prices of 76 per cent.—again an increase in real terms. Supplementary benefit has risen by 5 per cent, in real terms. Family income supplement—an innovation of a Conservative Government and one which helps the poorest working families—has increased in real terms. Child benefit, the brainchild of the Conservative Party, stands in real terms at the highest level ever. The principal income tax personal allowances, which particularly benefit those on smaller incomes, were increased in the recent Budget by 12 per cent., more than double the amount needed to compensate for inflation. They now stand 16 per cent, higher in real terms than they were in 1978–79.
My Lords, today we stand at a great divide. We look back over the years of recession—the damage, the hardship and the suffering they caused. We look forward to the years of recovery, on which we are now embarked. In absolute terms, the growth in our national income last year was modest—some 3 per cent.—but it was the highest in Europe. Growth this year, again, is likely to be one of the highest in Europe. Investment, in manufacture as well as elsewhere in the economy, is rising strongly. Taken over a very long period of time, rates of growth in the Western World have probably not greatly exceeded 2 per cent, per annum. But growth of this kind—sustained and compounded over a long period of time—has brought with it a great growth in prosperity and has seen the creation of untold millions of new jobs. That is the challenge which faces us today. It is to encouraging, sustaining and improving the rate of growth in our economy that our policies must be directed.
They have been so directed—with a steadfastness which at times has been confused with obstinacy, with a determination which at times has been confused with rigidity. We are criticised for failure to reduce public expenditure and taxation in the way that we promised in 1979. But that failure is largely a reflection of higher welfare and social security costs, and it is this above all which gives the lie direct to the criticism that Conservatives do not care. True compassion does not consist in wearing your heart on your sleeve, but in putting your hand to the plough and your shoulder to the wheel. It is achievement which matters: and in that, this Government, this party, is very rich.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for raising this important subject this afternoon. We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has said, that it is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell,

293
feels very strongly; but there surely cannot be any doubt that there is very real poverty in our comparatively affluent society in Britain today.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was naturally concerned to defend the Government's record in relation to that poverty, and I think he was right to point to the well-being of the majority; but I think he was wrong to attempt to minimise the degree of poverty which is endured by the minority to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was referring when he introduced the Motion this afternoon. He pointed out that some 7¾ million people (one in seven of the population) were living on what really is the poverty line; were living at or below the supplementary benefit level. Fifteen million more (one in four) were living—and this is in 1981—on an income of less than 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level; and things have not improved since then. That figure would include, of course, people on low pay, pensioners and one-parent families.
Not only is there poverty, but that poverty is often acute. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke of it as if it were purely relative, as if it were purely a case of some people having more than others but everybody being all right. Yet a recent survey carried out for London Weekend Television revealed that three million people cannot afford to heat the living areas of their homes; six million people lack some item of essential clothing; and 5½ million people have to do without some item of food due to lack of income. The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred, called The Reform of Supplementary Benefit, produced by the Policy Studies Institute and published this week, examined the position of families with children on supplementary benefit in 1982. They came to the conclusion that the average family started each week with an income of £13 below the level of need as defined by Government figures; more than half were in debt or were behind with bills; half ran out of money most weeks; and more than half lacked basic items of clothing, such as a warm coat or change of shoes for themselves or their children. Alongside that, many did not know when they were entitled to extra benefits.
So one in four are on low incomes, one in seven are on the poverty line, many suffering acute poverty, and the numbers involved in that acute poverty have been increasing. The numbers on supplementary benefit have reached a record level. Unemployment, of course, is the major cause of that. The numbers out of work for over a year have been increasing; and, of course, they still do not get the long-term supplementary benefit rate. The numbers of children living below supplementary benefit level nearly doubled between 1979 and 1981; but the child benefit, although it has been increased, has this year not been increased to the same degree as the tax allowances, although, of course, child benefit did replace the allowances for children. And the numbers receiving family income supplement have increased.
The worst of this poverty is concentrated in the inner cities, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, reminded us, has compared the comfortable Britain (the majority of us) with the nevertheless considerable minority in poverty, particularly in the inner cities.
294
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool only this past week underlined the case of the right reverend Prelate when he spoke of intolerable deterioration in the inner cities. There, the poverty is compounded by appalling housing and environmental surroundings.
The gap between the impoverished and the better off has been increasing in recent years. There have been tax cuts to the better off and there have been cuts in social security—and that must mean a redistribution away from the poor. What the social security cuts mean is that less is being spent on social security than would have been the case but for the policy of the Government. In 1982 it was stated that £1.6 billion had been cut off the social security budget per annum, and that figure is no doubt larger now. That overall redistribution can contain improvements in some particular benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, mentioned pensions, and said that they had increased by 83 per cent., and prices by 76 per cent. Of course, that is good as far as it goes, but the Government broke the link between earnings and pensions. If they had not done that, a married couple would at the moment be receiving more than £3 a week extra and a single person more than £2 a week. That is what I mean when I speak of cuts in social security.
If we look at the burden of direct taxes and how they have varied since 1979 we find that in a two-child family on half the average earnings the burden is up by 55 per cent., but for a similar family on five times the average earnings it is down by 14 per cent., and for 10 times it is down by 23 per cent. I think it is right to say that only those with an income of more than £18,000 pay less direct taxes than in 1978–79. So there is very real poverty. Much of it is acute. It affects about one in seven of the population. The numbers have been increasing and the gap between the rich and the poor has been increasing. That last fact has been recognised by Mr. Francis Pym in his recent book, The Politics of Consent. He said:
"At present the real incomes of the 'haves' and the employed are rising steadily; the real incomes of the 'have nots' and the unemployed are at best static in absolute terms and are declining in relative terms".
How should we deal with this situation, where most of us are comfortably off with increasing real incomes and some of us are in very real poverty? The Government always say, and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said it again this afternoon, that what we have to do is to increase wealth and bake a larger cake. I accept that. It is right to seek to increase wealth. But wealth must be distributed so as to relieve poverty, and that involves redistribution. If we were to enter into a period of declining wealth—and I very much hope that we shall not—then redistribution would be more important and not less important, as is the implication of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield.
If we could increase wealth and that meant more jobs, clearly that would reduce poverty and there would be more to redistribute. Incidentally, I regard distribution of income as different from the allocation of physical resources. The Government argue that their economic policies are necessary in order to secure that extra wealth. Indeed, the noble Lord said so. But the policies pursued have led to a drop in manufacturing capacity. It is true that at great cost

295
in increasing poverty, through increasing unemployment, the Government have reduced inflation. We must be glad that inflation has been reduced but we cannot ignore the cost. There has been a slight and welcome recovery here, as elsewhere; and perhaps even more here than elsewhere. However, particularly over this past week, the future of that recovery appears to be in some doubt. We all hope it will continue but there is a question mark over it.
How much has that recovery been due to the spending in the United States which has led to the American deficit? How much is it the locomotive power of that American deficit which has been at the root of the recovery? How will our recovery be affected if that deficit is reduced? It may be desirable, for other reasons, to reduce it. What will the impact be? Well, that deficit is something the United States have at the present time and, according to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, they also have a very happy economic situation as compared with the one we have this side of the Atlantic. Therefore, it may not be right to describe that deficit as an incubus.
For all those reasons we on these Benches feel that it is desirable to have a limited and controlled expansion of the economy through expenditure on the infrastructure. We would much prefer to see that done on a European basis. The European Centre for Policy Studies only a month ago produced a plan for that to be done on a European basis. It said that if the European Governments are worried that this will cause inflation, they need not be worried because until they have got unemployment down from 10 per cent. 7½ to per cent. it is not going to cause inflation. In other words, there is a degree of slack to be taken up. It went on to say that even if that does not satisfy the Governments and if they are still worried, let them resort to an incomes policy—which we on these Benches have advocated for a long time. I would certainly couple that policy with a determination to maximise the flow of international trade and stand firm against protectionism.
When we return to the issue of how far should we redistribute, we have to consider whether redistribution on a greater scale than exists now would be damaging to incentives. That is often said. Clearly there has to be a limit to the degree of redistribution, but from a recently published national survey of British attitudes it would appear that public opinion is not unfavourable to further redistribution. Of those approached in this survey 72 per cent. thought that the gap between the rich and the poor was too large; 3 per cent. thought it was too small; 79 per cent. thought that taxes on low incomes were much too high, and only 29 per cent. thought taxes on the rich were still too high. There seems to be a readiness to pay more to relieve genuine poverty. The trouble is, of course, that the present creaking, complex, piecemeal social security system that we have is unlikely to be a satisfactory instrument for that redistribution. Of course, that system is now being reviewed within the Department of Health and Social Security and we shall await with interest the results of that review.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock will refer, when he speaks later, to some proposals for combining the tax and social security systems in the immediate future
296
to relieve poverty. I believe that in the long term we have to develop that integration of tax and social security into a tax credit scheme which will rationalise and simplify and which will provide the means for redistributing income fairly. I would hope that it will be possible to link that tax credit system to a statutory minimum income, although in recent weeks Frank Field has shown us some of the problems that lie in bringing that about. I am convinced that a tax credit system would offer the best hope of mitigating the poverty trap and ending the conflict between tax and benefit which exists today.
One thing is certain. Although so many of us in all classes are fairly comfortable today we cannot ignore the very real poverty in which a considerable minority of our fellow citizens live.

Foreign Secretary's Visit to Moscow
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow on 1st to 3rd July which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my visit to Moscow. On 2nd and 3rd July I had five hours of talks with Mr. Gromyko and a substantial discussion with Mr. Chernenko.
"I looked upon the visit as one step in our long-term policy of promoting a better understanding between East and West, with the aim of increasing security at a lower level of arms.
"I wanted first to give the Soviet leadership a clear account of our views and to hear a direct explanation of theirs. I wished, too, to explore possible areas of common interest which might provide opportunities for co-operation and negotiation.
"I have to tell the House that I detected no significant change in the Soviet position on the resumption of nuclear arms talks. The Russians displayed continuing scepticism about the West's commitment to an improvement in East-West relations, and to progress in the arms control negotiations in Vienna, Geneva and Stockholm.
"On the basis of recent extensive consultations within NATO, at the London Summit and at the European Council, I made it plain to the Soviet leaders that Western governments were sincere in their desire for a better understanding between East and West and for agreements on arms control.
"I told them that people in the West could not understand the Soviet refusal to resume nuclear negotiations. Sooner or later these problems would have to be settled by negotiation. The longer the Soviet Union stayed away from the negotiating table, the more difficult the problems would become and the more the dangers and the costs would rise.

297
"The recent Soviet proposal for talks on arms control in outer space, and the American response, naturally featured in the talks. The Russians described the American response as negative and hedged about with preconditions. After specific confirmation from the White House, I was able to tell the Soviet leader that this description was mistaken. The United States position was that there were no preconditions. I urged them to set the matter beyond any doubt through confidential discussions with the Americans and to do what was necessary to ensure that the talks opened in September.
"I emphasised to Mr. Gromyko the widespread and deep concern in the West that the Soviet Union was failing to honour its human rights commitments under the Helsinki and Madrid agreements. This represented a real obstacle to the creation of lasting trust between East and West.
"I raised the cases of Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner. Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky, Father Gleb Yakunin and Mr. Anatoly Koryagin as important examples of the Soviet Union's failure in that respect. I urged the Soviet Union to deal positively with these and other cases.
"I also referred to a number of cases of particular interest to Britain. These were mostly concerned with family reunification. We looked to the Soviet Union to respond much more positively to requests for exit visas.
"I raised a number of other bilateral questions. I stressed in particular the importance we attached to increasing trade. British exporters should be given a good opportunity to bid for contracts. I also raised the question of better telephone and other facilities for our businessmen and journalists in Moscow. I extended an invitation to Mr. Gromyko to visit Britain in 1985.
"Mr. Gromyko and I were able to discuss a number of international questions, which included the Iran-Iraq war, the Middle East, Southern Africa, Poland and Afghanistan. I stressed in particular the need for Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and a peaceful settlement as called for in five successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.
"In my call on Mr. Chernenko I concentrated on East-West relations and arms control. I told him that we found it impossible to understand the almost automatic rejection by the Soviet Union of Western proposals. I urged him to recognise that all Western Governments were earnest in their desire to see a resumption of negotiations on nuclear arms questions and to see the Soviet Union return to the negotiating table without delay.
"The visit provided a useful opportunity to expound and carry forward our long-term policy towards the Soviet Union and on East-West relations generally.
"I did not go to Moscow with any expectations of rapid results. I was not therefore surprised by the disappointingly negative nature of the Soviet response. They remain apparently unwilling to make a fresh appraisal of the seriousness of the West's approach.
298
"I hope that my visit will lead to more discussions and exchanges with the Soviet Union. It is important to sustain the search for improved relations between East and West on a realistic and long-term basis and for real progress on arms control. Neither we nor our allies intend to take 'no' for an answer".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I am sure that all of us were glad that the Foreign Secretary visited Moscow and that he had substantial talks with President Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko. We must also regret the fact that so very few positive advances seem to have been made, especially since a progress towards détente is as much in the interests of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries as it is of ourselves and our allies. We hope that when he was there the Foreign Secretary made it plain that he was speaking for Britain as an independent country and not merely as a go-between.
Is it not the position that the Soviet Union has made an offer of talks on a limited objective and that the United States has sought to widen the agenda? Can the noble Baroness indicate whether she thinks that those limited talks will proceed and are still on the table or whether the United States will accept the Soviet invitation only if additional matters, such as the nuclear arms talks, are added to the agenda?
Can the noble Baroness say what discussions, if any, took place about the possibility of a resumption of the two Geneva talks from which the Russians walked out a few months ago? While we are glad that the talks which the Foreign Secretary had were conducted in a courteous atmosphere, can she say whether he felt that there was any indication in Moscow of a desire to break the present deadlock? Does she regard the initial Soviet offer on arms control in outer space as a step in that direction? Is it not best to take advantage of it and then see whether it opens the door to other possibilities? Did the Soviet leaders recognise that there are no preconditions, or are they still sceptical about that?
We warmly support the Foreign Secretary's recomendations on the human rights issue, and welcome the references that were made to Mr. Sakharov and the other people mentioned in the Statement, as well as the point that Sir Geoffrey Howe made about family reunificaton. Can the noble Baroness say how the Russians responded to that appeal? How did they respond also to the practical questions which were raised about increased trade and improving telephone and other facilities? Did they say anything to make the Foreign Secretary believe that there might be a favourable response? I have just read the Statement in full, and what it seems to me to lack is an indication of any practical and positive response to the quite proper representations which the right honourable gentleman made.
Finally, can the noble Baroness say whether definite arrangements have been made for a return visit to London by Mr. Gromyko? I think that it is known that Mr. Gromyko was considering that possibility, and we

299
must welcome that small ray of light in the present darkness of East-West relations.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, are obliged to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It is true that the Secretary of State's failure to make progress at the meeting was not unexpected, however regrettable. First of all, may I associate myself with the question asked by the noble Lord in regard to human rights? We know from the Statement the questions put to the Russians by the Foreign Secretary, but we have no indication of their reply. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to give us some indication on that rather important point.
On the even more important nuclear question, why did the Secretary of State not explain to the indignant Mr. Gromyko that the star wars project—namely, the theoretical ability to knock out in space all incoming nuclear warheads—is, as has recently been pointed out by acknowledged experts, a very great nonsense? We understand that it could at the most be 90 per cent. successful, the remaining 10 per cent. of warheads being quite powerful enough to destroy the United States or the Soviet Union, whether or not they had installed the new system. Why did he not also point out to the Soviet Government that any attempt by either side to achieve nuclear predominance—as originally suggested, I believe, by President Reagan last year—or even, for that matter, parity, is also nonsense?
Provided that each side retains the capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary, nobody, however powerful, could possibly win a nuclear war, and, once it is initiated, everybody loses. In other words, cannot the Government at last see the necessity for a general nuclear freeze, even if it should be only partially verifiable?
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to this Statement. I say right away in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State went as the British Foreign Secretary and was speaking for Britain.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question of the Soviet Government's proposal on arms control in outer space and the American reaction to it. I want to make it quite plain at the beginning that in no sense in this matter was the Secretary of State conveying to the Soviet some kind of United States message. I would not wish it to be thought in any sense that this is what he was doing. The fact was that the Soviet reaction to the United States' response to their proposals seemed so illogical and potentially self-defeating on a crucial issue that my right honourable friend thought that it was right to check with the White House his own interpretation of what in fact the United States Government had said. My right honourable friend received confirmation that there were no United States preconditions.
300
I hope that that will answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he asked if the United States wanted to widen the talks and whether this was a reason why they might not take place. I should like to confirm that we did receive confirmation that the United States has no preconditions for engaging in these negotiations.
On the question of the resumption of both the INF and START nuclear arms talks, what my right honourable friend said was that it is essential that the Soviet Union should return to the negotiating table. We hope indeed that that will be possible.
Both noble Lords raised questions about human rights. I can confirm that, as the Statement says, my right honourable friend raised the particular cases which will be well known to your Lordships. He urged positive consideration of a long list of cases, mainly cases of family reunification and those wanting exit visas. Under these circumstances, I do not think that one can expect, in the course of an exchange such as this or indeed in the discussions, to go into the detail of these matters. However, I think what is very important is that the concern which has been expressed in this House and in another place on many occasions, and which is felt in the country at large, should have been put to Mr. Gromyko when an opportunity presented itself in this important visit to Moscow.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the visit by Mr. Gromyko. As I have said, an invitation has been extended to Mr. Gromyko to make a visit to this country in 1985, but the timing has been left over.
On the last point which was raised, which was the general point about a nuclear freeze, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will know, the view that we have taken on this matter is this. A freeze would freeze the nuclear balance in the position in which it is now, with a superiority of Soviet weapons. We do believe we are working for both mutually balanced and verifiable reductions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for rising again, but I must press the noble Baroness on the substance of the points which she has elaborated. What she has done is to repeat, courteously and well, what the Statement itself says. However, she has not responded to the point which I made and which was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. This was as to whether or not there was any positive response at any stage to any of the very important points which the right honourable gentleman put to Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko.
Is it the case that the meetings were a greater failure than we think? Or was there some hope that they would respond to any of the points made about the resumption of talks about human rights or about any of the other crucial matters which were raised?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think what the noble Lord is really asking is, at the end of these talks, where are we left; where is the next step? What is important in the talks is that they should be seen as a step in a very long process. We have always said that it is going to take time but that we do want to see better East-West relations. We see this meeting as one step in that direction.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I realise I have not given notice of this question, but can the noble Baroness the Minister, either now or hereafter, amplify the statement she has made that there were discussions relating to international trade? Can she tell the House what was the scope of the discussions in relation to trade? What kind of trade was considered? And were there any discussions in relation to trade involving companies engaging in research and development activities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the question of trade, we looked for an expansion of trade. We should like to see a doubling of the trade between Britain and the Soviet Union. At the same time, my right honourable friend raised the point about certain improvements for the business community and journalists now living in Moscow. But on the general point that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has raised, we do see possibilities for increased trade between the two countries.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to rise to my feet again, but I was not concerned with general matters. I tried to raise a question on more specific aspects of the trade. What was the kind of trade that it was considered useful to discuss at that meeting?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has some specific case in mind, but if he would care to let me know I will let him have a response on that matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Baroness please explain this a little further? The Foreign Secretary checked back with the White House as to whether there were preconditions on the holding of the conference in September. Is the American position therefore now that they are not insisting on broadening the agenda for the conference but are willing to go to the conference on the basis of the agenda suggested by the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the United States have said that they have accepted the Soviet proposal to meet; that is to say, the Soviet proposal made on arms control in outer space. They have indicated a willingness to discuss any subject that the Russians want to bring up.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but may I press the noble Baroness still further on this? Is it really the case that there was no response to the matters which were put by the Foreign Secretary to the Russians? Is that really the position, or is the noble Baroness being diplomatically discreet about it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I am always diplomatically discreet. I am sure that is a very wise posture to adopt. However, I think that, as is indicated in the Statement, it was a meeting in which my right honourable friend was able to put our view on East-West relations, arms control and a number of other important world problems. He was able to hear what both Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Chernenko said. I think
302
he would take the view that it is important, as a first step, to try to understand each other's point of view, and that this must be a first step in a long process. We should have liked to say that there was more progress than that. However, an invitation has been extended to Mr. Gromyko. There will obviously be another opportunity to discuss these matters.
As I said, I think that if we ask the question, "Where does this visit leave us?" the answer is that after two days of talks we have heard again the Soviet Union position, and we have explained our position. We see this as just one step on the road to greater understanding.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is clear from the Statement, and from the answers to questions, that it was indicated that we would welcome a visit from Mr. Gromyko, it was stated, in 1985. Did his reaction give the impression that we are likely to have a visit?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have said, Mr. Gromyko left the timing of the visit open. He did not indicate that he was not prepared to come.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that from the Statement it is not possible to deduce exactly whether the Foreign Secretary believes that the visit was useful and progressive and that we are better off than we were before he went? Would the noble Baroness like to say whether the Foreign Secretary thinks that the situation has been improved and that there is more understanding and clarity and a greater possibility of agreement than before he went; or is that not the case?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my right honourable friend believes that the visit was useful. I think that it is always valuable to talk to people, to try to get a greater understanding of what are their concerns, and to try to get a better clarification of what it is that we want to achieve. As the noble Lord and, indeed, I think, all noble Lords will know, when there are great divisions of opinion on subjects and great philosophical differences, it is very difficult to make rapid progress. However, I believe that the fact that my right honourable friend went to Moscow and had the talks is a positive step. I am not in any way trying to suggest that it is a very great step forward, but it surely must be better to have had the talks than not to have had them. To that extent, it is a step forward.
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that, perhaps, after this visit, plenty of time be allowed for quiet, consistent, patient and secret diplomacy before there are any other visits of a character that attract a great deal of publicity?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. His observation is, I believe, a very wise one. My noble friend will know from his own experience that it takes a long time before these kinds of negotiations and discussions can be shown positively to have had an effect.

Social Deprivation
4.34 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I begin with an apology to your Lordships in that, unfortunately, a long-standing engagement may mean that I shall not still be here at the end of the debate. I should, however, like to start by sincerely congratulating my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell on the excellent Motion that he has introduced and the manner in which he has done so. I am sure that the House will be grateful to him and also to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for his contribution. I wish that I could say the same about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I fear, however, that it was both irrelevant and complacent to a degree that I have rarely heard in any debate. That is not to say that I am not grateful to him for reading my book so carefully and quoting from it so selectively. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to his staff for the way in which they have selected the quotations. I hope that he continues to derive much pleasure from the book. The only things that he did not mention were the date of publication, the title, and the name of the publisher, but I shall refrain from doing so.
I should like to refer to one or two of the things that he did say which, although irrelevant to the debate, need commenting upon. First, he accused the Labour Party of being obsessed with the objective of a better distribution of wealth. Let me say at once—I am sure that I speak for all my noble friends—that I plead guilty to that accusation. Of course, that is so, when we see the appalling distribution of wealth that exists in this country. In saying that the noble Lord's speech was irrelevant, I mean that it was not just that he offered no real help to those in real poverty, but that the whole of his speech was an implication that there was no real poverty in this country. Anyone who looks around must be aware that that is so utterly complacent as to be disgraceful coming in the speech of a noble Lord and Minister in any Government. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will regret the nature of his speech.
If I may say so to the noble Lord—I have some regard for him personally—one of the problems, I think, is that there is perhaps something that his best friends do not tell him. He reveals too clearly what he thinks. The more sarcastic he becomes, the more he exposes the weakness of his case. He did so again today. For example, at one stage, he related compassion to charity. I do not see compassion, so far as Governments and we as politicians are concerned, as having anything to do with charity. I do not want to give charity to the poor in this country. That is the last thing in the world that I want to do. I want to ensure that, as of right, they have a better living standard.
There were so many errors in the noble Lord's speech that it would take me far too long to go into them. I shall, however, take up one or two points. The noble Lord stated as evidence of the Government's compassion that public expenditure had risen since 1979, and that they had not cut taxation. The reason for that is nothing to do with compassion. It is the very reverse—and he must know it. It is to do with the increase in unemployment that this Government have
304
brought about. It has nothing whatever to do with compassion. It is the very reverse.
As for the United States, the fact that it is now increasing growth much faster than we are and is reducing its unemployment, whereas ours is increasing, is due to the fact, as the Minister must know, that it has moved away from dogmatic adherence to strict monetary theories and is going in the opposite direction. That is why the United States has managed those achievements. It is because this Government are failing to learn that lesson that we are still in the appalling situation that we face in this country.
I, and many others, I imagine—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Banks referred to it—are bound to approach this subject with some humility. At the present time I personally enjoy a comparatively high living standard, though it has not always been so in my life. However, I saw much of real poverty in the constituency that I had the honour to represent for nearly 20 years.
Let me come, therefore, to the first part of the Motion that my noble friend so eloquently introduced. I refer to the phrase in the first part of the Motion,
"the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom".
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield said, I should have thought that there was no real dispute that there is an enormous disparity between rich and poor in this country. It may well be the case that the noble Lord seeks to argue, as some Conservatives would sincerely argue, that they are happy to maintain that level of disparity. They do not see, as anyone listening to the noble Lord would have discerned, any evidence of real poverty. In their view therefore, the gap between the two is not a terrible thing. Their approach is that of course they must try, with a little charity and compassion, to help, but in the main there is no real gap that should warrant any Government action.
I should have thought, however, that among most people in this country it is recognised that there is a serious gap—too wide a gap—between rich and poor. I do not want to argue this afternooon whether there was a widening of the gap to a greater or lesser extent during Labour or Conservative Governments. I believe the facts are indisputable and that the position is getting worse, but I do not want to pursue it; neither do I want to pursue too many statistics, because the plain fact is that it is a pointless exercise as far as the real poor are concerned. They are the ones who matter, not an exchange of statistics. I hope there is agreement, whether or not we agree about the extent to which it has widened, that there is a real gap, which is too big, between the rich and the poor.
I emphasise to your Lordships that I am not talking about inequality. As we all know, there are great disparities of income and wealth in this country—great inequality. I noticed that in a debate last week in another place there were those on the Conservative Benches who argued that this form of inequality was not unreasonable. But I hope there is no difference between us about the need to do something about the really poor in this country.
If I may, I want to come to a definition of what one means by "really poor". I may have overstated the

305
agreement there is within this House, including, I hope, the Benches opposite, about the gap, but as earlier speakers in this debate and others outside have indicated, the facts show clearly that there is some very serious and real poverty in the United Kingdom, and we should be hiding our heads in the sand if we ignored it.
We have had a few statistics. I do not want to give too many more, but let me give just one or two. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell referred to supplementary benefit. I imagine that the supplementary benefit level is not a living standard that any of us in your Lordships' House would like to have. It is accepted generally as a level of relative poverty. I say, "relative poverty" because everything is relative. If we look around, in Asia, Africa and elsewhere there is much greater real poverty than anything we know in this country. However, the Motion does not talk about that; it talks about poverty in the United Kingdom. There is—and I believe the figures my noble friend gave indicate this—real poverty, relatively, within the United Kingdom, if one judges by supplementary benefit levels, which are accepted generally, and, I should have thought, accepted by the Government, as nothing more than a safety net, an absolute minimum. It is a minimum which, if I may say so, many thousands in this country still do not claim. They have a variety of reasons for not doing so. They are living well below that level, some of them precisely because they see supplementary benefit not as something to which they are entitled as of right (which they are) but, to use the words of the noble Lord the Minister, as a charity. The more he refers to that kind of expression, the more they will think it so.
The number of people living on supplementary benefit is a bit difficult to ascertain because the most recent figures are for 1981. But certainly there are in the region of 7 million or 8 million people on supplementary benefit, and some 15 million—over a quarter of the population—on low incomes which are just 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level. More than a quarter of all children—3·7 million—are living on low incomes, including 1·7 million on or below supplementary benefit levels.
Nobody looking at those figures can dispute that there is real poverty, relatively, in the United Kingdom, and we would ignore that at our peril. It is not just that we can sit back and say, "Well, it's all right; they won't complain too much". That is the basis for social upheaval of the kind that none of us would want to see. The present Secretary of State for Education, a man for whom I have some regard as a man with quite a heart in these matters, said some time ago that a family is poor if it cannot afford to eat. I hope we can accept that in a modern society, and certainly in the United Kingdom, poverty is about something more than that.
I should like to refer, as has been done already in this debate, to a speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in a recent Dimbleby lecture. Speaking quite graphically on this subject, he talked about contrasting a so-called comfortable Britain with what he described as,
"poverty which imprisons the spirit behind the locked doors of dank housing, unemployment and low incomes".
306
Those of us who have seen some of that in our constituencies, and others who have been around the country, will know that it would be utterly complacent to pretend that that is not happening in the midst of the wealth that does exist in this country. All the quotations from the Minister about the houses with television, fridges, and the rest, are equally irrelevant to that essential fact.
So I say that the facts are clear: the gap is indeed widening. But even if we disagee—there are people in this House who would disagree about which Government did better or worse—I hope we can agree at least, in the words of the first part of the Motion, that there are,
"social and economic differences between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom".
Whatever our party political differences about the numbers in real poverty, we can agree that, by any reasonable definition, there are millions in the United Kingdom living in poverty. A civilised society, or a society that claims to be civilised, should be doing something about it.
I want to come immediately to the second part of the Motion, which speaks of,
"the need to break into the cycle of deprivation which condemns families to poverty".
In the short term, both now and last week in the other place, Ministers boasted of some of the things that are being done and have been done, including increases in child benefit, which I for one certainly welcome. But the impression one has from Ministers is always that they would like to do something more but the resources are not available. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I had to use that argument often, and although the noble Lord did not quote that particular part of my book I plead guilty to having used that argument frequently with my colleagues in the Cabinet.
But, having said that, and having said that normally I should have some sympathy with the argument about the proper use of resources, I want to say that it is difficult to have any sympathy for a Government who have used resources in the way that this Government have done. In the most recent Budget, never mind what came before, the Chancellor reduced the yield of capital gains tax and capital transfer tax in a full year by £64 million, while recently the Secretary of State for Social Services announced what he called small changes in family income supplement. The result is that families with two children will be £2.50 a week worse off. The change will save the Government £7 million a year. By any civilised standards that is a disgraceful use of resources.
But it is even worse. The Chancellor abolished the investment income surcharge, at a full-year cost of £360 million. The Chancellor's case was that it was to help people like poor widows and pensioners living on investment income. But I must tell your Lordships that up to £7,000 a year was already exempt; so that is going to help people receiving above £7,000 a year of investment income. When a government use resources in that way they cannot seriously argue that there are insufficient resources in the short term to help the really poor in the United Kingdom. It just is not possible.

307
Frankly, I should have thought that those actions and facts dispute any case that any Government Minister, either in this House or in another place, can put forward. In my view it makes a mockery of a recent statement by the Prime Minister to the 100th annual meeting of the NSPCC, when she said:
"Of course poverty matters"—
she obviously had not been listening to her noble friend Lord Cockfield—
"but when it comes to the welfare of children it is the family, and relations within the family, that count the most".
I do not know what that is supposed to mean; but neither the Prime Minister nor any Minister speaking in this debate can have any credibility. Their words of sympathy for those living in abject poverty cannot be treated seriously when seen against the background of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done and what they support.
I should make it clear that I would be the first to admit that there is indeed a problem of scarce resources, but not to the extent that something is not possible in the short term in the way in which I have described. Something could he done, admittedly on a fairly modest scale, to alleviate the worst poverty in the United Kingdom.
I want to say a few words about the really big problem in the longer term of (as the second part of the Motion says) breaking into "the cycle of deprivation". Perhaps I should start with ways of not doing it. It has been said by the noble Lord the Minister (as if he is the only man and this is the only Government that ever cared about economic growth) that economic growth is the way forward. One would think that we have had five years of economic growth. For the first four years we had negative growth. That is all that we have had under this Government.
But economic growth alone will not, in my view, answer the problems, because if we do not plan in advance that the growth be allocated, in the terms of the Motion,
"to break into the cycle of deprivation",
it will not happen. For while we might agree now that it should be top priority, I am bound to tell the House that my experience is that Ministers, with the best will in the world, will not accept the logic of that choice. They will agree to high priorities, but they will not then agree that other areas should have lower priority. The net result invariably is that the really high priorities—and this surely is the highest—are not treated in that way. That equally applies to trade union leaders. If they insist on increasing the real living standards of their members in work, then they must accept that there will be less available for those of their former members who are not in work and those who are in the cycle of deprivation—not only their former members who are now unemployed, but also their former members who are now pensioners.
Again, while some redistribution can be made through a more socially conscious use of the tax system, as I have indicated, a really major shift cannot be made through the tax system alone even with confiscatory top tax rates. For as has been shown time and again, the bulk of our taxes are paid by people on average earnings, and they are paid at the rate of 30 per
308
cent. So even if we had confiscatory rates, apart from the fact that we can only confiscate once—I am not even sure that, with the tax avoidance industry that exists in this country, we could confiscate once, but even if we could it would be only once—I would argue that it is not the answer to the problem.
Many ways have been suggested—and some were suggested in the debate last week in another place—as to how one could break into the cycle of deprivation. How can one, in the long term, do something about real poverty? I do not want to go into details today, because I do not have the time. Many ways have been mentioned, and obviously one would need higher benefits—especially child benefits. I see that the Treasury has recently argued that the solution to the poverty trap is best helped by increasing tax allowances. A minimum wage has been advocated. I was pleased to see that a very courageous Member of Parliament and honourable friend of mine, Frank Field, who is a very knowledgeable Member, has shown that a minimum wage alone, in isolation, would not of itself do anything about the problem because for the greater part it would go to teenagers. So we would have to do something about that, too.
But that being said, there is no way—whether through the help of the trade union movement, through the tax system, through child benefits or whatever—in which we are really going to break into the cycle of deprivation if, at the end of the day, having done something for the people with the very lowest incomes in this country, the workers in work insist and the trade unions insist upon maintaining the differentials that were there previously. That is a plain fact. If they do that, then we are all worse off and nobody is any better off. Until that is recognised, we shall never break into the cycle of deprivation.
Whichever solution we choose to deal with this great social evil I believe we all have to stop pretending that there is a simple, painless way. There is not. No Government have yet seriously faced up to the problem, and nor will they unless they really allocate to the issue the top priority that it deserves. I know that my own party desperately wants to tackle this problem, and I have no doubt whatever that it would give it top priority. But it will all be to no avail unless we recognise that, by definition, other areas of public expenditure have to have a lower priority. It will require a greater degree of co-operation and understanding from the public and the trade union movement than anything that has yet been seen in this country. It will effectively mean selling the truth of lower expectations for those outside the cycle of deprivation. Anything else would be the worst kind of pretence. If we really do care, then the sooner we make a start on public education the better. I hope that this debate will help.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, opened his remarks by asking that this should be a non-party political debate. He then launched an attack upon the Prime Minister. I hope, therefore, that he will forgive me if I now remind your Lordships that the first ministerial office held by the Prime Minister was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. She was

309
appointed in 1961, and I am told that she served with skill and with constructive sympathy. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was her boss at that time.
The Motion speaks of
"the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor".
In a converse way, this puts me in mind of two patients in a public ward of a hospital which I attend. One was a vagrant and the other a millionaire. It was an example to me that there is no greater leveller than a personal crisis. They were both in the same boat, almost totally dependent on others and striving for recovery. Neither had the time nor the energy to struggle with more than the basics of life: a measure of tenacity, flexibility and acceptance was required to see them through the rigours. What was recorded was the similarity between them, and not the difference.
At first there was no point in discussing different home circumstances, for they did not know when or even if they would return there. In recovery, the millionaire had many burdens, responsibilities, dependants and employees to worry about, while the vagrant was free of all the harassment but short of friends and visitors. The disparity referred to in today's debate seems to me to lie between these two. None of your Lordships could claim that there is a cure-all, magic formula for the complex condition of deprivation. It thrives on misfortune, bad judgment, mental or physical inadequacy and sometimes downright bad luck. Sir Winston Churchill's recipe of "a safety net below which none shall fall" really set the scene for greatly increased social provision.
It is rightly said that households handicapped by aged or disabled members of family are among the very poorest. Those of us who knew in the late 1950s what it was like then with no benefit to draw unless you gave up the low-paid job you were proud to have mastered, those of us who knew of the paucity of schemes to help you fight your way out of the obstacles, look with wonder at today's opportunities. There was then no attendance allowance, no mobility allowance, no invalid care allowance. From the 1970s attendance allowance and mobility allowance changed our whole horizons. For the first time we could give a small reward to those who had sacrificed so much to help and care for us.
We remember now how much it had cost other people to enable us to travel in order to look for opportunities and then to make something of them. I for one applaud the fact that the mobility allowance has risen by 90 per cent. since this Government took office in 1979. Generally to become self-supporting and tax paying, disabled people need to be mobile, and it was encouraging when the allowance was taken out of tax in 1982.
Knowing how thankful I was to get this kind of financial assistance it is really not for me to underrate its importance, but I believe that a network of helpful personal support schemes can be invaluable. In recent years and months the Crossroads Care Scheme and other similar schemes have provided much needed back-up support in those very poor households for the careers of handicapped people, and to ease accommodation problems the number of adaptations carried out by housing authorities to their own dwelling stock
310
is, I believe, over twice the number it was in 1979, while the number of such grants in the private sector is over four times what it was in 1979. Both these are of great importance in home care.
Going further into the outside world the English Access Committee has been set up by the Government, funded by the DHSS, and serviced by the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped. This is extremely important, In fact, I shall have to ask forgiveness for this very afternoon going to a meeting with the Minister of Housing to discuss better access for disabled people to public buildings. All this is important because it gives more flexibility to disabled people. In the London Regional Transport Act the Government recognise the need to provide transport for disabled people.
Among the special studies under way are those for provision for retirement, a review of the housing benefit scheme, a review of the supplementary benefit scheme, and the arrangements for giving financial help to families with children and to those young people above school-leaving age. The main objective is to see that the help given goes to those who need it most. The initiatives taken to assist the movement of mentally handicapped children and young people into more homely units and into the community, and the £3 million for special problems in this area available for each of the three years to 1986 for local authorities, are most interesting and timely moves.
Those of us who think back ruefully to our working age employment difficulties welcome the new strides taken to get employers interested in the good employment qualities of disabled people, and the new code of practice combined with the MSC schemes which finance adaptations required to accommodate us in the place of work. Most of all, it is the recognition by the Department of Trade and Industry that there is a special niche for us disabled people in information technology, both in jobs and in aids, that assures me that we are properly included in their calculations for this exciting programme for the future.
Another measure of immediate help for the disadvantaged which is really pleasing is the Government's increased help on heating additions. Even in this weather it gives one the shudders to think of hypothermia, and it is a relief to know that this Government have increased expenditure—as my noble friend the Minister said in reply to my Question last week—from £124 million to nearly £400 million this year. It is good to know that those additions are made automatically to those over 70 who are on supplementary benefit and those with children under five.
Obviously it rests with all of us, my Lords, to try to improve the lot of those who have a rotten time, both socially and economically. Even after this debate there will be a long list of measures taken by this Government to bolster those who are disadvantaged which have not been mentioned in this debate. Nevertheless, there is still a need for better dissemination of advice and information. Of that I am certain. I should like to see those who are inadequate guided by sensible, clued-up people. Many social workers have not the chance to do this, nor the full knowledge of what is available.

311
The Disabled Living Foundation, with its fund of advice on how to overcome or reduce difficulties for disabled people, is a most useful and worthy recipient of Government grant. Believing, as I do, that wonders can be achieved by attitude of mind, I am saddened to see fortunate people in well-paid jobs failing to appreciate, let alone cherish, their good fortune, for too often a jaundiced outlook stems from expectations which have been jacked up too high so that the competitive element drives a person to chase their own tail to no avail.
It is so sad if the satisfaction in doing a job well is lost, because then half the fun of life vanishes. I consider that those theories and doctrines which cultivate envy, malice and discontent are no less than criminal. They rob people of the natural resources and gifts which alone provide the spring with which to vault over the difficulties.
If there is a dividing line in society it rests on attitude of mind. There are those who will remain unembittered despite all their troubles and deprivations and no matter how often they are told their lot is hard. They are the ones who are plenteously endowed. Then there are those in all income brackets who are embittered, and they are the deprived.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would agree that creation of wealth is good. This was a point of view that was made in fact by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in his book Bias to the Poor. Anyone except an impractical idealist must realise that it is by the creation of wealth that there is the best hope to raise the safety net and expand the opportunities. Already there is now a better chance for the less well off to plant their stake with the increasing sale of council houses wherein half a million families have become property owners. Employees get a better chance to take shares in the enterprises in which they work now more than ever before, largely because of extended Government policy of privatising or denationalising, call it what you will.
For those who have such a stake it is the Government's achievement in lowering inflation rates that is all-important. It has been one of the major successes of the Government in helping those on lower incomes, those who live on small fixed incomes, who have seen their nest eggs drain away like sand through an hour glass. I humbly suggest to your Lordships that you will not be surprised from what I have said that I cannot possibly support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we know, both from what has been advanced in this debate so far, and not refuted, and from general and common knowledge, that there are one or two important facts that we cannot dodge. The first is that about one-seventh of the population has a standard of living that is a disgrace to the community as a whole and a reproach to the rest of us. Secondly, the degree of inequality between the rich and the poor has been increasing during the lifetime of, and as a result of the policies of, this Government, in particular their policies in relation to taxation.
312
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, (if she was still in her place) that she must not imagine that people who draw attention to these facts regarding inequality are merely giving vent to envy, malice and uncharitableness, because this inequality is an injury to society as a whole. It passes on from one generation to the next. It is of the nature of the society in which we live that, unless we are constantly taking steps to rectify it, the amount of inequality will increase.
If one is already rich, it is easier to save, it is easier to invest to increase one's income in that fashion. It is easier to see that one's children, in addition to whatever is provided at school, have a home in which there are books and other aids to education, and that therefore they are more likely to end up in well paid jobs. There is a general tendency for inequality to perpetuate itself and to increase as time goes on. The reason it does not happen to an intolerable degree is simply that the welfare state has been set up to prevent it.
In what I have to say I want to pay special attention to what the Government have been doing, or failing to do, in education and to the way in which that is tending to maximise the degree of inequality between classes and groups as time passes. The Government started in the field of education with one considerable advantage: the number of children of school age was diminishing, school rolls were falling. It was therefore comparatively easy to make an improvement in one of the fields of education to which students of the matter have given a good deal of attention; that is, the relationship, or proportion, between the number of teachers and the number of children to be taught. That ratio has improved inevitably with the considerable fall in the number of schoolchildren.
But we notice that at the same time the Government have been practising a policy of slow strangulation of the local authorities. We have heard over and over again from members of the Government reproaches about the extravagance of local authorities. The fact is that local authorities in the main have been, or have been compelled to be, more successful in reducing their expenditure and keeping it under control than have central Government. One of the results of the Government's constant policy of squeeze on local authorities has been the starving of the education service. This has occurred not always in any strikingly spectacular manner, but rather in a process of slow discouragement of education.
For example, from a recent report by Her Majesty's inspectors we find that three-quarters of the local authorities had school buildings in a state that was damaging to education, and that one in four of schools were in such a condition that education could not be properly carried on. We find, too, that there has been gradually increased difficulty for local authorities in providing their education services with sufficient books. In view of other matters we have been debating recently in this House, and in the light of the Government's notorious hostility towards local government in London, it is interesting to note that in the recent report of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools it is stated in particular that London authorities have been exceptionally good in ensuring, despite the

313
difficulties, that their schoolchildren are adequately provided with books.
But we also learn that outside London, in relation to at least one age group of schoolchildren, half the local authorities have failed to provide adequate books. When that occurs, what happens next? The parents are called upon to provide the books, instead. The educational publishers have told us recently that about 15 per cent. of school books are now being provided by the parents. What does this mean? It means that schools in localities where the parents can afford to do that kind of thing will be able to provide decidedly better education than will schools less fortunately placed. There will be an increase in inequality. The section of society that is already comparatively well off will be able to hand down that inequality to its children by the provision of schools that are better supplied with books and other aids to education.
The report of the inspectors goes on to tell us that the chief sufferers from this squalor in education—buildings that are not good enough, inadequate supplies of books—are children who are of somewhat less than average ability. There are few subjects on which there has been more bitter argument than that concerned with how far the ability of children is inherent and inherited and how far it is influenced by the education they receive. We know it is a plain fact that for one reason or another some children are less gifted than others, and it should surely be one of the objects of an education system to see that it does not aggravate that disability. That is, in effect what we are doing now, by having an education system which is being starved of essential books and buildings. Those children who are less apt to learn are those who will suffer most. Thus a greater degree of inequality will be handed on to the next generation.
We ought to notice, too, that while this was happening in the schools which are part of the state system, the Government took two steps to try to widen inequality. One was an endeavour to put selection at 11-plus on its feet again by allowing local authorities to create what used to be called grammar schools, if they wish to do so; though only a very limited number do. In plain fact the system of selection at the age of 11 was really a device whereby a better education could be given to middle class children, because one way or another the selective process always worked out to favour children from middle class homes, rather than children with exceptional intellectual capacity. That was how it worked in practice, and that was why, in certain quarters, it was defended. It was a retrograde step, therefore, for the Government to try to reintroduce selection at 11 into the educational system.
The other step they have taken is what was called the assisted places scheme, which was a way of diverting public money, of which there was a shortage for buildings and books in the ordinary schools, to help the finances of private schools in order to enable them to take what were believed to be some of the ablest children from the public educational system. That is another way of increasing the degree of inequality in society. The right honourable lady the Prime Minister once remarked when she was Minister of Education that she thought it her duty in that office to look after remarkable people. A significant remark! If you take
314
that view, you will pursue a policy of inequality all the time. It is your business, I should have thought, if you are Secretary of State for Education, to be concerned with all children, and, indeed, to regard them all as remarkable. That is what their parents think about them, anyhow! Her conception that you have a special duty towards children who are considered remarkable was a recipe for widening the gap between those who may and those who may not have been more gifted by nature than others, and for creating a society in which there was less mutual understanding between different members and different classes than there had been before.
I am not going on for very much longer. I merely want to add that, in addition to what has been happening in the schools, we had a statement from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors that in October 1983 there were turned away from universities 12,000 students who, in 1979, would have been considered to have had the qualifications that would have let them in; and that this was a result of restriction of public expenditure on the universities. Here, again, this is something that is going to produce, in the end, a less equal society. I am arguing that you need an educational system that gives wide support all round if you are to combat the general tendency towards increasing inequality that exists in a society like ours. But both in the schools and in the universities the Government have been shifting policy in the other direction. This we shall regret. It means not only that talent is wasted: it means that the differences in sympathy and understanding between one section of society and the other get successively wider as time goes by, and that is to the disadvantage of both sections.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for initiating this debate. I have always known my noble friend to be a man of deep compassion and understanding, and I think that the speech with which he introduced the debate today underlined, certainly for me, those qualities. I should like to thank also my noble friend Lord Barnett for dealing, in the main, with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from the Government Front Bench; because as I listened to that speech from the noble Lord I was tempted to interrupt almost every few seconds, and I thought that I may have to scrap my few comments and deal with some of the points that were raised by him in his outline of Government policy and Government thinking on these things. But my noble friend I think dealt quite adequately with those points, and I can now revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, scornfully referred to as the symptoms—and I can do that now with a slightly easier conscience.
I see the Motion, or the part that I want to deal with, as giving us the opportunity to review the situation after five years of the present Administration, particularly since Government spokesmen, surveys, parts of the national media and, as I have said, speakers this afternoon, give the impression that the economy is improving, that we are climbing out of recession, that things are getting better, and so on. I am certainly as guilty, and plead so, about the obsession with

315
redistribution as was my noble friend earlier. We ought not to apologise for wanting to see and to argue for a much fairer redistribution of the national wealth.
I want to speak briefly about the effects of Government policy on the mentally and physically handicapped, and to deal with three aspect of that policy. Government Ministers made great play during the last election about their record in the field of disabled people and the handicapped; and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in her contribution this afternoon, has again dealt with that kind of approach. I certainly understand why she feels that she has to be proud of her Government's achievements—and she is quite entitled to be so, just as much as we are entitled to be proud of the achievements of our Governments and, particularly, of the appointment of the first Minister for the Disabled, and the achievements of that Minister for the Disabled, my right honourable friend Mr. Alf Morris, in another place. I take great pride in those achievements as well.
But because we are proud of those achievements, it does not mean to say that we have now to be satisfied and are to be saying constantly: "That is that. Now you can stand on your own two feet. We do as much as we can, but now you are on your own and can get on with it". That is not our attitude. I am loath to go into long quotations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but I seem to recall somebody (although I cannot recall who it was) saying that satisfaction is the enemy of progress, and that to be constantly satisfied may therefore impede progress. We are certainly never satisfied that we have achieved our goals of redistribution and of attacks on deprivation and poverty.
I want to deal first with the question of income for the disabled. In 1983, if I may remind your Lordships, the Conservative manifesto said:
"Expenditure on cash benefits for the disabled is 21 per cent. higher than under Labour, even allowing for rising prices".
But the Disability Alliance, in their publication Hard Times, examined the Government's record and showed that between 1979 and 1983 £2 billion had been cut from the value of social security benefits. The 21 per cent. claim represents, in fact, a rise in overall expenditure on benefits for disabled people during that period. This reflects an increase in the number of people becoming eligible for certain subsidiary benefits, particularly mobility and attendance and other benefits, rather than an increase in the basic invalidity pension.
Recent surveys which show that people are getting richer and claims that people in this country have larger disposable incomes—and we have heard some of that, as well, this afternoon—are certainly not true of disabled people, or certainly of the disabled people that I know. But Government estimates never do tell the full story. For example, the Family Expenditure Survey fails to take account of the fact that people with disabilities have far less access to the subsidies and welfare provisions and facilities offered by employers, while at the same time they face a higher cost of living because of increased prescription charges, increased fuel charges, difficulty in travelling, difficulty in shopping and so on, compared with the rest of the population.
316
Secondly, the disposable income of people with disabilities has been falling. Benefits are no longer linked to earnings. Speeches this afternoon have made great play about the fact that the benefits have gone above prices. But there was a period when benefits were linked to earnings or prices, whichever was the higher—a deliberate attempt to allow people on benefits to share in the increased wealth and production of the country. That has ended, and benefits are no longer linked to earnings, so the disabled and other beneficiaries do not share in the increased wealth produced by the country. As well as that, in 1980 the Government introduced a 5 per cent. abatement on invalidity and sickness benefits in anticipation of the proposal to tax benefits which, in turn, will further reduce the income of many disabled people who may be existing only fractionally above the poverty line. We still have no date for that taxation proposal, but the 5 per cent. abatement continues.
Thirdly, as has already been said this afternoon, many thousands of elderly and non-elderly people with disabilities who are eligible for existing benefits are in fact not claiming them. In my view, insufficient urgency is being shown at Government level about this problem. Here I am tempted to give a couple of quotations. In the recent debate in the other place (Hansard, col. 1175) the present Minister for Social Security, the Member for Brent, North, was quoted as having said:
"The State spends all its energies taking money from the energetic, the successful and thrifty to give to the idle, the failures and the feckless".
In the same copy of Hansard (col. 1186) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury said:
"Part of the oppression of poverty lies in the dependence that it brings on the safety net and on state handouts".
Is it any wonder that people do not claim benefits when they are being told by Ministers responsible and by Government spokesmen that they are being given state handouts or that they are feckless and so on? So it is no wonder that people shy away from claiming.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I do not have the greatest regard myself for the Minister whom he is quoting, I must say, but he ought in fairness to say that that first quotation was from a member of his own party, Mr. George Bernard Shaw. As he pointed out, it was. It was then denied by Mr. Hattersley, who was not aware of the remarks of Mr. George Bernard Shaw, but I am afraid that he will find that it is a very typical remark, if I may say so, from Mr. Shaw, who was given to making remarks of that kind.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not intend to go down that road and take this up with the noble Lord, but I do not accept his explanation. Whoever said it, I believe my noble friend, and I think the quotation as I read it is probably under the interesting title "Down with the poor" which could be related to George Bernard Shaw, rather than quotation. But if he did say it, he is still wrong as far as I am concerned. If that is being repeated by the present Minister of State for Social Services, it is disgraceful that he went to that kind of source or quotation to use against people in these circumstances. So I have no conscience, whoever said it, about saying that it is entirely wrong.

317
In my view, that is one of the many reasons that prevents people from claiming their rights. In fact, the other thing, of course, is that the whole system in the last few years has become so complex that very few people can understand their entitlement. It is that that I think the Government are not paying much attention to.
In fact, the Social Security Advisory Committee, in their last report, highlighted the complexity of the system and recommended that some action should be taken. Here is the introduction of yet another complicated and controversial benefit. The severe disablement allowance, contained in the Health and Social Security Bill now passing through the House, will not in my view do anything to simplify matters in the way suggested at all.
In addition to what I have just outlined, there has been a series of strange devices and expedients contained in various Bills since 1979 to reduce costs or to introduce changes on a nil cost basis. I am thinking, for example, of the overshoots, of the clawbacks, of the 54-week benefit year—this year is a 53-week benefit year—of the changes in the method of calculating the retail price index and rumours of further changes. Housing costs were excluded from 1982 onwards from the retail price index for increases in supplementary benefit rates. Different calculations from May to May, as opposed to November to November, meant further savings for the Government, but greater losses for disabled people. The loss of heating additions, changes in linking rules—the list grows longer and longer of Government savings at the expense of the most vulnerable. These are facts of life; they may be symptoms, but they are important symptoms to a lot of people who are on the receiving end of these cuts.
I would have thought that the 1984 Budget could have given the Government an opportunity to prove that they intended to benefit the less well off, if all the other things they were saying were correct, and to reflect the improving state of the economy referred to by Government spokesmen. However, that Budget, in my view, did not take any significant steps at all to lessen the burden of poverty. In this Budget the main tax concessions amounted to £2,810 million. Since 1979 it is estimated that the cumulative value of tax cuts stands at £13,000 million, while, as I have said, over £2 billion has been saved on social security cuts. No amount of juggling with figures will disguise the effect of this policy on the disabled and on other beneficiaries.
So the 1984 Budget raised the main tax allowances above the rate of inflation except for the age allowances. Why leave the age allowances out if you are really sincere over doing something about poverty? The blindness tax allowance remains the same as last year, and overall the Budget, in my view, did not take any significant steps towards changing the situation. The Chancellor again left out many items which could have helped the disabled and should have helped to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots, if Government spokesmen had been truthful. On the invalidity pension, for instance, there is still no announcement to restore the 5 per cent. cut: we await that. On unemployment benefit, there is no announcement to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed. There is
318
absolutely no reason at all why that should not have been done. On the invalid care allowance, there is no extension of this to married women, and again there is no excuse for that omission and we shall return to it in a few weeks' time, I hope. As to the mobility allowance, there has been no announcement to allow people aged over 65 to claim the mobility allowance and we still await progress on that.
On the comprehensive disability income and costs allowance, it has been recognised that this is something we should all be striving for and we all at least accepted the principle of it. The Black Report highlighted this point, as a means of reducing the difference between the rich and poor. Even this Government accepted it and promised in 1979 in the manifesto to work swiftly—those are their words, not mine—towards this. Now, five years later, not much has been done; in fact, as I said during the course of discussion on the severe disablement allowance, we may have taken a step backwards.
I want now to mention another aspect: care in the community, which is my second point. The Green Paper, Care in the Community, published in 1981, was broadly welcomed on all sides; and rightly so. The philosophy appeared to be right, but what was and is missing is the cash, the resources to ensure that if mentally handicapped and mentally ill people are to be discharged from long stay institutions into the community, then appropriate provisions and resources must be available.
If I may quote from a recent report in the Guardian newspaper, on 31st May, it said:
"Thousands of mentally ill patients are being discharged into private hotels which are overcrowded, understaffed, under-equipped, and run by landlords more concerned with profit than caring for residents, the Health Service union, Cohse, warned in a report yesterday.
"Encouraged by the Government, private nursing homes and guest houses have become the primary source of non-hospital care for the elderly, mentally ill, and mentally handicapped who are being moved back into the community. The Social Security Minister, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, has ordered big increases in payments by local authorities to private landlords …
"One member of the Cohse working group, Mr. Harry Packham, associate director of nursing services at Goodmayes hospital, Redbridge, yesterday accused local social security departments of paying private landlords up to £200 per person per week without ensuring that a decent service was being provided.
"The food is poor, the accommodation is awful …
"In practice, said Mr. Packham, social service officials were afraid of taking legal action lest the landlords evict the patients".
I submit that that is yet another symptom, one of those symptoms scornfully attacked by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but a very important symptom to a lot of poor people who really understand this question of poverty and deprivation.
As well as that, a survey was published by another organisation called Exodus, set up especially to help get children out of long-stay abnormality hospitals. That is something we would all like resources and funds to be used for. The report, entitled Left Behind, showed that at that time no regional health authority had stopped admitting children for either long-term or short-term care, let alone trying to get them out. Only two regions had taken steps to adopt policies which would recommend no further admissions. The majority of admissions are for short-term care, but that can be for as long as two or three years. There is

319
no specific time limit and, in my view, this is quite unacceptable. Two years is not "short-term" in the life of a child and the Government should be taking more definite action to instruct council authorities to admit children for care, and to introduce a definition of "short-term care" as a maximum of six months. And of course resources must be made available for alternatives.
Social services directors have continually warned about the dangers of the Government's approach to questions of community care. It must be obvious to everybody that an extension of community care will make more demands on the social services. If resources are not there then the whole thing gets worse and worse. Voluntary organisations like the Spastics Society are having to use funds which they can ill afford to do the jobs which ought to be done by the National Health Service and the Department of Health and Social Security at local level. This is at a time when all voluntary organisations' funds are under severe attack from cuts in grants and from value added tax, so that they can ill afford to use up resources in that fashion.
Finally, I wanted to mention the question of employment difficulties for disabled people. We have mentioned from these Benches this afternoon the problems of the unemployed. It was 18 minutes into the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, before he even said the words: but nevertheless, in my view, the plight of the disabled is becoming worse at a time when the disablement resettlement services are being cut back and job centre services are being cut back, while more and more disabled people are being thrown on to the dwindling facilities of job centres. This will result in further dilution of the availability of jobs for the unemployed.
I must end there, but I will just say that, in my view, the policies of this Government have increased inequality and the problems of those at the lower end of the spectrum. Most people I speak to believe, with me, that the gap between the rich and the poor in our society is already far too wide and is widening. I support the Motion.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords. I must first apologise that I am unable to stay until the end of the debate because I have to keep an appointment and then to catch an aeroplane. It is facile to point to the increased differential between the wealthy and the poor and to say that the poor are becoming worse off. It is easy to point to any group of people and say that they should have more and how desirable that would be. The first question I want to consider is: have the poor been getting better or worse off since 1978? Secondly, does the fact that the entrepreneurs and the better-off pay less tax and have more money to spend themselves make things better or worse for those who are less well off?
To begin with the first question, let us examine the poorer incomes. Support for the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes has been increased by this Government by some 25 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office. Further, this money
320
increasingly goes to those most in need. There have been set up since November 1983 four social service inquiries—into retirement pensions, housing benefit, supplementary benefit and help for children. Two of the objects of these inquiries have been to simplify the system and to channel help to the most needy cases.
In November, benefits will increase by 5.1 per cent., compared with the likely inflation rate of 4.5 per cent. In the last six years, pensions have risen by 83.6 per cent., compared with a rise in prices of 76 per cent. The pensions earnings rule limit has been increased, and there are a host of other benefits, including the heating addition, the spending on which has increased from £124 million to £400 million. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more about this from the Minister. This Government have a better record so far than the previous administration. But the poor will always continue to exist, and they will continue no matter what form of Government may be in power and regardless even of the time that any one Government have held power.
I am afraid that the destitute will also continue to exist simply because there is always a section of every population that is quite incapable of managing its weekly financial planning. This does not make the plight of the most badly-off any happier or reduce the desire to see a rise in the lowest incomes, and I hope that the Government will continue to improve benefits. But when the noble Lord talked about extreme poverty in this country, where everybody is caught in the safety-net of benefits, he does not appear to have seen much of poverty in other countries. I do sometimes wonder whether enough is done to teach in schools, and through social welfare and the probation service, the skills of family income management and the dangers particularly facing potential one-parent families.
Nevertheless, figures show that the poor are at least better provided for than they were six years ago and more people have been able to acquire wealth and security, for example, by home ownership and participation in the shares of their businesses and in ownership of televisions and washing machines, as we have heard. This must surely be a good influence towards reducing the social difference between rich and poor. Indeed, many of the present rich were the poor in their own youth. There are thousands of people from poor families who have made good and have made their fortunes. Strangely, that does not stop them from being castigated now for being rich.
The next question is: does the fact that the better-off have more spending power make the poor worse off? Reduction in the tax rates and the abolition of the investment surcharge have undoubtedly given the better-off more spending power. Above all, it has encouraged work, investment and wealth creation. I am sure that we, particularly on this side, agreed with the Prime Minister when she said that only if we create wealth can we continue to do justice to the old and sick. It is economic success which will provide the surest guarantee of help to those in need, yet I once heard a distinguished noble Lord who sits opposite, loudly stating that all businessmen were dishonest. And one of his noble friends said that a market place was a place where businessmen drew together to cheat each other. I remember exactly who they were. What

321
a depressing thought it is that elder statesmen who have held high office have not lifted their horizons of knowledge above such prejudice.
No wonder business did not have confidence under the party opposite, or that talent went overseas. Surely, if a man can be encouraged to employ labour and buy machines, themselves made by other labour, to produce goods and make them available either in better quality or at a cheaper price than those already on the market, it is not dishonest; nor is it cheating his competitors or anyone else. Surely the important thing is that he employs labour and pays wages, which gives money to spend on other goods made by other men; and the fact that the employer tries to make a good profit as an incentive for getting the business going is of no ill consequence whatsoever to those he employs: quite the reverse. The more employers and entrepreneurs can be encouraged by high reward, the more jobs will result and the fewer people will be unemployed or on low incomes.
Would greater equalisation of reward, achieved perhaps by greater taxation, give a higher standard of living for the lower paid? In China, after 40 years of socialism, where the differentials are small, the worker takes home £15 a month and the factory manager £60. I am two years out of date, so those figures are probably wrong now. Certainly the life-style is egalitarian, but even the well-off there have less buying power than our lower paid. Prices are low for essentials, but international luxuries are unknown and there are special shops which are only available to the senior party officials.
I was taken to a show farm with new houses for all the workers. Those houses would be condemned in this country, and are far below what any worker, or even an unemployed person, in this country would accept. Meanwhile there are millions of unemployed who get no unemployment pay at all and have to be supported by the one member of the family who has been allotted a job. Having stopped enterprise for fear of people growing wealthy, China lacks the wealth to be able to pay its unemployed or to give good housing to its people.
Perhaps China might be thought to suffer because it is not in the industrialised West, or because of racial characteristics or because of climate—but not at all. The peasants and factory workers in Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan are far better off under capitalism than their compatriots under socialism and egalitarianism. And that is in spite of China having a bigger potential home market than any other country in the world. However, far from feeling that a few more years of egalitarianism will do the trick, China—and, I think, Russia—are at last beginning to allow private enterprise and reward for individual or family effort. It will be interesting to see how the success of their enterprise zone outside Hong Kong will affect their thinking.
A similar sort of story can be told of Russia. Socialist egalitarianism condemns those with enterprise and wealth to be poor. Worse still, socialist egalitarianism condemns the poor to be poorer. Now for the first time since the war we have in England a Government who realise that the best way to help the poor is to encourage the creation of individual wealth.
322
As inflation comes increasingly under control and as enterprise is increasingly rewarded by wealth, so resources will increasingly become available for social welfare.
I am not original in finishing with the story of the baker. Only by encouraging the baker to bake a very big cake will there be, in time, an adequate number of slices, and slices of adequate size, to feed those round the table, as well as giving the baker enough to feel that all the effort was worthwhile and worth doing again.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, we are debating a Motion
"To call attention to the widening"—
and I stress the word, "widening"—
"social and economic differences between the rich and the poor in the United Kingdom".
The speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, shows that he is not addressing himself to this issue. None of us on this side of the House would claim that socialism, as we understand it, has ever been put into practice in any country in the world, including both the Soviet Union and Soviet China. But what we are debating is whether the policies of this Government have widened the gap between the rich and the poor. If the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, will come with me to some of the northwestern and north-eastern areas, and tell the unemployed there that they should learn more about domestic management, I can assure him that he will get a very warm and unfriendly reception.
On the first issue of whether this gap between the rich and the poor is widening, we need to say very little, because it has already been established and is very well-known in this country. All I would say is this. To take the official figures from the low pay price index, since 1978 the workers in the bottom 10 per cent. of the wages table have had their real living standards reduced by 1 per cent.; that is, during the lifetime of this administration and the previous administration. At the same time, the top 10 per cent. have had their incomes increased by 60 per cent. If that is not a widening gap, then what is?
What are the consequences of this widening gap between the rich and the poor? I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister who is to wind up has had drawn to his attention this very deep study of the City of Bristol—a fairly representative city in our country. This was published just a few weeks ago and it is entitled Inequalities of Health in the City of Bristol. The research has been conducted by Professor Peter Townsend and two of his colleagues. I would recommend it to the noble Lord, not because I want to draw from this report a list of health difficulties but rather the other way round, because I want to show that from a study of health can be gained a knowledge of the difference in living standards.
This is the way in which this report, which is based upon a study of the six most affluent wards and the six poorest wards in Bristol, gives evidence for our debate this afternoon. First, it looks at family living standards in general and it takes a number of tests; for instance, the number of children entitled to free school meals,

323
which is a good test of family living standards. Since 1979, the number of school children eligible for free school meals has declined in all the six affluent wards. In St. Philip and Jacob wards, which any noble Lord who has visited Bristol will know, the number of school children eligible for free school meals has increased by 23.6 per cent. whilst in Easton it has risen by 16 per cent. This is the actual effect of the widening gap in living standards and this is what it means to families.
Secondly, the study looks at the electricity disconnections—again, a test of family living standards. In all the six affluent wards, the number of electricity disconnections has declined; in five of the six poorest it has risen—and this is in the period from 1979.
Thirdly, unemployment has risen in all the wards, but in the affluent wards it has risen by a range of only 1 to 3·5 per cent., while in the poor wards it has risen by between 5·7 and 13·1 per cent. Again, the conditions of poor people have become relatively worse during the period since 1979.
Finally in these tests of family living standards there is the basic one of life expectation. In the six poor wards there are between two and two-and-a-half times more deaths than in the rich wards, and there are two to three times more stillbirths and infant deaths. If that is not clear evidence of the widening gap between the rich and the poor in real human living terms, then we are surely misusing the English language.
In conclusion on this issue, I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to wind up saw the programme "World in Action" on Monday of this week. Did he see the examination of that refuse tip on Merseyside in, ironically, the wealthy area of the Wirral, which is being used to clothe people, to provide furniture for people and to provide cooking utensils for people? Let me just give a couple of quotations from that programme and the journalistic follow-up which succeeded it. Here is one of the ladies who uses the tip. She said:
"I have not been in a clothes shop for 10 years. Everything I need for me and the three children is on the tip. I can't afford to go shopping".
The second quotation is from a man who is unemployed, who is 55 years old and who is forced to live on a weekly benefit of £50 a week for himself, his wife and his five children. He had this to say:
"Just about everything in the house is from the tip—the furniture and the ornaments".
Did the noble Lord see this programme? After seeing this dramatic illustration of poverty in our country, can he still maintain what his noble friend, opening for the Government, had to say about the improvement in the standard of living of the poorer section of our community? Improvements do not come about simply by quoting figures of increased benefits. Of course you have to spend more on benefits if you have got 4 million unemployed instead of 2 million unemployed, if there are more people suffering illness as a result of unemployment and if there are more people who are depressed and mentally disabled because of the conditions in which they are living.
324
I want to put a question to the noble Lord the Minister and also to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There is a very sparse gallery on the other side of the House; therefore we have to pick and choose who we shall ask to support the Conservative cause so that we can have a relevant, proper and rational debate. I would ask those who are to speak from that side of the House—I believe that there are only three more still to speak—to address themselves to a question which I believe to be fundamental and which goes one stage beyond what has yet been said in the debate. I would ask whether the kind of society I have been describing, both from the researches in Bristol and from the television programme about Merseyside, is the kind of society that the Conservative Party and their Government are seeking. I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that it is the end product which they set out with their policies to achieve. What I do believe is that it is the inevitable consequence of their policies. When the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, spoke about the need for greater enterprise and for more entrepreneurs he touched upon a basic philosophy in the ranks of the Conservative Party. This basic philosophy should be debated, not just in this Chamber but in the country as a whole.
Let us address ourselves just to two figures. Before the cuts which came in the last Budget, the tax cuts for the rich since the Conservative Party came to office in 1979 cost round about £2·9 billion. It is fair to argue that those tax cuts were financed by cuts by the Government of £2·7 billion in social security spending. I understand that there are many noble Lords and other people in the Conservative Party who believe that this is the correct policy, not in order to achieve the consequences which I have described but because they genuinely believe that inequalities in society increase wealth production. If they believe that, let them say so. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, came very near to saying it and I believe he would agree that this is part of his philosophy. But is it not a philosophy which believes that the rich will work harder if their incomes and incentives are increased and that the poor will work harder if their poverty is increased? Is not this the natural logic of that philosophy?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to the rich having to bear less taxation, he should think not only about the very rich but also about those who are in jobs and doing well and who are being encouraged to increase their output. He should think about those people as well as about those whom we nonchalantly think of as being very rich.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes, my Lords, I quite understand that part of the philosophy. I was about to address myself to it. If this is the philosophy of the Conservative Party, it comes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had to say at the beginning of the debate about the necessity for wealth production. We believe in wealth production, but we believe in real wealth production. I cannot see how members of the Conservative Party today can reconcile that philosophy, based upon wealth production and the necessity for inequality to achieve wealth production, with the record of their Government.

325
What is the record of their Government so far as wealth production is concerned? Manufacturing industry has virtually collapsed. Bankruptcies have been at a record level in each successive year of this administration. For the first time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there is a deficit in the British manufacturing balance of trade. In other words, we are importing more than we are exporting. Unemployment is at a record level and sterling has been devalued. Is that a record of wealth production? It is a record of growing inequality. How does the honest Conservative reconcile these two sides of the picture? I believe that we are entitled to an answer.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is to wind up the debate will give us an answer to what is a central issue for everybody in this country: how do you reconcile your philosophy of the necessity for social and economic inequality in order to produce more wealth with your record of having failed on every count in the declared effort to produce greater wealth for this country? I hope that the noble Lord will address himself to that question. I hope, too, that he will remember that his administration has been in existence during a period in which it has had the bonus of North Sea oil, which no previous administration has enjoyed, but which will run out in a few years' time. So we are entitled to know where the Government are going.
Do they accept the cycle of deprivation and poverty? Do they accept the philosophy of inequality? Do they accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has just said: that there will always be poverty and that there will always be poor people in this country? Do they accept all that as a necessity for wealth creation? If they do, where is their wealth creation? We are always being told by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, "Oh, yes, we have built a rock for the future". It is always for the future. It has been said before that in the future we are all dead. When are we going to get something for the people who are living in this country now and for the children who will be living when we are dead? When shall we get something which is a success story for this Government in terms of wealth production for the benefit of the people of this country?
We are also entitled to ask the noble Lord who is to wind up where the Government stand in relation to the wording of this Motion. Do they claim that they have a policy which will break the cycle of poverty? Do they claim success in having created a widening gap and greater inequalities? Do they claim that these have produced more wealth during their five years in office? If they do not, what are the Government going to do in the rest of the term that they have to serve before the next general election?
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before I begin I should like to make a small, personal, and probably unpopular observation. Some 30 per cent. of the speakers so far this afternoon have prefaced their contributions with the remark that they will not be here for the whole of this debate. I feel free to say this since their number includes one of my noble friends: this is very discourteous, and it is a growing practice in your Lordships' House which I personally find most
326
exasperating. We are all busy people and we all have other things to do. With the greatest of respect to those who find themselves in this situation, if they cannot stay to hear the debate through, then they should withdraw from speaking.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Nicol: I am very surprised to hear that response, my Lords. I will now return to the subject of this debate, and I will start by thanking my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for introducing this subject, which is one about which some of us feel very deeply.
I will return briefly to the beginning of the debate to say that I do not believe that compassion or charity is solely in the hands of the Labour Party. In fact, I have known some of the most compassionate acts to come from Members of the Benches opposite. But we are not now concerned with compassion or charity—we have gone beyond that. I will speak in a moment about the real situation in which we find ourselves.
One of the most serious divisions in our society at the present time was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in his remarks—although I would not go along with him in the way in which he laid blame for it. That division is the one which exists between the employed and the unemployed. In a social system where a man or woman is identified by occupation and where the first vital fact to be learned about any new acquaintance is what he or she does for a living, then the loss of identity suffered by the unemployed is another of their many problems.
The loss of purpose that afflicts many retired people is well known and it is catered for, and efforts are made to prepare for it. At least retirement is expected and can be planned for, and financial provision will ensure survival in a situation where family responsibilities are usually less.
The plight of the unemployed man or woman who is still employable is much more destructive. Added to the loss of identity and purpose is the crushing anxiety of inadequate financial support. Despite the social changes of the last decade, the largest single group among the unemployed is the man who is the main support of his family. Despite the agonising problems and statistics of single-parent families and of women, it is upon the family group that I wish to focus today.
We are trying to find the ear of a government which have declared themselves to be the champions of the family unit as the ideal basis for the Government's social structure. The first and immediate effect of unemployment on the family is a drop in its living standards. Commitments entered into in good faith in the expectation of continuing earned income (most often a mortgage on the home) cannot be met. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, stated with great pride that 12½ million people are now home owners. But they are not home owners, mostly—they are people with mortgages. Those homes can be taken from them if they do not manage to keep up their mortgage payments, and that is happening in a large number of cases. Many of the people who so proudly and eagerly bought their council homes when this Government's legislation first made that possible are now finding themselves in difficulties and being forced to sell their

327
homes back to the local authority, or are trying to do so, if the local authority is able to repurchase—which in many cases it cannot.
Other financial commitments also cannot be met. The very refrigerators which seem to cause the noble Lord such comfort are very often on hire purchase and are lost when unemployment occurs. Growing financial anxieties put pressure on family relationships and when the problem becomes long term many marriages do not survive. I have spent five years in the domestic courts and can say from first-hand knowledge that a large number of broken marriages have as a factor financial difficulties. I would not put all the blame on financial difficulties but they do represent a large factor in broken marriages. The majority of those financial difficulties prove, upon investigation, to have been caused by unemployment.
Parents who cannot provide properly for their children become frustrated, over-anxious and irritable—and the main wage-earner becomes guilty and demoralised. The effect on children is obvious, and if they are in their teens and are themselves facing a "no hope" situation, the problem is compounded.
I must quote to your Lordships a case which came before the courts fairly recently. It concerned a man in his late twenties with a family, who obviously was not an habitual criminal. He had gone into a supermarket and filled his basket with goods, and had then left without paying. When he came before the court we heard all that there was to hear about him—which included the fact that he had no previous convictions and that he had been unemployed for more than a year. When we asked him what he had to say for himself, he clenched the front of the dock, looked directly at us, and said, "Your worships, I am supposed to be the provider and I cannot provide". That was a most heart-rending case and it is one whose circumstances have been echoed again and again, although not in such an articulate way, in the courts. I wonder whether we realise what we are doing to the fabric of our society. If we destroy the basic family unit on which so many of our institutions rely, we are destroying ourselves in the long term, and we should consider that very seriously.
Unemployed adults cannot afford to mix with their friends. They cannot afford to go into the club or the pub and buy their share of whatever entertainment is going. Their horizons are reduced. A person unemployed for up to 12 months is 11 times more likely to attempt suicide than an employed person. For someone out of work for more than a year, this figure rises to 19 times. Long-term unemployed cannot claim the same benefits—and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has recently defended this system at the Dispatch Box—as the long-term social security claimant. The difference to a married couple in one week is £11·5p. This can be a life or death difference for a couple and I ask the Government to look again at this provision to see if there is not some way of bringing the long-term unemployed onto the same level as the long-term social security claimant who is not a registered unemployed person.
In a recent debate there was discussion on the subject of what constitutes a "real" job. When replying
328
the Minister took great pains to explain that the Government are not interested in creating jobs which are not "real" jobs. But, when pressed, he was in great difficulty in describing what a "real" job was. This fool is prepared to rush in where that angel feared to tread and say that I can define a "real" job.
A real job is a job that allows a man to keep his self-respect, and his family from want, and to contribute to the welfare of society. It is well within the reach of the Government to produce jobs of that kind. We have piles of unused bricks. We have unemployed brick workers. We have unemployed builders. Seeding that particular field would surely pay off with a splendid harvest, and I see no reason at all why such jobs cannot be described as "real" jobs and subsidised in the beginning by the Government. When one considers the real cost and the social cost of unemployment, surely that would pay off in the end. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, himself said at the very beginning of his remarks—and I hope I have reported his words correctly—that it is the Government's job to create a vigorous society with the wish to succour those in need, and with the means to do so. The means are to his hand. I beg to support the Motion.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to start by saying that if I was in error when I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I apologise. The noble Lord is someone I have admired in politics for a very long time, and I certainly did not mean any discourtesy. In addition, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, realised, the quotation might well have been one from George Bernard Shaw even if it were not, because it was the kind of thing he did say.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is to be very much congratulated, as I think everyone agrees, for bringing forward this Motion, tying together the ideas of riches and poverty. They are united in that you cannot have either of them without the other, and they must be considered together.
I put myself forward to speak today partly as a spokesman for Church Action on Poverty, which, although it would certainly not go along with every word I have to say, I am sure would be behind the main theme I shall be putting forward. In this context I am particularly sorry that, although we were lucky enough to have some bishops on the Benches during the early speeches, there is not a speaker from the Episcopal Bench. We are well aware how full their diaries get for periods ahead, and how difficult it is for them to come here to take part; but, nevertheless, I should have hoped that this was a subject for which very special efforts might have been made. The Church, however, has something to say on this matter, I think, and it is worth exploring that a little.
My criticism is that possibly this Motion does not go far enough. Most of us were brought up to believe that riches are a good thing and poverty is an evil, and there is a slight implication of that in this Motion. If you rigorously read through the Gospels you will find that poverty is not taken tremendously seriously but that riches are. Riches are not regarded as a good thing at all, and nor are those who possess them regarded as

329
anything but unfortunate. Indeed, if one were to take that seriously, the Motion should also call attention to the need to break into the cycle which condemns families to riches. And, by hat! in Britain there is a cycle which condemns families to riches. We have read fairly recently in newspaper headlines of the rich and aristocratic families, and what they possess. I would be quite content to defend as a thesis this implication that riches are not necessarily a very good thing. But we are so used to saying the opposite—that we are only against poverty and that we are not in any way against riches, and we think that riches are a good thing—that I suspect I would not get very much support in your Lordships' Chamber.
Where I hope I might get a great deal of support, and where I follow on from previous speakers, is in emphasising that the problem is not so much a problem of extreme poverty. What is happening in Newcastle does not compare with Bangladesh. On extreme riches, your Lordships' House is not concerned, thank goodness, with judgment. The matter is one of the health of society. That, I think, is what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said, and I entirely agree with him about it. No society is healthy if it has great extremes of riches and poverty, and nor can it produce healthy results. We all pay lip service to the need for a healthy society, and it is one of the functions of politicians to produce that healthy society. The Prime Minister has made a plea for a healthy society, and Members of your Lordships' House of all parties watch with dismay the present disintegration of society in some respects, which is undoubtedly happening.
The division between rich and poor is no myth. We have already heard some comparative figures today about deaths among the babies of the poor and of the rich. No other figures are needed: just two minutes' meditation on the facts should be enough to bring home to noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both sides of the House the real implications of a situation in which, compared with children of the rich, something like three times as many children of the poor die at an early age.
From time to time we see figures published which actually give Britain rather a good rating on the maximum spread between the rich and the poor. They are usually figures which report take-home pay, but they conceal wide variations of, for instance, perks. The director of a multi-national company—I take these figures from the Economist, and they are typical figures—may receive £35,000 a year and a British Telecom worker £7,000 per year—a five times differential. That is nothing very much and nothing to complain about. A society which has a five times differential is a society which can keep together. But the director has perks of (typically) £11,000 and the worker has perks of £600. The differential immediately goes up to eight times. If you add at the top the very rich indeed, of whom there are a large number, if you take the top directors and chairmen earning well over £100,000 a year (and there are plenty of those), and if you take at the bottom the unemployed—and we have heard quite a lot about them and about the real misery there—the differentials grow and grow. When we start talking about the really rich and their incomes, we are in a different league
330
altogether from that about which we normally talk when we refer to ordinary earning levels.
These differentials create poverty in themselves. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool has said:
"We manufacture new forms of poverty as the affluent majority constantly drives forward its standards of living. Few people realise what they are doing to those who see them but cannot keep up."
It is easy to condemn envy, and there has been some implication today—and I have certainly heard it outside your Lordships' House—that the complaints which are produced from the parties on this side of the House are the complaints of envy. To those who say that, I would place the roots of envy where they belong. As Fritz Schumacher said:
"The rich corrupt themselves by practising greed, and they corrupt the rest of society by provoking envy".
The problem that we are discussing today has not yet been seriously tackled. It has not been tackled by the Government, who do not pretend to tackle it. I regret to say that it has not been tackled by the Labour Party. When I was campaigning in the 1960s we used to talk about the 13 years of wasted Tory rule. Since then there have been 13 years, altogether, of Labour rule, and I do not think the best of the spokesmen today can boast of what has been done about this real problem. Nor do I particularly cast blame, because I am not pretending that my party, or the Alliance, will necessarily be able to do a great deal better.
I am extremely proud of the policy that has been produced on the question of negative income tax and I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has done on this particular side and for the lead that he gives to us all.
It is a failure of the whole political system, not just one particular party, or one particular Government. If I cast some blame on the Labour Party, my remarks are not the barbs of a political opponent, they are the heartfelt regrets of a would-be political ally. The remedies are both simple and complex. The simplicity—and I now quote Professor Peter Townsend's figures—lies in the fact that less than 18 per cent. of the income of the top 20 per cent. of the richest of the population would double the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent. We have heard enough this afternoon to know what that would mean to them. That is the simplicity.
The complexity lies in the mechanisms which have built up these differences and in the task of dismantling them. Recently the Economist pointed out that over the past 25 years three types of saving have been massively privileged—owner-occupied housing, pensions, and life insurance. Personal holdings of those assets have risen, after inflation, by 260 per cent., 280 per cent., and 80 per cent. respectively. To do him justice the Chancellor has shown some signs of being aware of this problem and has tackled the very smallest part of it; but awareness is not enough.
It is not my business to turn to the other side of the coin today. Many of your Lordships are aware of the problems and miseries of comparative poverty—more so, probably, than I am—and many others of your Lordships are not, as has been rightly pointed out. But most of the problems of comparative poverty are caused by exclusion—exclusion of children from

331
treats, school trips and wearing the same clothes as their classmates do; exclusion of their parents from the fellowship of the club and the pub, as has already been said; and, possibly above all, exclusion from the joy and virtue of dispensing hospitality.
That great man, Abraham Lincoln, once said:
"You do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer."
The rich have quoted him ever since; well, they would, wouldn't they! What he said might have had some validity in a frontier country with limited resources and with no need for a binding sense of community, though I doubt that. It is wholly untrue in Britain today. If we can lessen the differences between rich and poor, if we can make the poor less poor and the rich less rich, then both will be wealthier and our society will be on its way to becoming a healthy society.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I want to look at the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell from the point of view of the effect of the situation upon young people. Their problem at the present time is a double one. They have the usual, normal, problem of coming to terms with the adult world, and they also have the problem of understanding and fitting into a world where the accepted norms are changing and, sometimes, changing very rapidly. My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned, for example, the problem of broken marriages. There are the changes in marriage and life partnerships, the changes in job opportunities and work patterns and the changes in technological industries and technological applications. Yet, despite these major technological developments, young people are having to come to terms with a society where the economic outlook is bleaker than at any time since the 1930s.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made great play of the fact that the rate of inflation is lower than at any time in the last half century. The price of that, of course, has been a very high one, and has included the highest unemployment rate we have had for half a century. This, of course, is creating very great problems for young people. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said that it is not surprising that there is increased violence, crime and drug-taking. This trend affects young people, and it is very relevant, incidentally, to a Bill which is at present going through your Lordships' House—the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
In that context I refer your Lordships to the speech of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs on the occasion of the Second Reading of that Bill, when she referred to the deteriorating relationships between the police and young people. This situation was amply illustrated recently at an all-party meeting when the British Youth Council arranged for a group of young people from different parts of the country to present their concerns about what they thought would be the effect of that Bill on them. Some of their thoughts and fears may not be justified; nevertheless, that is symptomatic of their relationship with authority in this country.
I must say that I am at one with the junior education Minister, Mr. Peter Brooke, in saying that only a small
332
minority of young people belong to the cult of football hooliganism. The social work that many young people perform through their school and youth group activities is largely ignored because the publicity is concentrated on the more dramatic and less worthy activities of some of their contemporaries. But this is a very real problem and it needs to be looked at in the context of a society where there are very deep differences between groups of people, and where those who are deprived—in particular the young deprived—quite naturally feel rejected by that society. Not only is society as a whole divided into different groups, but so are young people themselves. I want to look at some of the areas involved and some of the problems that are caused by these differences in groups among young people.
The very first, of course, must be that of unemployment. Again, this is a point which was made by my noble friend Lady Nicol. The greatest divide among young people is between those who are in employment and those who are not. Incidentally, this divide cuts across some of the acceptable social groups. We are finding that graduates, as they leave universities and polytechnics, are also experiencing unemployment and, unfortunately, are competing with some of the less well educated youngsters for jobs at a level which a few years ago their equivalents would not have contemplated.
This is an area where the division is increasing. For example, in 1979 in the 16 to 19 year-old age group 202,000 young people were unemployed; today in that age group 500,000 young people are unemployed. If we extend the group from age 16 to 24, 1·2 million young people are now unemployed, compared with 430,000 in 1979. There is a very real growth in this problem. Whatever other problems we have to tackle, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is one of the most urgent.
The second area to which I wish to refer is training, which is very closely related to the problem of unemployment. Some people would say that there is no point in having training unless there are jobs. Where then do we start? I am not at one with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who on 26th June, in reply to a question from my noble friend Lord Dean, said at col. 781 of the Official Report:
"I cannot say when the trend will be reversed because the Government do not accept, as the noble Lord and his party suggest, that the Government can control the overall level of unemployment in this country".
I do not accept that, and I think that in all parts of the House there is dissent from it. We had the excellent report from the Select Committee of the House on unemployment, which put forward proposals for the Government to take an initiative over unemployment.
Perhaps sooner or later the Government will take an initiative here. If the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, of extending wealth production is to be realised, something has to be done by the Government. It would be much better if we could focus training in areas where the Government felt that initiatives could be taken to increase employment, whether in the private or public sectors.
Be that as it may, I still support the concept of the youth training scheme. But after a year of the

333
operation of that scheme, it is important to look at the areas where we can close some of the gaps. I gather that something like 250,000 young people will complete their YTS training in the summer. It has been estimated that as many as 100,000 might complete their training and not have a job. If we are to prevent those young people from becoming completely disillusioned and feeling an absolute failure at having taken the course and not got a job at the end of it, we must consider the suggestions made for extending it to a two-year course at least, and making it into a modular course, so that young people can move from the YTS course to another course, as a progression of their training.
I recently sat in on a meeting of the Careers Association in Bradford which was considering this problem. The main item on the agenda was how to involve the young people coming off the YTS in additional training or to help support their confidence in themselves if they failed to get a job. I must say that I was very encouraged by the activities of that association. Its initiatives extended to discussions with local authorities and educational bodies to try to put on additional courses and to put the young people on YTS courses in touch with employers who might be able to take them on. Nevertheless, if the YTS was viewed not as a training scheme in itself but as the beginning of a continuous process of training and work experience, we should go a long way to help young people out of this very real problem.
Another difficulty in this area is the co-ordination of schemes and grants. I shall not enter into the discussion of how much the YTS grant should be. I accept that it is a training grant. There ought to be a grant and the training ought to be good and valuable. But there is confusion and a lack of coherence. Young people on the YTS at the moment get £25 a week for their training. Other young people who stay on at school get nothing, but their parents continue to get the allowance for them. Young people who are unemployed get unemployment benefit, but if they take up study and study for more than 21 hours a week they lose that benefit.
There is to be a further development. We are told that next year the certificate of pre-vocational education will be interchangeable with a year on the YTS. What will the young people on that scheme get if they stay on at school to take their CPVE? They will probably get nothing, but youngsters on the YTS, which is equivalent, will still get the YTS grant.
The whole area needs to be looked at, particularly from the point of view of encouraging young people to think in terms of continuous training until they can get a job. If they had a grant in their own right, there would not be the great division between them and their young friends lucky enough to be in employment. There would be a bridge. Important changes need to be made in the provision of training for young people.
The final point that I should like to make is in relation to the youth services. They again are a very important element in fitting young people into the community—bridging the gap between young people and the community and building a link between young people in training and young people in work.
334
At a time of high unemployment one would have thought that the youth services was an area of priority for increased resources. Instead, it is one of the areas that have been starved of resources and the people who are working in youth services, whether in a professional or in a voluntary way, feel very frustrated in what they are attempting to do.
So I ask the Government to seriously consider what they can do in this whole area, and ask them when they are likely to give their response to the review on youth services which was published in October 1982. That was almost two years ago. It did recommend a number of changes and an expansion of the service. If we could have a positive response to that report, this also would help. I would conclude by saying that the problems of youth cannot wait. Unless they are dealt with now, we shall find that young people, who should at this time in their life be full of hope, will become the disillusioned adults of tomorrow.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the welfare state is geared to the concept of full employment. Without it either rates of taxation, direct and indirect, are high or benefits do not match expectations.
Even before the present levels of unemployment, Britain was two nations in retirement, actual and potential. First we have those in good pension schemes, public or private, supplemented by the state retirement pension; secondly, those relying entirely on the state, including the earnings-related scheme introduced by the Social Security Pensions Act of 1975. Workers in the first category, as well as having the expectation of better pensions, are also better off tax-wise in paying for their pensions because of relief on contributions, plus the fact that they pay at a lower rate for a state pension by reason of being contracted out. Over a working life of 30 to 40 years, this is an added income tax benefit because the personal allowance makes no distinction as regards levels of national insurance and pension contributions.
The Government are currently concerned with portability of pensions for early leavers and the taxation cost of the non-funded earnings-related scheme. Both are important issues, but any consideration of either category which ignores the effect of long-term unemployment on the eventual pension position begs what is now a major part of the question.
In a funded scheme, the number of contribution years is basic to the level of pension earned. Little is known of those in funded schemes who become unemployed. The Government's decision to end the first-year supplement to unemployment benefit must force some workers to spend any pension contributions refunded. This is in neither their nor the state's long-term interests.
For the employee in the state reserve scheme, if he becomes unemployed he no longer makes contributions. If he reaches pensionable age over the next decade he will have a lower earnings-related entitlement because the scheme is based on 20 years' earnings from 1978 for a full award. Thus the cost of long-term unemployment includes pension contributions not made and a lower pension on

335
retirement, with consequential, yet unexpected, claims on social security in future years.
The Government Actuary is now basing pension calculations on a rate of unemployment of 6 per cent. with variants of 3 per cent. and 10 per cent. What is certain is that Britain will still be two nations in old age with an even greater burden of maintaining the retired section of the community.
I will not attempt to convince the Government about the wisdom of a modified scheme of public works as jointly advocated by the CBI and the TUC. Such advocacy is rejected by the Government and is responsible for much disenchantment, because the Government appear impervious to external influence, even when employers and workers speak as one.
The build-up of pension funds is important for beneficiaries and for social equality. The latter was reflected in the first report of the Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth to which the noble Minister has already referred. That report showed that the distribution of personal wealth became less inequitable if pension rights entered the calculation. Using figures based on 1972, if occupational pension rights were not included, the top 1 per cent. owned 28 per cent. of the nation's wealth and the top 5 per cent. owned 54 per cent. If one included both private and state pension rights in the calculation of wealth ownership, the share of the top 1 per cent. became 17.4 per cent. and the top 5 per cent. owned 35 per cent.
Nineteen seventy-two is, in pension fund terms, a long time ago. The asset value of occupational schemes at the end of 1982 was estimated at £83·5 billion for 12 million workers. This figure justifies attention paid to pension funds by the committee on financial institutions over which Lord Wilson presided.
The direction of investment made by trustees of pension funds is now of major economic importance, though state pensions are still more important than occupational schemes. All Governments have adopted a neutral stance as regards pension fund investment, as did the committee on financial institutions. To some extent, the laws on trusteeship and the absence of a pensions Act have encouraged neutrality. It is to be hoped that these deficiencies will be rectified in the next Session of Parliament.
Yet investment influences are at work. For example, the ending of exchange controls resulted in a considerable flow of pension fund money for investment in the United States of America, much of it in commercial property. It may be argued that external investment is compensated by the inward flow of capital to the United Kingdom, but it is mildly ironic that public sector enterprises are large external investors when they have ample assets to provide security for internal pension investment and are already paying market rates for borrowing.
It is even more ironic that, in the current privatisation programme, workers in denationalised enterprises are being encouraged to become risk bearers as company shareholders. In the past they were not even encouraged to lend some of their pension funds as secured loans. Thus public sector workers
336
have at all times been divorced from the success of the enterprise which employed them. All Governments bear responsibility for this.
No one wishes to make claims for self-investment which cannot be substantiated. Where it exists, for example in Western Germany, labour relations are better and so is economic performance, despite recent hiccoughs settled by sensible arbitration. Retirement pensions are also good in the Federal Republic of Germany, and worker participation in management has formed the basis of the European Community's proposed Fifth Company Law Directive, which this Government oppose. Britain appears to build confrontation into its system.
We need to look closely at the effect of chronic and long-term unemployment on the eventual cost of supporting an ageing population. We need also to ask whether excessive differences in the living standards of workers in retirement can be justified. Finally, we need to see whether controlled self-investment of some pension fund money has a part to play in improving industrial relations, and, if it has, to legislate for it.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, today in this House we are considering the thesis that the gap between the rich and the poor in this nation is widening. For the expression "rich and poor" I should like to substitute the words "those who can live comfortably and happily without undue worry and those whose life is one long worry" because they have not enough to eat and are always looking to see from where and how cheaply they can find the next meal. Such people are short of clothing; they are short of other necessities of life and they seem to be caught in a trap from which they cannot escape.
I propose to examine this thesis for just a few minutes in relation to housing. Surely no one can disagree that the house that a family or a person occupies has a very great deal to do with their happiness and health. A satisfactory home should be the right of every citizen. There are not thousands but millions in this nation who are not able to enjoy this basic right.
The Government's overall policies have had the effect of making the wealthy more wealthy through tax relief and other measures. They have enabled other people, through council house sales, with exceedingly generous price rebates, to achieve a capital asset at low cost, so enhancing their prospects. To those able to contribute part of the cost of home improvement, the Government have given renovation grants. But what of those who are down, who are in the lower group, the worried group—those who are badly housed, overcrowded and without basic amenities in damp and decaying housing? What are the Government doing for them?
Council waiting lists are still formidable. Homelessness has increased to such an extent that many authorities are unable now to house from their waiting lists. They can only try to deal with the homeless. There are at present over 78,000 homeless people in this country. That is the actual figure of those who are accepted on local authority lists, those in the high priority groups. There are others who are

337
homeless but whose circumstances do not seem so urgent and who are not even put by councils on a list, because it would be useless. The priority groups are mainly women with young children, pregnant women, and so on.
Many homeless people can only be put in bed and breakfast accommodation. The borough of Brent—this is just one London borough—has 600 people in bed and breakfast accommodation. I am told that it will be 18 months to two years before those people can be properly housed. That is a dreadful situation. I invite your Lordships to imagine what it is like for women with young children in a place with no common room, although an, hotel sometimes has some kind of common room, being turned out every day, rain or fine, to drag the children round the streets or to some open space, and trying to feed them while living on a pittance. It really must be a devastating nightmare.
More houses will deteriorate and decay and reach a point at which they are uninhabitable and beyond repair because the Government will not find enough money to deal with the problem. These houses will remain empty and boarded up until, along with neighbouring properties, they are finally demolished. In due course, the empty site, it is hoped, will be redeveloped. What happens when it is redeveloped will depend upon whether the site happens to be in an up and coming neighbourhood, in which case a private developer might use it—for houses for sale, of course. The poor cannot afford a house that is up for sale. If, however, the area is not attractive enough for the "spec" builder, it may go to a council or a housing association. They will be able to provide housing for rent if the Government increase the amount of money that is available for public housing.
There is quite insufficient money available to make the adaptations needed to help the disabled to be properly housed. Many more homes are wanted for sheltered accommodation and special homes for the elderly. There are 200,000 people registered on local authority waiting lists who need sheltered and specially adapted accommodation for the disabled. I find this an intolerable situation.
There are some council estates, particularly those which were system built in the 1960s, that are so hated and despised because of the conditions that have developed—the dampness, the mould and the unpleasant decaying external appearance—that no one wants to live there. Those who are there and who fail to get rehoused feel that they are discriminated against and doomed. The result is increased vandalism and ever worsening conditions. Such estates must either be rehabilitated or demolished. Decisions by the Government and the local authorities that have to deal with the problem are urgently needed. Apart from the decisions, Government money is also needed. The AMA has put the figure for dealing with this problem alone at £5 billion.
There are other old council estates, I am told by housing officers, which, if improvement and modernisation are not carried out with some urgency, will reach a stage when they are no longer suitable for
338
occupation and will become unacceptable. I know that I keep saying that all these things must be dealt with and that this means money, money, money. The Government must find the money. They could, of course, reverse their policy of taxation relief for the better off. I cannot, however, see the Government doing that. It would lose them votes if they did. They could, of course, please a number of people by scrapping Trident. They might even follow United States policy and try a little deficit spending in order to help the important but downtrodden section of the community we are discussing.
If the lives of the millions who now live in unacceptable conditions are to be made tolerable, the Government simply have to find the money and make it available. I could continue to elaborate this housing picture which shows that the poor of the nation are being deprived of a sufficient share of the nation's capital investment to enable them to be adequately housed, while the better off have their financial position improved and are promised more and more.
The gap between the two nations is steadily increasing. The low income groups and those needing special provision are increasing in number. There is a growing number of old people, of single parent families, of the unemployed, both young and middle aged, and of those on very low wages whose income is inadequate to meet their needs. The fact is that the Government are endeavouring to reverse the social revolution that has been achieved since 1945. In so doing they have abandoned the ideal of raising the standard of life for all the people which had broadly been the aim of both major parties until the advent of this particular Government.
After the two great wars and the terrible suffering of the 1930s depression, this nation has come to value social justice very deeply. We do have a sense of morality. We do care that the unfortunate among us shall be helped to live decently and be adequately housed, fed and clothed. We believe in democracy and decent behaviour, as recent votes in your Lordships' House have shown. This is a message that the Government would do very well to heed.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must open by apologising for the fact that I have a commitment which will mean my leaving before the end of the debate. I apologise in particular to the noble Lords and the noble Baroness on the Front Benches. I am sure that this will incur the displeasure of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but she is not present to hear me.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on his Motion and thank him for it. I was interested in the fact that he started his speech by saying that it was not going to be political. Then he went on to deliver one of the greatest diatribes I have ever heard against the party on this side of the House in general and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in particular. I should just love to know what it will be like when he says it is going to be a political speech.

339
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and, indeed, with most, if not all, noble Lords opposite, about,
"the need to break into the cycle of deprivation which condemns families to poverty".
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, was pursuing that theme as well. It is absolutely crucial and is the most important thing about this debate.
However, I am not quite so sure—later I shall explain why—that the social and economic differences between the rich and the poor are widening. Even if that were true, I am not sure that the narrowing of such differences would help to break into the cycle of deprivation. If we make comparisons with other countries, I think we find that the more prosperous a country, the easier it is for individuals to escape the cycle of deprivation. My noble friend Lord Gisborough gave us examples, comparing Hong Kong and Taiwan with China. If one thinks of countries such as Russia and many of the third world countries, one sees that in proportion they tend to have a greater number of deprived people than we have in this country, and statistics show us that there the difference between rich and poor is even greater than it is here.
Then, if one turns to Japan, which I have had the good fortune to visit on many occasions—not many; four occasions since 1946, when first I was there; the last time I was there was 18 months ago—one sees that it is quite remarkable how much that country has improved the wellbeing of all of its people, from the poorest to the richest, if one likes, but certainly the poorest. The standard of living in that country is now quite dramatically different. I am not suggesting for one minute that we in this country could ever, let alone quickly, adopt the same kinds of disciplines and way of life as the Japanese. Japan has concentrated on another type of approach. I believe the key factor—I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough said much the same—is not the difference between rich and poor, but the ability of industry and commerce to be competitive in the world market, and, as was said by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, create wealth.
Under Labour Governments, when the rich were taxed excessively, we were confronted with a brain drain; we used to talk a lot about that. But I have not heard the brain drain mentioned in the last three years or so. To enable us to create circumstances in which individuals can break out of the cycle of deprivation we need to have the best brains in industry organising the production of goods and services which customers want, truly competitively and produced by a competent workforce. Obviously there is a limit to an acceptable difference between rich and poor, but I would suggest to your Lordships that this has been much narrowed during the past 50 years, and, indeed, the differences, both socially and economicaly, are splendidly less than they were even 25 years ago. That applies especially to the social differences, but, sadly, it does not apply so much economically; and there I would agree with noble Lords opposite.
Personally, by way of experience, I have always had to earn my own living. I remember that as a junior naval officer in the 1950s, with a growing family, I noticed very much, and rather resentfully, the
340
economic differences between the poor—me—and the very rare rich who I met from time to time. In the terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, it was, indeed, a life of worry to make both ends meet. Perhaps I have been fortunate to earn a little more as the years have gone on, but it has not been an easy life and I should hate your Lordships to think that one gets into this House, sliding in on a sort of gold carpet, just because one has a hereditary title.
In order to provide encouragement for people to give of their best in their work we need to have opportunities for proper reward. Excessive high taxation at the top end, and, even more, the poverty trap at the bottom end, remove that encouragement. The Government's efforts in both these directions have been laudable, in particular in taking 850,000 extra people out of tax through the present Budget and in stopping the brain drain by easing the burden of taxation at the top end and, in the last Parliament, returning it to where it was in the 1960s. An outstanding problem, though the Government are working on it, with varying degrees of success, is the paramount need substantially to reduce the high costs of subsidy to nationalised industries, which is a great drain on the resources of the country as a whole.
Thus I believe that this Government, and their immediate predecessors, are doing, and have done, a great deal more towards meeting the important call of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell,
"to break into the cycle of deprivation which condemn families to poverty",
than have any other Government in history; though there is much more to be done.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who asked whether the sort of society he described to us is the one we want, that of course the answer is, No. But I would say that it exists because we have not yet had time to correct the errors created by Labour Governments in the early part of the past decade. Time is needed for this process.
In addition, I believe that some economic differences, but not necessarily social ones, between rich and poor are necessary—notwithstanding the interesting comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, about the poor rich, rather than the rich poor—to provide incentives for people of all types to give of their best, for their families, for their jobs, and, indeed, for their country. I do not believe that those differences are widening in an overall and long-term sense. On the contrary, I believe that, in that broader sense, they are less than ever before, and if as a country we achieve the essential greater prosperity, then they will become even less.
In conclusion, I believe that on both sides of the House we are deeply, and equally, concerned about the need to break into the cycle of deprivation, but we have very different ideas about how it can best be done. For my part, I invite my noble friends in the Government to continue the good work and to hasten the relief of the burden on us all of the high cost of subsidising nationalised industries.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell drew on the evidence of the last decade

341
or so. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, questions the validity of the assertion in the first part of the Motion. As the noble Lord questions its validity I would invite him to read the evidence of the Director of the Family Welfare Association to your Lordships' Select Committee on parochial and small charities. I invite your Lordships to read the evidence published in the minutes of evidence for 3rd April 1984, and I refer the noble Lord in particular to page 229. I should like to quote two or three sentences from the evidence of the director of this charity. He said:
"we are inundated with poor people through social workers and other people of that kind, asking us for money for desperate needs … The need of poor people in this country at the moment is enormous and is increasing daily … The statutory allowances are not any longer in our view meeting the basic needs of poor people. We are now having to find money to provide poor children with shoes to go to school, with clothing, the unemployed with clothing, fares to look for work and so on".
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, might note the following sentence in particular:
"These are needs which we did not, 10 years ago, have to trouble about at all, but we are finding that the numbers of people in those kinds of basic needs are rising, and their appeals to charities are growing daily and it is a very worrying situation".
We on this side of the House would concur that it is worrying if our people have to turn to charities to enable them to live a good life.
Speakers from this side of the House who have spoken earlier in the debate have identified the widening gap between the rich and the poor in sector after sector. I shall not go over the ground which they have covered admirably, but I shall confine my few remarks to my impressions of this ever-widening gap among some of the elderly.
The elderly are not a homogeneous group. We know that their needs vary from person to person. But I believe that there are two groups among the elderly whose needs are increasing and they are people who can be described as almost "forgotten citizens". First, I refer to the elderly on a state pension, who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit, but who are not well endowed through the generous occupational pensions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and whose capital is very modest. They find themselves, after retirement, in a poverty trap. An adequate income is probably the major contribution to a healthy and independent old age. Low income means material scarcity in real terms. Low income is a contributing factor to poor health, influencing nutrition. There has been evidence given to the DHSS of malnutrition among the elderly. Indeed, low income can be a matter of life and death as reduced expenditure on heating their homes properly can lead to death from hypothermia in the cold of the winter.
So the elderly without supplementary benefit, without occupational pension and possibly with a few thousand pounds in a building society account have been hard hit by the effects of inflation. The value of the pound which they saved 15 or 20 years ago as security for old age has been decimated. We hope that the Government can find their way to lift the capital limit for entitlement to supplementary benefits, particularly as it relates to the group of elderly which I have identified.
342
There is another group among the elderly whose members are at an increasing disadvantage. I refer to people aged over 75. Because of their advanced age and their frailty, the members of this group are among the most vulnerable in our society. Rather strangely, although we are talking of hundreds of thousands of such people, they have no economic or political power to call in aid.
The health pattern of the very elderly is one of repeated medical breakdown. Moreover, their number is increasing and will continue to increase into the next century. But the criticism which we constantly hear—I heard it last week from the professor of geriatric medicine at the University Hospital of Wales—is that the health resources which are available to meet the needs of the elderly are not increasing at the rate which is necessary to keep pace with their demands. Therefore, the very elderly are disproportionately disadvantaged. It seems to me that in many parts of the country the health service for the very elderly is a relative backwater, which is disturbing to many doctors and to many nurses.
I must refer finally to the frail elderly—they are frail, they are handicapped and they are among the poorest of the poor in our community. I appreciate what the doctors tell me; namely, that their condition must eventually deteriorate and they must fade away. But the quality of their life meanwhile could often be made better, much better. I understand that the onset of their illness could often be postponed and their disability reduced for a time if they received suitable treatment in good time. But there is an acute shortage of psycho-geriatric beds. Can the Minister, when he comes to reply or at a later date, tell us when will there he an adequacy of such beds?
So if an elderly person belongs to one of the groups to which I have referred, our country is not yet a good country—although I agree that it is better than many—in which to be very old. It must be a cause for concern, and indeed shame, that the last years of so many old people who have given of their best to the country are so cheerless and so lacking in basic care and comfort when it is in the power of a Government to improve their circumstances.
I would not press the claims of the elderly to the exclusion of the claims of the poor generally. The young, the middle aged, the unemployed and the low paid all have a powerful claim on the country's resources. But we cannot do justice to that claim unless and until we have a Government and a community which have the will to make the very awkward decisions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel it is incumbent upon me, if not to proffer an apology at least to explain to the House why I have not been here during the whole debate. I know that Members of your Lordships' House will understand when I say that we get involved in all sorts of organisations in the House which have annual general meetings and executive committee meetings, and that is why I have not been able to attend all the time; but I did listen to what was a superb introduction for this subject matter by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. As the noble Lord,

343
Lord Cockfield, correctly said, my noble friend feels deeply and passionately about the matters on which he spoke to your Lordships this afternoon. I wish to thank my noble friend and to join with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in congratulating him on the magnificent way in which he introduced this subject.
There was one thing which my noble friend said that I should like to follow, but I do not know whether I shall be able to do so. My noble friend asked us not to be too party political about these matters. That was a good injunction; but after he had recommended that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, did not take a blind bit of notice but read the speech which had been prepared for him. One has to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. He is the finest whitewasher of any Government since the war. As for being a political cosmetician, he is in a class of his own, and he is entitled to that accolade.
It is regrettable that when opening the debate from his side the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, did not touch a little more on the greatest of the services which, despite our disagreements, have been honoured by Governments of both parties, Labour and Conservatives, but to which there is some danger at the moment. I am talking about the greatest thing we have ever done, in my judgment. It is rightly the claim of the British that it was one of their Governments which put on the statute book of their island home the finest piece of civilised legislation ever placed either on our own statute book or on that of any other nation in the world; namely, the National Health Service.
From a most cursory glance at history one realises the most terrible paradox. It was also the British who made some of the most remarkable inventions in the early industrial era of our island nation. Our industrial history on invention is magnificent. Yet close on its heels came behaviour which was shameful, ugly and vulgar, and that was the treatment of millions of men, women and children in the new industrial age by our forefathers in industry—not the inventors themselves—which was disgraceful.
One thinks of the forerunners of the National Health Service, and the creation, for example, of the sanitary inspectorate. How many millions of lives were saved simply by the establishment of bodies of able men and women who took on these responsible jobs. We in our turn, in our generation, have done something worthwhile, too, which has been supported by all Governments, and that is the implementation of health and safety at work.
What is grievious today is that there is still exploitation, not of the rich by our present Administration but rather of the poor. Part of the editorial of the Guardian today talks of the Chancellor's odd way of trying to defend the poor—and what is happening is perfectly ridiculous. Poor people are paying more tax than the relief which rich people are getting. To put it another way round, the relief which some people are getting is more than the entire income that comes into some homes in our nation. There must be something wrong in that. This is what we have to apply our minds to.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out that 7½ million—that is, one in seven of our
344
population—have an income at or below the supplementary benefits level. I should like to add that 5 per cent. of the adult population of our land own one-half of our nation's private wealth, while, on the other hand, half the population own only 5 per cent. between them. It is always a good thing when you can check up, because I am a particularly religious man and this is the fundamental message of freedom itself. The fundamental message of freedom is to share all that is good, and in times of stress share the difficulties as well. In my lifetime we did that from 1939 to 1945; and we continued to do it under what I believe was the greatest Government I have ever known, that of Clement Attlee, from 1945 to 1950, which started off so many things.
That Government set about tackling the five giant evils of disease, want, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Perhaps the rest are slowly succumbing, except idleness. Idleness is coming back. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as an honest man, will acknowledge that two years ago he was coming to this House and telling us—and I accept that it was from the depths of his heart and soul, and was sincere—that they hoped that this appalling scourge of unemployment would be tackled in six or seven months' time. It just has not happened.
I grant that the Government seem to be dispensing with that awful policy of monetarism, but the wound that it inflicted was deep. We in this House—and I believe we can do it—must acknowledge that at twenty minutes to eight this evening, in a few million homes in our country, there are people who are desperately worried as to how they are going to pay the rent and as to how they are going to buy some new clothes, but, thank God!, because of Aneurin Bevan, if one of their children is ill they are not particularly worried about having to pay the doctor's bill and suffering the agony that my mother used to suffer.
These great things have been maintained by all Governments. All Governments have endeavoured to see that our National Health Service is kept top of the bill, as it ought to be. I only wish that there had been the same application to the important asset of everybody contributing through their labour, skilled or even unskilled—the men and women of the great professions—to paying for all the things which make life worth living.
When you have nearly 4 million unemployed, you are denying them the right to contribute as well as scalding their hearts with agony. That is why we have to tackle this. It was very wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to say that there had not been much improvement when unemployment climbed under the Labour Government. It did, but when they left office in 1979 the number was coming down. Those are indisputable, irrefragable facts of life, and they have to be acknowledged.
I should like to turn briefly to one other problem in our National Health Service which we do not really appreciate. I have had the honour to be a vice-president of the Disabled Drivers' Association. One must realise, as some of the older disabled tell me, what it was like in Great Britain, before the National Health Service, to be disabled: not to be able to move because you could not afford a wheelchair; sometimes

345
not to be able to move properly because you could not afford even a crutch. That no longer exists, and that is why this tremendous service must at all times be maintained.
But, alas, there is a feeling supported by fact that our National Health Service is sickening for something serious. The very air within the National Health Service is redolent with crisis. We have seen resolutions passed only a fortnight ago by the British Medical Association totally condemnatory and expressing great anxiety that Britain's National Health Service under this Administration is in danger. I know the Government will say that they are spending more than anyone else. That may be so but when one takes into consideration so many other things such as inflation and that we have about 7,000 nurses unemployed and 2,000 doctors on the dole, that ought to give us reason for concern.
I am fairly close to people like the nurses and ambulance drivers, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the British Medical Association and the junior doctors, and never, since the inception of the service, has there been such staff consternation at all levels. I sincerely hope that this will be a feature of concern for every one of us in this Chamber, irrespective of party or whether we are members of none.
I ask the Government and the noble Lord who is to reply to concentrate—if not tonight, on some occasion—on the great anger that exists among National Health Service staff because of the dreadful Griffiths report. They are asking me, "Do they really believe that we can advertise for a super marked-down cheap line of hip replacements", or say, "For every transplant on one day you can have two for the price of one on another"? This is the sort of language they feel is involved in the Griffiths report. Who am I, or anyone else in this place, to argue that that is that: that the British Medical Association is wrong, that junior staff doctors are wrong, that the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the nurses, the midwives, the sisters, the ambulance staffs, are all wrong and only the Government are in step? I think that would be a very distasteful thing to do.
In conclusion, I hope that we can together, both Front Benches, and all the Benches including the Cross-Benches, support a great appeal to help and assist the Government. I believe they do not want to see the health service go under but they are giving this impression. I want them to stop it and I hope we give them all the assistance we can to arrest their present policy. To find out what is required I beg them to consider consulting the best minds in the National Health Service and those voluntary organisations concerned with the National Health Service. I believe that to remove this threat would be to remove a great worry from our nation. This threat is causing anxiety to men and women of all the great professions in our National Health Service. It is causing anxiety to all the great voluntary organisations in this country.
I am so pleased that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has given me this opportunity to make this plea to the Government to consult these people of all political complexions who believe that they have advice, experience and, what is more, first-class knowledge which they think can help the
346
Government, which in turn will help the National Health Service and the people of our nation.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in introducing this debate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that it was not to be a party political knock-about, but, following Lord Molloy, we know very well that it is nothing but that. I must also take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on his reference to a very arrogant Prime Minister and his comment on the callous indifference of the present Prime Minister's policies, as I cannot accept those comments. I believe the Government care and are doing their best in their own way to deal with the problems that occur.
I had a conversation with the Prime Minister two or three years ago now and I expressed concern on issues of this type. I was most impressed by her reply: she said that she cares as deeply as anyone else, but she believed that the important thing was to try to produce positive action—this was on the matter of unemployment —and she was not prepared simply to pay lip-service to something. She wanted to implement policies which would see a gradual reduction in unemployment. I believe that that is still her policy and that she has as much compassion as every one of us.
When I read the text of the debate today I saw that it discusses this widening of the economic and social difference. This makes me wonder exactly what period we are talking about, because there is nothing in the text to indicate whether we are talking about today, or post-war or any other time. The premise as set out there is quite wrong if we are going back as far as the days of the peasants on the land and people working in the factories. I think the social and economic differences are much less now than they were then.
When one of my patients has said to me, "Wouldn't it have been nice to live in the 17th or 18th century?" I have always said, "No; I would not have liked it because I would have been at the bottom end of the pile and that would not have appealed to me". It is a matter of when one looks at this argument to decide whether the gap is widening or not widening. It is terribly easy to say that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. This is one of those old statements that we can rule out. I do not think it is as simple as that. There are many problems to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to derelict land. When I was fighting a parliamentary election in Blackburn in 1970 there were vast areas of derelict land in that town, all cleared because they believed they were going to build and re-house people. But these areas had been cleared for years and the little businesses left opposite were going bankrupt because all the people who used to shop there had gone. That was the time, as I am sure your Lordships will remember, when the aim was to build tower blocks everywhere to solve everything, and now we all know that that was not the right answer. In those days it was considered the thing to do.
When I went canvassing I went through rows and rows of houses and four out of every five were boarded up. It was at the time of the summer election in 1970

347
and on that fifth doorstep someone would be sitting, looking absolutely desolate, as if the world had forgotten him. I received a very large vote, not because they were Conservative but because I was the first human being who had gone along those streets for so long. It is all very easy to say that conditions have worsened, but I do not think they have in all ways. Some of those areas are better now than they were then.
We talk about unemployment today, but surely we have to remember the years of overmanning, the years when in London one could not get anyone to apply for a job no matter what job it was. There was then a very sad time when so many patients came in who had been made redundant—as your Lordships all know, I am a dentist who has been practising in an ordinary area in the inner city for 25 years. Large numbers of them were tailors, skilled craftsmen, but no one wanted expensive, made-to-measure suits—what is the phrase?
Lord Dean of Beswick: Bespoke tailoring.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Bespoke tailoring, yes. Everyone wants something off the peg now. Those people who had been made redundant knew that there was never any hope of their ever getting another job in that field because it was vanishing from under them. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, mentioned that one of our problems of unemployment is that, compared to the United States, we have not been sufficiently adaptable, flexible and willing to learn new things and change over. For older people it is very difficult, but the young people should be looking to the new opportunities.
Today in central London unemployment is in a strange situation. There is not really a shortage of jobs, but a shortage of people who want those jobs and who are skilled or trained for them. I have personal direct experience of this. I am always advertising for someone; usually the job centre says that it will send me six people—and I am lucky if two turn up. I take one of them: sometimes they last and sometimes they do not. They come in when they feel like it and they do not bother on other days. But when running a practice and looking after patients, one has to have someone there to care for those patients all the time.
It is a different pattern outside London. I read in a recent report about unemployment that if one advertises a job outside London there will be a queue of people, whether it is in Portsmouth or the north of England. In London it is very difficult to get people to apply for a job. When you phone the job centre to say that you want someone, they practically laugh and they say that you have not much hope and that people do not think it worthwhile. There is something wrong about the loss of incentive in central London today.
Then, too, there is the physical structure of that area. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, knows a great deal about housing and I was most interested in her contribution. Some 25 years ago, all the houses around me were little, really falling-down houses. The drop on the doors was about six inches. There were no inside toilets and if it was a little tenement block of flats, there was one water tap in the
348
courtyard for all those people. Then they were all demolished and the occupants were moved out, mainly to Dagenham. Eventually, they were allowed to come back because they were fond of the area and they wanted to come back. A great many of those same people still come for treatment today.
I know there is a certain amount of nostalgia in it when they long for the old days. They are better off in physical terms in the new buildings but they have lost the sense of community and they have lost something which was very precious. They may be better off economically—indeed, they certainly are! There is no shortage of money. The people on the whole are reasonably well employed now. There is no shortage of money but there is a great loss of social benefit which they had before when they had their families and their extended families and their friends there and doors were open and you could walk in. Now, the old ladies cannot go out at night because they get mugged. I am often asked to make someone a new set of false teeth because they have been knocked down for about 10p in their handbag and they get either their teeth or jaw broken. There are many problems that add to these deprivations and this situation is not something which can easily be dealt with.
I believe that we have a compassionate and caring society, although I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, earlier was particularly interesting, in that he placed responsibility very clearly on both the trade unions and the public. He said that we all have expectations that are just too high now. And I think the media are very much to blame in this.
I sit in court and regularly we have people coming in to be fined for having no licence for their television sets. They have, no licence because they cannot afford to pay for it. They are living on supplementary benefit. It is very difficult. How can you fine somebody who has not got the money to pay the fine? It is all coming out of one Government pocket into another. When you ask, "Have you still got the set?" "Oh, no! I got rid of that black-and-white set because I wanted to get a new video", is a pretty common answer. It is worrying to consider how they can afford a video if they cannot afford a licence for the black-and-white set.
However, some of these people are so depressed and unhappy that this is about the only thing that they have got and about the only occupation for their children. It is not as simple as it appears. Again, children have lost the art of amusing themselves or playing. Life has become too passive where we all sit in front of a box all the time and expect to be entertained by it. And, because the teenagers get to a stage where that is pretty boring, that is when they go out committing all these crimes. At every half-term school holiday, there is a great spate of crime in London committed by people who are on half-term holidays and whose parents are not around.
That leads me to another sector; the loss of the parents' presence. That is a very big thing. When we talk about how to break this cycle, surely something we must look at is the fact that parents do not know how to live or to get the best out of life and have very little opportunity to encourage their children to get a better life because they do not know what a better life is. Then the children, in turn, become parents and they just pass on what they learn from their parents.

349
One noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, spoke about education and said he felt that the comprehensive system was a good system. In his area, of course, it has not worked at all. I can remember boys from very poor backgrounds getting scholarships to grammar schools and open scholarships to Oxford and now that area does not even run an "A" stream, so that the brighter children there have no prospects at all. That is where, if we are going to have a levelling of education, we cannot afford to have a levelling down. It has to be a levelling up. I know that the education authorities are trying to look into sixth form colleges and ways of taking the people out and giving them a better education. At the moment, the effect there has been anything but good.
Again, if you look in terms of education at Buckinghamshire, property in Buckinghamshire has become extremely valuable. One of the reasons, apart from the convenience of the journey to London, is that Buckinghamshire has retained its grammar schools and people like that educational system and go there for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, also commented on the people who do not claim what they are entitled to. The latest speaker to deal with the elderly, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, covered this point. He made many interesting points about the elderly. I have found that they are people who have an immense personal pride, particularly if they set aside means for themselves and had intended to be self-supporting in their old age. They were very hard hit by inflation. Inflation under the Labour Government was the greatest leveller of all time. The people it hurt so much were those elderly on fixed pensions, for it reduced what should have been a good amount to live on—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Baroness would not want to go on with that statement. The highest level of inflation on record was about six months after we had the increase in VAT by the Conservative Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I am talking about all the years which went on before that under the Labour Government when there was a pretty steady increase in inflation. That was the time when every time I went to the shop I looked to see what the new price would be. Shops did not even put the prices on a lot of foodstuffs, if you remember, because they were going up so quickly they could hardly get the new price on before it had gone up. That was the time when all those people were very hard hit. I think they are at real risk.
They are the people—I would agree with Lord Prys-Davies— who are at risk from hypothermia—not those who are in touch with the social services, not those who are getting the social security benefits (because I think this Government have covered that very well indeed) but those who, through personal pride, wish to maintain themselves and are unwilling to run their heating for fear that they will not be able to pay the bill. The most responsible of the elderly people are the ones who are really at risk. The kindness that we can all do for those people is to assure them that the first thing they should be thinking about is applying for their heating supplement. Do your
350
Lordships know there are very many blocks of flats built for the elderly which have had to have built into them a heating system that you cannot turn off?—because only by supplying heating in that way can one be sure that the old people will have adequate warmth. When it was made so that it could be turned off and the occupiers had to put coins in the slot, they did not use it for fear of what it would cost them. And this is not just recently. I am talking about when I was chairman of social services in 1976. This problem existed then. It is all because they are the provident, thrifty, careful people. They might well die leaving some money in the bank—and they could die of hypothermia. I think there is a real point there.
A lot has been done to improve the condition of the frail elderly. Sheltered housing is now the norm. I am sure we all remember Part III housing accommodation—those great, big old people's homes where those who went into them almost became vegetables overnight. They are barely used now. Sheltered housing has become the norm. This is a great improvement for elderly people. They are supported there by home helps or other people who come in from their local council and they live out their days there until the time comes when they have to go into hospital just at the very end. This is a vastly superior situation from when they lived for years and years in those Part III homes.
I think that transport for the disabled is something that has improved immensely in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and I were at the launching of the Westminster Dial-A-Ride last Friday and we were delighted to be there. A lot has been done in that situation.
A point that has come through again and again, and, indeed, came through very clearly in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, is that money is looked on as the answer to everything. Money can do a lot to solve problems, but it certainly cannot do everything to break this cycle. There has to be a much greater understanding between the different sections of the community, and much greater willingness to care about other people and not just to feel, "I'm all right, and damn the rest of the world." That is one of the real hazards.
There are additional problems, of course. The single-parent families, separated people, and other groups are all placing great added strains on housing lists, because where you have a separated family, you now have demands for two housing units, where before you needed only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, mentioned that there are 600 people in bed and breakfast accommodation in Brent. This, too, seems sad when in some parts of this country houses are left empty and no one wants them. I appreciate that some people have to be in a certain area because of their employment; the job is important. But there are many single-parent families with children who would do better if they lived in a country area, or some other place where nicer housing is available, rather than be in bed and breakfast accommodation.
People have always had an urge to flow into the big cities, and especially into the inner cities. This creates pressures; you cannot create a quart out of a pint pot. I think I have got that the wrong way round, but I am

351
sure your Lordships all know what I mean. There is no way in which you can stretch the land in inner London; you can fit only a certain number of people in. Every bit of housing demolition has been matched by a demand to build to higher standards and with lower housing densities. That means some people have to go somewhere else.
I could go on and on—I have lots of notes—but I shall not, because time is running out. We must realise that we have to break this cycle. It is not at all simple, the differences do exist, but we would all wish to see a greater improvement for everybody.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on her "winding up speech" on behalf of the Government. I do not think there is much left for the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to say. However, I propose to speak on a much narrower front during my few minutes, and I do not thinkI shall detain the House as long as did the noble Baroness.
To begin with, I want to join noble Lords from all quarters of the House in congratulating my noble friend and colleague Lord Wells-Pestell on the subject he has placed under debate today and on the very able and, I thought, moving and compassionate way in which he opened this debate. That indicated quite a conscience about and quite an experience of the divide that is developing, and growing wider, in our society between the haves and the have-nots.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, spoke for quite some time on the question of housing. I want to speak on housing, but not on a broad basis. If we want to debate the haves and the have-nots, and the widening of the gap, there is no better way to illustrate it than by referring to the present Government's policy on housing.
If you have a lot of money, if you want to buy a house for over £100,000, £130,000, or £150,000, you will find that they are being built in London. People are able to buy them and, if they have the money, sometimes they are second homes. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is not due to reply to the debate, and I must apologise for the fact that I was not present for the whole of his speech. However, I understand that during part of it he made reference to the successful policy of the Government in the sale of council houses. Of course the Government's housing policy is a success, if you live in a council house and you are able to purchase it at a very high discount which is funded from other people's money.
But that is not the only criterion. I spent most of my local government years in the field of local authority housing. During the days when I was involved—and I am sure some noble Lords on both sides of the House were involved, too—the priority was to tear down the tens and hundreds of thousands of properties which were terrible by any standards, which were relics of the Industrial Revolution, and replace them with something better. I considered that by the time I had finished my chairmanship in the city of Manchester, where I was born, we were starting to come out of the tunnel, that that was a priority that was starting to
352
recede. In other words, the volume was starting to equate with the demand. What we had to get right then, in my opinion, and that of those with a social conscience, was what was the next priority. It certainly was not the owner-occupier—and I am one myself—because people who can afford to be owner-occupiers can obviously care for themselves.
But at the worst end of the spectrum that seemed to have been totally ignored in the rush to build family houses. Later there was a push to build elderly people's accommodation, because that had gone by the board during the rush to get family houses.
I just want to digress for a moment while we are on housing. The noble Baroness in her speech mentioned Part III accommodation. If ever there has been anything foisted on to local government and the taxpayer for which the tab ought to be picked up by central Government, it has been the abuse of housing in its entirety. When I was first involved in housing and the Part III welfare service homes, as they were termed, were being built, they were supposed to be for people who could look after themselves. They needed just a basic, little flat of their own. They could go out where they wanted, shop where they wanted, and do what they wanted.
I challenge any noble Lord or noble Baroness in this House to go into one of those homes now and see whether it is being used for that purpose. Some of them—about 90 per cent.—have occupants who are advanced geriatric patients, dumped there by the health services, which cannot cater for them. What is happening is that this kind of pressure is put on the ratepayers of those particular authorities, whereas the burden ought to be borne by central Government.
I want to deal with the question of people who are described as homeless. It is a question that relates mainly to London, which has a problem that transcends that of any other area. But the problem also seriously affects other large conurbations—the big cities. I happen to believe—and this is why I do not want to be controversial—that there are occasions when people of all political persuasions in this House can look at a problem in a way that transcends the normal political divide. The powerful units which make up our society are quite eloquent and articulate in representing themselves—most of them—from the employers' side, from the trade unions' side, from the professional organisations. They make sure their case does not go by default; at least they put it.
But nobody has ever spoken with authority on behalf of the homeless of this country, who are the most deprived section of our community. In order to try to illustrate the point that I should like to put before the House this evening, I shall tell your Lordships that about three years' ago—I do not think the dates are so important—I drew a fairly high number in the draw for a Private Member's Bill in another place. Because of my interest in housing, I sponsored a Private Member's Bill known as the Housing and Multiple Occupation Bill, or, at least, the title was very similar to that. I received tremendous assistance from the noble Lord who sits beside me, Lord Stallard. He had intimate knowledge of the situation in London. We worked hard on that Bill; and let me make it quite clear that it was not a one-party

353
effort; there were Conservative Members in another place who gave us the fullest support. The case was proved beyond doubt that here was a group of people, growing in number, who were being not particularly ignored, but nobody was bothering about them and the problem was continuing to grow. The Government of the day, of course, killed the Bill because it involved large-scale revenue responsibilities for the local authorities.
At that time I happened to be serving on the Standing Committee on the housing Bill when Mr. John Stanley was the Housing Minister and Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. During the passage of that Bill I was able to get the Government to move some way, and during that debate I read out a tragic letter written to me by a woman—I am sure that noble Baronesses present will remember the awful holocaust at a women's hostel in Kilburn when 11 women died in a fire. That was only 3 or 4 years ago. The letter was from the mother of a girl who only 12 hours before had left a good family home in Dorset. She was well educated and had a bright future before her, but wanted, before she finally settled down, to do some community work. That girl was dead within 12 hours.
It is surprising how things turn again, because only last week I received another letter from the mother of that girl, who has gone back to undertake further studies as an extra-mural student at Lancaster University. This letter was almost as poignant. It said that it was still terribly difficult to come to terms with the tragedy that had happened to the family. It asked if I could please write to her and say whether there had been any progress in legislation which would prevent somebody else from having to suffer the trauma that she and her husband had suffered.
I am sorry to say that, although the Government took some tentative steps along the road, they were by no means definitive enough really to deal with the problem. They did of course bring in grants for fire prevention, but they were mainly for the smaller type of property, while the biggest risks are the larger types of buildings. These are really, as I said in my earlier remarks, very prevalent in the London area and the large cities. There is no question about it: the main problem is London itself.
I predicted that unless the Government decided to include within that particular housing Bill provisions for hostel accommodation and multiple-occupation property that were mandatory on local authorities, nothing would be carried out. I said it would only be the deaths of other people that would convince us once again that we have to prime the pump and move further along the road and tackle this problem as it should be tackled.
I am sorry to say that there appears to have been—whether it is deliberate or not—a moratorium on any advance in that direction. I want to say just briefly that there has been a television programme on hotel people as recently as Tuesday, 3rd July. This is the most recent example, showing the scandalously substandard and unsafe conditions which exist in multiple-occupation lodging houses, hostels and commercial bed and breakfast premises.
354
I want to quote some evidence from the report. It says:
"Month after month people are dying in fires in these types of properties because of the failure of the Government to insist on adequate minimum standards of safety and repair. Only last month the Westminster Coroner warned of the terrible risks to tenants in these properties after recording a verdict of accidental death of the victim of a fire at 238, Edgware Road, Paddington. It was reported that the fire—which left one person dead and 19 homeless—had been started by a matchstick wedged in a light switch. The coroner stressed that 'it is a terrible tragedy and it brings home to everyone how mindful they must be of fire, especially in houses of multiple occupation'.".
Another recent fire in Salford produced a similar story. Four men died at the Hythe House Hotel last December. Two days before the fire a fire officer had found the fire door nailed up. This is the type of thing which is not diminishing one iota. I have to tell your Lordships that I have been having some discussions with people from various parties in this House with a view to introducing a Bill to try to deal with this matter in the next Session of Parliament, because—let us make no mistake about it—further deaths will be recorded. We always think that the last accident has been the final one—and it is not so.
So when we talk about housing, the situation is that if you have been living in a council house for a long time and you get a massive subsidy, the Government have a good policy. If you can afford to buy a second home by the financial arrangements the Government have brought in, they have got a good policy for that. Or perhaps you can afford to pay £100,000 or £150,000 for such houses as those in Spencer Walk or in the heart of Hampstead Village—there has been a total sell-out of properties at prices of £110,000, £175,000 and £220,000 per house. I wonder what is felt by those people who are sleeping on the Embankment although they do not want to sleep there, or who are subject to dangerous conditions—and I have only touched on the outer periphery of the problem.
Just before the close, I will quote a personal thing that happened to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he was "Jock" Stallard, as we knew him, the honourable Member for Camden. We took a petition to Downing Street, and at the entrance to Downing Street—I can still picture it clearly—was an elderly lady carrying a large bag in each hand and she spoke to Mrs. Stallard. She said: "I am glad you are doing this. It's about time somebody took notice". She was quite plain and not particularly well dressed but obviously had made a big attempt to look after herself. Lord Stallard asked her: "Where are you sleeping, dear?" She said: "In a car park". He said: "Are you being serious?" and she said: "Oh yes, it is the only place I can find. There isn't any accommodation". I say to noble Lords in this House who do have compassion that transcends the normal political scene: for God's sake!—look at this before we are faced with tragedies that we shall all be ashamed of.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I want to begin my contribution by joining in the thanks that we all have for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving us the opportunity this evening to take part in this debate, and to congratulate him on the excellent

355
way in which he started us off. I believe my noble friends have taken great care to treat this short debate with a sense of responsibility befitting the seriousness of the charge that many of us on this side of the Chamber level against the Government: that is, that they have a major responsibility to break the cycle of deprivation which condemns families to poverty and that they preside over a widening of the gap dividing the rich and the poor in Britain today. I have no solutions; nor do I expect the Government to be able to come up with many of them. But they certainly need to speak directly to that charge.
I intend to concentrate on the realm of council social services. The welfare state, which has been mentioned more than once in this debate, is a concept born of the post-war era. Those of us who have followed it and believe in it passionately recognise that there has been a revolution in family responsibility, one to the other, and that has taken place before our very eyes. As a result of enormous changes, it is clear that the burden of care in the community has shifted gradually so that increasingly responsibilities are laid on local councils and the state. The pressure brought by Ministers on councils in the past five years has been unremitting. Councils, like mine at Enfield, have been deluged with restriction after restriction. Let me illustrate the problems of the council and the people in Enfield in the realm of care for the elderly, the children and the mentally ill.
At Enfield, the council has recently closed a home for the elderly at Ingleborough on the Ridgway in Enfield. Heartbeaking appeals were made, not just publicly but also directly to me, from residents and staff, and a case was made out to rationalise the closure. The fact that the building is unsuitable was advanced as an argument, and it was said that, after all, there is a decline in demand. "Besides", it was further said, "our policy now directs that it is best that the elderly be looked after in the community".
Yet while the council, the public sector for elderly care, asserts that there is less need for council residential homes for the elderly, private homes for the elderly in Enfield have doubled in the last 10 years. Clearly, as the population lives longer we need the support of private provision as well as, not in place of, public provision. If we really care for our elderly, we should be uneasy at the simplicity of the process for registering a private home for the elderly. For a £1 registration fee and a fire inspection you are in business, with no standards on staff, on qualifications or on numbers.
There is nothing to compare with council home standards. These are under pressure even when homes are closed. The prime pressure on the council comes from the Government's policy of rate support, or the withdrawal of rate support. A rate support grant of 62 per cent. in 1979 is now reduced to 52 per cent. in 1984, and there are enormous consequences on every council in that regard, whatever its political complexion. Like Enfield, other councils have been driven to make economies or to put up the rate. Yet even if Tory Enfield Council wanted to put up the rate, it is driven up against the dreaded complexity of grant-related expenditure, penalities, clawback and the like—never
356
mind ratecapping when it comes! The result has been that the provision of residential care for the elderly in Enfield is declining.
What does this mean in human terms? It means the positive discouragement of placing the elderly in residential care, because there are fewer places with increasing need and fewer social workers to service the social services. I will say more upon that later. That simply means that overstretched area teams are unable to respond to community needs. Doctors, as well as social workers, work against the restraint that they know there is unlikely to be a place for the old person who they honestly feel should be in care. So what happens? A daughter—it is more often a daughter than a son—soldiers on with devotion, yes; love and care in abundance, yes. But often the best place for that elderly mother or father is in care.
Enfield has the syndrome of declining public provision for elderly residential care, while at the same time there is an increase in privately owned and managed homes for the elderly. I have to say that I have less faith that the elderly in private homes will receive proper care than I have that they will get it in council homes that are proprerly staffed. Make no mistake: we are seeing councils—Enfield is one of them—which are getting out of public care for the elderly and allowing the privatisation of the service by stealth. Desperate people are the poorer. The poor suffer and bear greater burdens every day.
The social services department has responsibilities to care for the mentally ill. Near to Enfield we have Friern Barnet mental hospital and Claybury mental hospital. Both render yeoman service to the wider community, including Enfield. What is planned by this Government? The Minister who is to reply to this debate may very well have something to say. It is planned that they be closed, that they be phased out of existence, and the patients will be, in a phrase, returned to care in the community.
What does that mean for present and future patients? Enfield Council, regardless of its political complexion, is aghast. Who cares? Who provides? Who pays? Do relatives take them back? How do they do it? Does Enfield Council provide? How do they do it? Where are the resources coming from? Overstretched social service budgets will snap. Who depends on social service provisions, such as mealson-wheels, home helps and domiciliary services? It is not the rich: it is overwhelmingly the poor. They may not be poverty-stricken, nor would they plead poverty; but they can do without these savage blows at their purse and at their dignity.
Let me turn to the question of children's residential homes. Recently, in Enfield, they closed the Eastbrook children's home. Social workers and doctors urged that it be retained, but it has been sold. It is now a private housing scheme. Closure has been justified on the ground that demand has declined. A section of the community which suffers grievously under this Government is the one-parent families and the families with children needing special care in residential homes. Cuts in rate support grants—a direct central Government action—drive councils like Enfield to weaken a prime responsibility to the community. We shall be told that there are changing

357
fashions in residential child care; that to a greater extent fostering is now being encouraged.
In 1984, having pulled out of supporting children's homes, Enfield Council is spending more than £1 million on out-borough accommodation for Enfield children. Now, with the financial pressure which they are under, they are bringing back as many as they can to Enfield. Child-minding is an element familiar to working mothers, the poor and the disadvantaged. In Enfield, child-minders are not monitored. There is a no-growth policy in respect of staff. Day nurseries have long waiting lists. Only children at risk and one-parent children are being considered.
In the social services department of Enfield Council—and I know the department very well from my experience as a constituency MP—the staff are dedicated and caring, but they are wretched at their inability to meet what they know are community needs that should be met. They are fighting an uphill battle. Ever since this regime of cuts owing to Government policy, Enfield has been short of social workers, especially field workers—the ones who are needed most. They are crucial. The cuts have been made in social services, despite a woefully inadequate base. Simple statistics show that, with a range of broadly comparable situations, Barnet has 160 field workers, Haringey 188 and Enfield 126. Those are three boroughs which are all next to each other.
In conclusion, I submit that there are many indicators of the reality of the gap between the rich and the poor in Britain today. It is the poor, the disadvantaged, the weak, the feckless and the ill, mentally and physically, who need access to council social services. These have been diminished. They are under threat, and should he restored and improved at the earliest possible moment.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we are reaching the end of a long debate, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have struck out large parts of my speech; but I certainly cannot strike out the words that I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in thanks for having moved this extremely necessary Motion.
The problem of poverty is interconnected with the growing crisis in our whole welfare system, particularly the social security side. If Beveridge were alive today, he would be horrified at the present position. The whole of welfare expenditure—that is, benefits, allowances and services—was projected when he presented his original plan to cost £697 million in 1955, rising to £858 million by 1965 at constant prices. Of that £697 million first-year operation, only £47 million was set aside for national assistance—the forerunner of supplementary benefit. This was planned to reduce to £32 million by 1965.
This is a far cry from the 1984 position, with some 7¾ million people either wholly or partly dependent on supplementary benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has told us, and with just that part of the scheme costing in excess of £6 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also mentioned a further estimated 15 million people who are living within the range of supplementary benefit plus 40 per cent., which can be
358
defined as relative poverty. We therefore have 22 million people, on those figures, who are not living in very satisfactory circumstances.
Of course there are varying views as to what constitutes poverty. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, Sir Keith Joseph, was quoted as defining it as follows:
"A family is poor if it cannot afford to eat, and by any absolute standard there is very little poverty in Britain today."
That is a quotation from Volume 62 of Commons Hansard, col. 1175. Most of us feel that that definition is not adequate. Looking backwards to Seebohm, or Rowtree, or abroad to the shanty-town poverty of Casablanca, or to the urban squalor of Calcutta or the rural poverty of Bangladesh, to which my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley referred, it is clear that there is an element of relativity; yet it cannot be dismissed because it is relative. As a definition of poverty, I think I prefer to Sir Keith Joseph's that of Professor Townend's, which runs as follows:
"Poverty is a state where people cannot purchase goods or engage in acts which many take for granted".
But it is not only a question of the diminution of choice. There is still infant malnutrition. The elderly do still die of hypothermia, and those on supplementary benefit, particularly those on the lower rate, especially if they are not in receipt of unemployment benefit. are suffering considerable hardship, as has emerged from a number of speeches in the debate. As more and more people rely on such benefits for their income, the extent of such deprivation is growing, and it leads to more than hardship. It leads to bitterness, cynicism and a profound contempt for the prevailing political and financial institutions, with all the social consequences that that entails. My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley referred to the need for a healthy society, but we do not seem to be moving towards one on that basis.
The cost of financing the welfare state has certainly escalated during the 1970s and the early 1980s, but there are some interesting movements within that overall increase, for health, personal and social services and, notably, housing have all, from a peak in 1975, dropped sharply as a percentage of GDP, while social security transfers have risen to 12.97 per cent. of GDP in 1983, which is three and a half times higher than they stood in the record year of public spending in 1975. But it is no good the Government pointing in shocked terms to such figures, dramatic as they are, and then abdicating all responsibility in the matter. It is the massive increase in unemployment since 1979 which is largely responsible. It is the Government's action in consistently promoting unemployment as an instrument of policy which must take much of the blame for the rising social security bill, a bill which should be far higher but for the disincentives to take up benefits which are present at every stage. This is a point to which I shall refer later.
Furthermore, we should not lose sight of how the welfare services are financed. Ministers continually refer to "the taxpayers' money" and the burden which escalating welfare costs place on taxpayers as a whole. But which taxpayers? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, touched on this point. A closer look gives us a rather different picture. Owing to the high

359
national insurance contributions from a low wage base and the heavy incidence of expenditure taxes on low earners, the lower groups gain little or nothing from social security in aggregate. The lowest quartile largely finances its own lame ducks.
As an illustration of this, I have here some interesting figures. Whereas in 1979 those on two-thirds of average earnings were paying 6.5 per cent. of their earnings in national insurance contributions, in 1984 they were paying 9 per cent. of their earnings in national insurance contributions; while for those on five times average earnings, the equivalent rise is from 1.7 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. and for those on 10 times average earnings, the equivalent rise is from 0.9 per cent. to 1.2 per cent. I have all the figures here if the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, would later like to look at them. I am sure he is aware of them. This means that the lowest paid are paying proportionately seven and a half times as much towards the financing of the welfare state as those at the higher end of the income scale.
It is not only a question of finding money for maintaining expenditure. Personal social services will need to grow at some 2 per cent. per annum in real terms if the system is to keep up with the changes in the demographic profile of the population. This is an inescapable pressure. The cost of social security rises because obligations increase as more people become eligible for benefits—not because benefits improve. In short, a larger bill does not indicate any improvement in quality. Rising costs, changing demographic patterns and the emergence of new needs probably account for most of the growth in social welfare expenditure.
That is the picture, but what are the remedies? There have been speakers from the Labour Benches whose concerns we very largely share: the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, on homelessness, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on the connection between low income and health and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the inadequate resources which are available for care in the community. On all those points we agree with the Labour Party, though we do question some of the methods that they propose.
Minimum wage legislation is one remedy which has been proposed by the Labour Party. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to it. We do not deny that it is desirable in its own right. We are certainly not in favour of the exploitation of part-timers by cowboy laundries in hospitals and places of that nature. It must be emphasised, however, that such legislation would do little to reduce poverty in working families or to eliminate the poverty trap, for in most of the poorest families what is actually being earned is already above any feasible national minimum wage. The family is poor because there are several children and the wife is not working. A higher minimum wage would mainly benefit working wives and single people. In the present climate, it could also lead to an increase in unemployment.
It must also be remembered that there are 30 million people in the country who are outside the labour force. If we add those who want to work but cannot find it, we get a grand total of 33 million to 34 million who are either too old or too young to work or
360
who are prevented from working. The proper course, as I shall endeavour to show, is to build a combined tax and benefits system, rather than minimum wage legislation, to produce a fairer distribution of income.
But, first, what is the Government's solution? They appear to believe that raising the tax thresholds will relieve the poverty and unemployment traps. However, this measure is almost completely useless as a means of achieving that object. Here I must venture to disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Cockfield. A recent study by Mr. John Kay, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, shows why this is the case. In 1983–84, just over I per cent. of working households faced marginal tax rates of over 100 per cent., and 6.7 per cent. of such households experienced marginal rates greater than 60 per cent. The expenditure of a whopping £4.3 billion in increasing tax thresholds would reduce the proportion of households which actually lose from extra earnings by a mere 0.2 per cent. to 0.8 per cent., and the proportion with marginal rates above 60 per cent. from 6.7 per cent. to 6.2 per cent.—tiny reductions on the previous figures. Mr. Kay said:
"Many people will find these results surprising. Surely an increase in the tax threshold must he of help to the low paid. This view reflects two misunderstandings. It should be appreciated that although an increase in the threshold does relieve some people from income tax altogether, the greater benefit goes to those who continue to pay tax. If an allowance of £2.000 is raised to £2,500, someone who earns £3,000 has his taxable income reduced by £500; someone whose income is £2,100 is relieved of tax only on £100".
Furthermore, the present tax allowances are equivalent to an earnings level of £34 a week for a single person and £54 per week for a married person. Very few adults in full-time work earn as little as this. Many people have incomes at about the tax threshold—there are about 11/2 million of them—but almost half of them are pensioners. Most of the rest are married women (who are secondary, or part-time, earners) or juveniles. Less than 10 per cent. are heads of households. So we are not going to do much for low paid families by this route.
It is fair to ask: what, then, would we do? Our main proposal is to introduce a basic benefit which would provide a topping-up of total income for those in low paid jobs and for those receiving a national insurance benefit that is inadequate for their needs. The new benefit would take the place of family income supplement, rent and rate rebates, and free school meals. It would consist of an amount which would vary according to family size and housing costs. It would go to those who need it, and it would be gradually withdrawn at a fixed percentage of each extra pound earned, until earnings reach a point at which no more benefit is received.
For a married couple, this would consist of a personal credit for the couple, plus a generous credit for the first child (which effectively takes the mother out of the labour market) and a much smaller credit for subsequent children, plus a housing credit of 60 per cent. of costs. Forty-five per cent. of the total package is withdrawn for every £1 earned. A couple with two children, for example, would be entitled to £88·50 under this scheme. If they have earnings of £80, then 45 per cent. of these—or £36—would be withdrawn, leaving a credit of £52·50 in addition to earnings—or

361
£132·50 per week. The poverty trap would have been eliminated. As earnings rise, benefits decline, but there is a constant upward curve.
How would we pay for this? I have already remarked that social security transfers are very largely horizontal transfers between ordinary people on PAYE and their brethren who are not in work or who are very badly paid. It can be argued therefore that the welfare state is an agency for redistributing income horizontally—particularly to families with children. Clearly this is not an adequate basis for any improvements in the system. Yet it is an illusion to suppose that one can achieve a major redistribution in favour of the less well-off solely at the expense of the "rich". There are simply not enough of them.
In the distribution of income, the top quartile of earners starts at about £180 per week and one cannot help the least well-off without asking for some sacrifices from those who are not necessarily earning much above the average wage. Prime candidates for reform are, therefore, mortgage tax relief and the married man's tax allowance, which was designed when only 10 per cent. of wives worked, whereas 60 per cent. now do. It would also be permissible under our general economic strategy to increase public borrowing from its presently absurd low base and to apply some £600 million to £700 million from this source.
From what I have said, it will be apparent that we are proposing a radical redistributive scheme. Our final proposal would be that the new scheme should be computerised at about the same time as income tax is computerised. The two systems must work together, and not against each other as at present. Also, this is the only way of ensuring that people get that to which they are entitled. They will not have to claim, and payments will be automated. I shall return to this point later.
It is clear that we shall not get action along these lines from the present Government. Therefore, we must try to urge upon them such improvements as are feasible within the existing system. I have a short list to which I should appreciate a response from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
First, there is the question of long-term supplementary benefit, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. We had some exchanges on this matter recently in this Chamber. I understand fully the considerable cost that would be involved in shifting all he long-term unemployed onto long-term supplementary benefit, but would the Minister not agree that those aged over 55 who have been unemployed for three years are never likely to work again, and that they should be the next candidates for transfer to this benefit? I understand that they number 64,000. Could they not be followed by those in the same age group who have been jobless for more than two years and who number 42,000? Would the Minister not endorse this step-by-step approach and undertake now to give serious consideration to the first of these steps? Have the Government done any costing, and, if not, will they do so?
Secondly, there is the matter of take-up. Given the complexity of the actual system and the confusion it induces in many ordinary people, can the Government
362
cross their heart and say that they are doing their best to improve take-up? What about family income supplement and other benefits? Can the noble Lord report any improvements? What steps has his department been taking?
Thirdly, in respect of the procedure for claiming (which of course influences take-up) does the noble Lord not agree that it would be a great improvement for the claimant if he or she did not have to claim unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit at separate offices? Would it not be possible for forms to be collected and handed in at the same office, even if they were separately processed? As regards the claims forms themselves, is it not the case that the new B1 purple form, which I believe has nine or 10 pages, is causing great difficulty, particularly for those whose first language is not English? Is the noble Lord convinced that these forms save time? My information is that they are leading to more delays than the previous system of direct interviews.
Fourth, I turn briefly to the subject of fuel and heating bills for the elderly. I understand that the volume of disconnections—and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to this—has begun to decrease and that a new code of practice is in force, but that some families are still being left disconnected for long periods of time. Does the noble Lord the Minister have any figures? The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, fed him some, but I wonder whether he agrees with them.
We have on a number of occasions suggested to the Government that the abolition of standing charges for pensioners would be a better system than heating additions. The Government have always responded by saying that they already spend £380 million on heating additions, as opposed to the £350 million which the abolition of standing charges would cost. But is it not possible that the inclusion of heating additions with supplementary benefit can lead directly to disconnections; as, for example, when there are delays at benefit offices or strikes? Does the Minister not agree that waiving standing charges would eliminate this problem?
Finally, does the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, not agree that in the interests of efficiency, of fairness, and of a reduction in complexity (which almost everyone believes is becoming a nightmare) the Government should take the opportunity afforded by the computerisation of the Inland Revenue to link the tax and benefit systems in a coherent whole that will be comprehensible to everyone? We do not doubt that the Secretary of State's reviews of five major social security areas are timely; but we doubt whether a piecemeal approach, and the piecemeal answers it will produce, can provide an adequate solution to poverty in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Are the Government taking any steps to prepare for this much-needed rationalisation? I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's comments on those questions.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, it is difficult to sum up this debate because it has covered so many different subjects, but I shall start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter today. He has brought to the House

363
imaginative sympathy and the wisdom of his practical experience. That is a combination not always to be found, and one that enriches your Lordships' House; it has done especially today.
I admire in particular the stamina of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in staying to listen to this debate for so long. However, I must take issue with him on one point. It has nothing to do with economics, about which I know absolutely nothing. I wondered what the shining, militant angel spirit of Shelley would have thought about being quoted by a Conservative Minister in the House today. I do not believe that he would have appreciated having his name taken in vain. But the devil can cite scripture. I shall reply in Shelley's words, from another poem:
"Most wretched men are cradled into poetry by wrong".
I think that explains why even the noble Lord the Minister can be cradled into poetry occasionally; although he enriched our debate by what he said.
I should much rather spend a few minutes talking about the poetry of Shelley than about some of the matters which are now before us, but it is my duty to be a little more practical. The question that faces us this evening is this: what is poverty? Poverty is a question of comparison. An Indian peasant with no cow thinks that an Indian peasant with one cow is well off; and if the other peasant has two cows, then he is thought to be very well off. In this country children are very sensitive to comparability: if they do not have the other things which children have in their class, which children in their street take for granted; if they do not go on school journeys; if they do not have holidays; if they do not have similar clothes, they feel poor. And it is no use citing economic definitions.
I was interested that both the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the most extraordinary definition of poverty which was quoted by the Secretary of State for Education (of all people) in the other place on 28th June:
"A family is poor if it cannot afford to eat. By any absolute standard there is very little poverty in Britain today".
I think that it is a most abject definition. It seems to suggest that nobody should have any stars in their eyes about the things they want, that they are all right if they are fed—as if they were pigs being fattened or puppy dogs being given a meal, when all the time we are trying to stretch the sensibilities, understanding and appreciation and minds of people. The Secretary of State for Education might be reminded of that old proverb:
"If you have two loaves, sell one and buy a bunch of flowers".
That is the kind of dimension which he seems to be missing out absolutely in that unfortunate quotation.
We know that the DHSS is undertaking four inquiries into social security and we welcome these, but I wonder if the noble Lord the Minister could tell us what public and treasury involvement there is to be in these inquiries because we cannot talk about poverty as a separate question. It is a mainstream part of Government policy and it cannot be isolated from other national processes.
We hear too much of Government spending and not enough about the Government's income, while we are
364
told too often when we ask for further help for the poor and the disadvantaged that it is all a matter of the economy and the Government cannot afford it yet. We have to say to the Government that we are not necessarily asking for more money to be spent but possibly for the priorities to be altered, and many of the figures which have been given during this afternoon's debate do indicate that there is money coming in from various sources. We are wondering if the money which is going out is properly balanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who knows a great deal about these things, made it quite clear that the fiscal policy of the Government makes it easier for the better off, and then we are told that no money is available for extra help for the poorest people. I want to come back with a quotation from Aneurin Bevan which is relevant to this debate:
"There is no test for progress other than its impact on the individual. If the policies of statesmen, the enactments of legislatures, the impulses of group activity do not have for their object the enlargement and cultivation of the individual life, they do not deserve to be called civilised".
Taxation is the price we pay for civilization, and I think it is not a civilised government which puts priority on the reduction of taxation for the better off at the cost of the civilisation for the whole of society.
We are living in a very complicated, modern, sophisticated society of total interdependence. It is more true than ever that, "No man is an Island". The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in his very literary speech this afternoon referred to John Donne, that we are all "involved in mankind": and so we are. There are some people who think they buy private medicine and say that they buy themselves out of dependence on the state, but they are treated by doctors and nurses who trained at public expense and they are probably cured as a result of research carried out at public expense. The same is true in our schools, and we have had debates in this House recently about education which is one of the most important aspects on the subject of poverty. We have mandarins in Government and their advisers in high posts who are the products of subsidised universities, some of whom are busy in later life trying to deprive the less privileged of getting the advantages at a lesser subsidy than they themselves had in earlier life, by cutting grants to the WEA and the Open University.
This question of saving money and what the country can afford is extremely complicated. I want to be very brief tonight as I promised noble Lords, but I was very interested in the question of housing which was particularly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. The noble Baroness and I have both been chairmen of housing committees and we know how much money is wasted by bad housing, how much illness is perpetuated, how many marriages break up, how many children have to go to child guidance clinics because they are living in a bed and breakfast hotel room where there is no room to play and no room to stretch and enjoy themselves. I think it is no good for the Government to answer this debate in terms of economics and the availability of money because so much so-called economy is impoverishing not only the lives of people but the economy itself.
Every person who is kept waiting longer than necessary for a hospital bed is longer on sick leave than

365
he needs to be; his condition becomes worse and more expensive to treat and his convalescence longer. Every person who is kept out of work needs more money from social security, his children need more money and therefore it will be no answer—and we certainly shall not expect an answer tonight—that there is the problem of the economy which needs to improve before we can do these things, which many of us think will save the economy in the long run.
We have this lunacy (if I may concentrate on housing for another moment) of reducing building in the public sector in the name of capital economies while we are increasing expenditure by putting homeless families into these unsuitable, miserable and expensive hotels. That money is spent and gone for ever, whereas if the money was spent in building council flats that would be a capital investment and at the end of the day the flats would still be there, whereas the landlord who collects £60-£100 a week deals with money which is lost to the public sector completely.
When we get to the question of health, where we see even the chairman of the BMA complaining—and he is not noted for being a friend of this side of the House—I think the Government must really take some notice.
My noble friend Lady Nicol and several noble Lords referred to the question of the long-term unemployed. We discussed this the other night, and I must say again that I think that keeping people who are out of work a long time on short-term benefits is one of the cruellest things that this Government can do, because it is impoverishing their families and reducing their purchasing power, which again ripples out into the economy because we need more demand for consumer goods in order to re-create employment.
I think that all the speeches which have been made stand on their own. I am glad that I am not the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, who has to reply and I will not add to the burden of points which he has to answer. I will end—as I feel literary too—with another quotation (just the third) from John Stuart Mill, who was for too short a time a Member of the other place. He wrote in Liberty, which is one of my favourite books:
"The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it".
I think that if the Government took that for a text it would really create a happier civilisation and a more prosperous country.
9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, this has been a long and wide-ranging but nevertheless important debate, and I should like to begin my summing up by echoing my noble friend Lord Cockfield when he acknowledged the sincerity and depth of concern that characterise the Motion before us. They are qualities we associate with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I join with other noble Lords in congratulating him. He and all those who have contributed to the debate have brought much experience from all walks of public and private life to this debate.
366
I should like to assure the noble Lord at the outset—and I hope he will accept my assurance—that we are at one in believing that it is the duty of this or any Government to promote and to defend the well-being of all their fellow citizens. Few English historians have given more lucid expression to this principle than Macaulay—and I am going to embark on a quote to match the noble Baroness opposite—when he wrote of the undoubted progress of civilisation in his own time that it afforded,
"no reason for tolerating abuses or for neglecting any means of ameliorating the condition of our poorer countrymen".
Where the party opposite and the Government differ is in our view of the policies most likely to best increase the prosperity and the well-being of all our countrymen. For as Macaulay went on to say:
"It is not by the inter-meddling of the omnipotent state but by the prudence and energy of the people that England has hitherto been carried forward in civilisation".
That perception is as true today as it was when Macaulay wrote those words more than a century and a half ago. If the energy, the talents and the initiative of our people, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, are frustrated by bureaucratic restrictions, by penal taxation and by the absence of incentives, it is the people at large who will be the losers in the end. Conversely, everyone stands to gain from measures designed to promote an increase overall in the national income.
Listening to some of the views expressed by the party opposite, I sometimes think that they would prefer their fellow countrymen to be less well off and less happy, provided each man can have his fair share of the despondency and misery which they have described, rather than that prosperity should increase for everyone, albeit unequally. Only by encouraging the nation's most enterprising and successful producers of wealth (as my noble friend Lord Gisborough described in a speech with which I entirely agree), by careful housekeeping in the public sector, by seeking value for money and by calling those responsible for public sector budgets to account (and, indeed, by calling ourselves to account) will we both maintain the value of the money in people's pockets and increase the availability of goods and services they can buy.
Noble Lords opposite sometimes appear to think that we can have our cake and eat it: that the national cake, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, does not need to be replaced and increased by national effort—effort which demands as a prerequisite the freedom to develop what my noble friend Lord Cockfield aptly described as, not a society which wrings its hands and laments in the night but which is "vigorous, enterprising and self-reliant". We shall not achieve this society by bureaucratic state intervention which attempts to lay down formulae for every eventuality the individual may meet in life, and which relies on borrowing or printing money to avert each recurring financial crisis as it looms.
We place our first emphasis on freedom—freedom for all to prosper. Noble Lords opposite want to achieve their egalitarian ends through a reorganisation of society's wealth-creating capacities. It was the French historian, Elie Halevy, who said:
"Socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organisation".

367
That is why we on this side of the House have always contended that without individual freedom there can be no prosperity, else the prosperity that might be is swallowed up in the machinery of organisation and intervention. This is why the road to socialism has been so chillingly described as the road to serfdom.
What about the facts? What is the Government's record? My noble friend Lord Cockfield has already summarised some of the strides we have made in recent years: indications of prosperity that would have been unimaginable even when Beveridge was writing his report. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, compared the amount that Beveridge originally allocated for national assistance with that which has been spent on supplementary benefit, and estimated £6 billion in 1984–85. That is a misleading comparison. Apart from the effect of inflation, I am glad to say that the real value of the scale rates has more than doubled between these two dates.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Lord has misinterpreted me. The point of my intervention there was that Beveridge foresaw that national assistance would actually decline as a proportion of total social security spending, whereas in fact it has not. It has constantly increased since his day.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it has increased partly because the benefits, too, have increased enormously. My noble friend Lord Cockfield referred to property owned by households—fridges, and so on. I agree that the examples he gave are hardly signs of an impoverished nation. They come to seem unremarkable because we so rapidly take for granted what previously were distant aspirations. But, of course, there will always be some who are unable to provide for themselves the standards of living that the more fortunate regard as the norm. This Government have not turned their face against them, nor flinched from the difficult task of steadily improving their lot. Across the whole field of social security and of health and personal social services, our record stands comparison with that of any previous Government, and notably with that of the party opposite.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised the matter of a definition of poverty, suggesting that the supplementary benefit minimum drew that particular line. Of course, it would not be appropriate to define poverty in absolute terms. There can be no serious suggestion of poor people in this country being limited to a bare subsistence income. To use the supplementary benefit level as a definition of poverty is clearly a nonsense, because it means that whenever the benefit is increased in real terms more people would be defined as being in poverty.
Let me revert to our achievements, and take pensions. There are over 9 million pensioners in the United Kingdom. From November 1978 to November of this year, the state retirement pension for a married couple will have risen by 83.7 per cent. Allowing for inflation, this is a real increase in spending power of over 4 per cent. The figures for a
368
single person are comparable. At a time of necessary financial constraint, this is an achievement of which we can be proud.
Supplementary benefit, similarly, has continued to rise, which again is an important real terms increase. Mobility allowance, for example, has risen by a massive 100 per cent.—some 11 per cent. in real terms—and we have taken that allowance out of tax. We will have doubled its rates since November 1978. The family income supplement prescribed amount has increased since November 1978 by 10 per cent. in real terms. The fact that these benefits and others are all higher in real terms demonstrates clearly that we have taken positive measures to help those groups and not that the benefits have risen due to the recession, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
In the face of those figures, it is absurd for noble Lords opposite to suggest that the Government do not care about the relatively poorer and needier members of our society. We have made those increases while pursuing vigorously policies which, to everyone's benefit—including the elderly, as was described by my noble friend Lady Gardner—have succeeded in breaking the back of inflation. Annual expenditure on social security benefits is now running at well over £37 billion. The DHSS pays out well over £100 million a day—and, incidentally, employs 80,000 staff to do it. Payments in benefits have increased significantly, partly because of increased demands from claimants—there are 600,000 more pensioners now than in 1979—and partly because of the kinds of benefit improvements that I have described.
At the risk of sounding like Gradgrind in Dickens's Hard Times, I shall offer your Lordships one or two more facts and comparisons. The number of supplementary benefits recipients receiving heating addition—which was referred to by noble Lords earlier—increased from just over 70 per cent. of pensioner claimants in 1978 to nearly 90 per cent. in 1982. For allowance claimants, the numbers increased from only just over a quarter in 1978 to 40 per cent. in 1982. All in all, since we came to office we have spent an extra 140 million in real terms on heating additions.
Expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled was about £4 billion in the last financial year. That is an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms since the last Labour Government. While we have continued to offer mortgage interest relief to the tune of some £3 billion in the current year, which benefits some 7 million households, we shall have spent some £3¾ billion in the same period on housing benefits to some 6.5 million recipients. We have at the same time enabled more and more people to buy their own homes, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield described. In December last year over 60 per cent. of the population owned their own homes, compared with 54 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government. So, far from neglecting the needs and aspirations of the less well-off, we have a record of which we can be proud.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in particular referred to the health service. The record is no less commendable there. I have on many occasions rehearsed the figures and I shall not go through them all again now,

369
except to say that, in a service free at the point of delivery, total spending on the NHS has doubled since 1979 from £7¾ billion to £15½ billion. That is an increase of 18 per cent. over and above inflation. More patients than ever are getting better treatment, in better hospitals and with better after-care services. That is no mere trumpeting.
These facts set to right the misrepresentations and misunderstandings that still surround much talk about the National Health Service. They demonstrate beyond doubt the Government's continuing commitment to health and welfare in this country. So much for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the NHS is in crisis. Even if it was, I simply cannot understand how making someone responsible at every level, as Griffiths suggests, can do anything but help.
The Motion before us today refers to a cycle of deprivation and exhorts us to break into it, although I am bound to say that, if it existed, I should have thought it more appropriate to break out of it. I hope that the facts that I have adduced this evening will dispel the myth that there is some absolute level of deprivation from which the deprived cannot escape and from which they have no protection, although I do not suppose that they will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
The noble Lord asked whether the sort of society that he described in Bristol, and that of those who reportedly clothed themselves from a tip in Merseyside, was one that this Government wanted. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, of course it is not. If it is true that someone has clothed himself from a tip for the past 10 years—and I very much deplore the idea, whatever the quality—it will not have escaped the noble Lord's notice that five years of that time was under the auspices of his party.
Our welfare benefits system has an essential safety net—supplementary benefit. There is no one, however relatively poor, whose basic domestic needs must go unmet. As I have explained, in line with social security benefits as a whole, supplementary benefit has been protected, and indeed improved in many areas. Particularly for children of certain ages the scale rates are significantly higher than when we took office.
I have to say that I find the concept of a cycle of deprivation a depressing one and one in which I do not wholly believe. One of the findings of the research studies on the matter was that there was only limited evidence to support the cycle of deprivation hypothesis. A person's coming from a poor or troubled home may increase the chance of similar difficulties in the next generation, but research has shown that there is no inevitability about that pattern. Many children from deprived backgrounds avoid deprivation in adult life. I have seen examples of it myself; some of them only yesterday. We are pursuing policies which are opening up the opportunities for everyone to live freer and more prosperous lives.
In describing supplementary benefit as a safety net, I should like to dispel any suggestion, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made, that its recipients are inevitably eking out penurious lives with the barest minimum of human comforts. Let me give an example of a couple with three children, say, aged four, nine and 11. First of all, I must point out that
370
such a family would now typically receive benefit of over £9 more, in real terms, than in 1978. That is a very tangible improvement. From this November, such a family would receive, at the ordinary rate, a weekly rate of £45·55, plus £9·60 for each of the two younger children, and £14·35 for the elder child, plus a heating addition of at least £2·10. That is a total of £81·20. Additionally, the family's rent and rates, all mortgage interest, and an allowance for repairs and insurance in the case of owner-occupiers, would be met in full. As well, there would be free dental and optical treatment, free NHS prescriptions, and free school meals.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said that he hoped that the Government could see their way to increasing the capital limit for supplementary benefits. The capital limit for receipt has in the past two years been raised by 50 per cent. to the present limit of £3,000. It is not being raised again this year, but it will be kept under review.
No one suggests that the sums to which I have referred are princely sums. I should be the last person to suggest that. However, they put into perspective the allegations that the Government have all but abandoned low income families. Nothing could be further from the truth. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the MORI poll and breadline Britain. Despite economic difficulties, the Government have been able to protect the poorest from the worst effects of recession. Supplementary benefit scale rates have, overall, kept up with the movement in prices since 1979. Extra help has been given to certain groups; for example, automatic heating addition for households with under-fives; increased earnings disregard for lone parents; reduction in the qualifying period for the long-term rate to one year. I could go on. But the survey's findings themselves are equivocal. Social security was only the seventh most popular out of 12 options suggested for increased spending, with only 19 per cent. in favour.
Despite the progress I have outlined, we are not complacent about the way the social security system is working. It has grown to fairly unwieldy proportions. Its machinery, sometimes of baffling scale and complexity, has been likened to a juggernaut rolling on by its own momentum. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, called it a creaking system. As he said, we have responded to the challenge by reviewing its major operations, as my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox also described.
My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Social Security, is leading a team looking at benefits for children and young people. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Security is looking at supplementary benefit. Mr. Jeremy Rowe, chairman of the Peterborough Development Corporation and deputy chairman of the Abbey National Building Society, is leading the review of housing benefits. Each of the reviews has recently issued a short document indicating the areas in which it is particularly interested in receiving evidence. So in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I can say that the reviews are not taking place behind closed doors. We want to hear directly the views of our customers, the public. I can tell her that

371
my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury is involved with a pensions inquiry. In any case, the Government will take a collective view on the reviews as they go on.
The question the reviews will be tackling are complex and difficult; they affect millions of people. The review teams have a major task ahead of them in trying to find ways of simplifying the systems, making them more intelligible, and focusing help on the areas in greatest need. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also launched his inquiry into the provision for retirement.
So with four reviews at work on different parts of the social security system, it is very important that their activities and conclusions should he meshed together to form a coherent whole. The subject is a massive one. There is no doubt that the exercise which my right honourable friend has launched will build into the most fundamental and wide-ranging examination of social security since Beveridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, talked about a tax credit scheme. We are aware of the various and differing schemes put forward from time to time for the reform of the social security system. Most of them are very sweeping indeed. Even those involving tax credit principles go much wider than the relatively modest proposals of 1972 and 1973. Schemes of this magnitude require very careful analysis, as I am sure the noble Lord would accept, and assimilation also, because of, for example, their redistributive effects, the way they create gainers or losers, and particularly the way they increase and pe-empt public expenditure.
In the meantime, it seems to us eminently sensible to carry out the sort of reviews that my right honourable friend has announced and, by that means, progress slowly but securely to a greater rationalisation. It would be wrong, I think, to forget those supported mainly by their own earned income in a debate like this. Real take-home pay has increased since 1978–79 for all those whose earnings have risen in line with the national average. A married man with two children on half average earnings, for example, will have seen an 8 per cent. increase. In the 1984 Budget, 80 per cent. of the total full year cost of income tax went on personal allowances. At the top end of the scale, we offer no apologies for reducing the highest rates of tax. Our top rates of tax are now much more in line with those prevailing in Europe, though our 60 per cent. rate is still higher than the top rate on employment income in the United States and, indeed, in West Germany.
In such a wide debate, many points have been raised. If I tried to answer all of them, I fear that we would be here all night. I shall deal with those that I can, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I only pick up some of the major points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, referred to defence, suggesting that less spent on that would mean more for the poor. But we are part of an alliance. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness know that there is a threat, even if they do not particularly want to believe it. They also know how adequate defence is fundamental for all of us, even the very poor, so that
372
we may all live the life that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would wish us to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, referred, among other things, to accommodation in Brent, suggesting, I think, that the problems here were due to the low income that some families were suffering from. The main reason for the increase has been to some extent the increase in unemployment, but the underlying cause of that was the failure of the party opposite to adjust wage demands to reflect falling export markets. This was also a period of global recession and of a large increase in unemployment in all developed countries. On top of that, in the United Kingdom, high wage settlements led to a loss of competitiveness. People priced themselves out of jobs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised a number of points concerned with training and young people. I note the conviction and the experience with which she speaks, particularly her experience in this field. She asked about the Government's views on youth services. I am afraid that I cannot tell her when the response to the report on youth services will be available. I shall try to find out and let her know. I do not have that fact with me. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke of a comparison between child benefit and tax allowances. There can be no real comparison between increases in tax allowances and child benefit. In 1981, for example, child benefit was increased but tax allowances were not.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, chided us for not doing enough for the disabled. The noble Lord described what we have not done, but did not say what we have done. Let us be clear about expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. We have increased expenditure on these benefits by 30 per cent. in real terms since coming to office. We have made significant progress towards our aim of a coherent system of benefits for the disabled with the introduction of the severe disablement allowance. The noble Lord might well criticise us for saying that the system is further complicated by the new allowance; but it does bring 20,000 more people into benefit. He cannot have it both ways. The noble Lord talked about care in the community. The real point here is what best benefits the potential customer, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. He said that children should never enter a mentally handicapped hospital—an aim, I think, that we all share. But there may always be some who continue to need medical care in a hospital setting. We exhort health authorities, through reviews, in this direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me a number of points. I shall have to read them and answer some in writing. I can perhaps answer two. He asked about our introducing procedures for those who are unemployed to claim without having to go to both the unemployment benefit office and the social security office. A postal claim procedure has been introduced for unemployed people to claim supplementary benefit. This removes the need for them to go to the social security office and makes it easier and more convenient for them to claim supplementary benefit. The B.1 claim form, which he referred to, has been found generally to be a success. The noble Lord looks quizzical about it, but it is a fact that it is a success. I have been to local offices and I have asked this very

373
question, and I have not yet met these people who say that is not the case.
The noble Lord also asked, not the first time, about the long-term rate of supplementary benefit being given to those who are unemployed. The noble Baroness, Lady Nichol, raised the same point. I have to give her the same answer: that whatever its merits, the cost would be colossal—some £480 million. In an earlier debate I promised the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to have some calculations made about the cost of his suggestion that it should be payable to those who are aged over 55. The cost is estimated to be of the order of £10 million if payable after three years of unemployment, and in times of limited resources I feel, as I said before, that this group should not have priority over other unemployed people.
Despite the criticisms and some extravagantly-worded prophesies of doom and disaster, we have maintained our economic strategy. Why? It is because our policies are working, and we will not now throw away the key to increasing prosperity. That key is the maintenance of a firm financial framework. It is the key to an economic strategy which is bringing success. But it has not been easy; nor are we yet out of the wood. Certainly it does not indicate any lack of compassion.
There has been a progressive reduction in the growth of money, and in public borrowing as a proportion of GDP, which has brought inflation down sharply. The Government's commitment to reduce inflation can only be of benefit to all our people, whether comparatively rich or comparatively poor. We remain committed to the incentives which my noble friend Lady Gardner wanted. We remain firmly committed to our objective of stable prices. Last year our growth rate was the fastest of any member state in the European Community, and this year we confidently expect it to again be one of the highest. For the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, to suggest that benefits, housing, or anything else, are not part of economic policy and should not be regarded as such seems to me to be flying in the face of reality, if not in the face of common sense.
Against the background of a major recession and the inflationary legacy of the last Labour Government, we have succeeded in laying the foundations for steady economic recovery; that is to say, real stability, real growth and real prosperity. At the same time, we have ensured that even the least well-off in our community have the means to provide the essentials of a civilised standard of life. Compassion for the less fortunate is a quality we should all share, but it would be a tragedy for them and for all of us if our hard-won gains were lost by failure to maintain our resolve.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, having listened to the Minister, it is quite clear that much of what has been said today has fallen on stony ground and not on fertile soil. But, having said that, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for his very full reply.
374
If we have to have a Conservative Government—if we must—I think this House is fortunate in having him in the Department of Health and Social Security. If I may say so, he handles the House very well. He is very informative. He will go to great lengths to give us adequate replies, and those of us who from time to time have correspondence with him are very grateful for the thoroughness with which he goes into the matter. He is in a good department. I had five years there and I enjoyed every minute of it. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank him.
I wish to thank everybody, without exception, who has taken part in this debate. It has given us a wealth of information, and almost in one Hansard we have a very comprehensive understanding as to what is going on. I want to apologise for the length of the debate. Certainly I did not want it to go on as long as this.
The Minister referred to what the Government had achieved financially. Our concern is that we want the benefits not just to be topped up in line with inflation—that is a moral obligation—but to be dealt with in such a way that the basic amount is well above the subsistence level, which it is not at present. I remind the Minister that privatisation has brought the Government in £2,541 million—I do not know what they have done with it—and in addition, the gas levy that they imposed, in my view quite disgracefully, has brought them in another £690 million. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will feel that some of that money could be used to help the poorer sections of the community.
Finally, I may have misunderstood something that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I thought she said that she did not know whether we were talking about the widening gap between the rich and the poor today or at some previous time. Quite clearly we were talking about the widening gap between the rich and the poor at the present moment. I thought that the noble Baroness said that she did not accept that there was a widening gap. If I am right in my recollection, may I suggest to the noble Baroness with the greatest respect that, when tomorrow's Hansard is available, she reads the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, whose contribution was quite outstanding and very full of factual information that will remove doubt from anybody's mind as to whether or not there is a widening gap.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I certainly did not wish to imply in any way that I do not think that there is a gap. My statement was that the actual wording of the Motion did not make clear whether we were dealing with it only in today's context or historically. I considered that historically the gap had narrowed rather than widened; but the rest of my contribution will be as in Hansard.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, all that remains is for me to beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Regional Secure Units
9.33 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the failure to make progress with the establishment of regional secure units as recommended by the Butler Committee on abnormal offenders.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for handling this debate personally despite the long and arduous duties that he has already performed. I thank also—because I have no right to speak at the end of the debate—all noble Lords who are taking part. I am glad to think that I am followed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who must be in happy mood. As chairman of the Parole Board the noble Lord is able to point to the fact that he will soon have 2,000 people under his care who otherwise would be in prison. Although credit goes in the first place to the Home Secretary and in the second place to the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, I think that the All-Party Penal Affairs Group should perhaps also be mentioned in this connection.
I am sure that we are all pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is to speak in this debate. As Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office he was intimately concerned with the setting up of the Butler Committee on abnormal offenders. In 1974 that committee produced an interim report calling urgently for the establishment of regional secure units. Its final report appeared in 1975. In the 10 years that have elapsed since then we have seen Labour Governments and Conservative Governments. I am going to dole out my strictures, such as they are, with an impartial hand.
My main concern tonight is with the present and the future, rather than the past. I continue to believe that these secure units could not only provide a new and valuable form of treatment for a number of mental offenders and others in like case, but could improve as the experiment develops. Our whole approach to the mentally ill could be improved. I should like to think that our debate would strengthen the hands of those inside and outside official circles who have been pressing, and will continue to press, for a much more rapid development of these units. I hope also that our debate will encourage those dedicated doctors, nurses, and others who are staffing, or are preparing to staff, the units in question.
My first task must be to press the Government for a full report on progress. It may be that some of the details may require to be spelt out later in Written Answers. In the spring of 1978 the noble Lord, Lord Allen, initiated a debate on mentally abnormal offenders in which the questions about regional secure units received disappointing answers. I myself reported at that time that I had tried to find even one regional secure unit. I had visited the only one
376
recommended by the ministry, a unit at Knowle Hospital, and found that it was not secure in any ordinary sense. There was no locked door. The patients could leave at any time. One can say that six years ago, four years after the original Butler recommendations, there was no sign of visible progress.
At that time the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, who played such a distinguished part in our previous debate this afternoon, was a Minister, and he was answering for the Department of Health and Social Security. I quote the following passage from a speech of his:
"the report of the Butler Committee on the urgent need for regional secure psychiatric units was accepted by the Government. There is no intention on the part of the Government to put the report conveniently aside and at a suitable moment to torpedo it out of sight. There are reasons why the Government have not made the progress they would have liked to make".—[Official Report, 22/3/78; col. 1849.]
I think that to most of us present that seemed an understatement.
I should mention here, perhaps, the reasons supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, at that time for the failure. He said that first there had been staff and trade union difficulties. I encountered those myself when I visited Knowle Hospital. The noble Lord. Lord Allen, went on to say that there had been objections from local residents, and most important, he thought, had been the reservations quite genuinely felt by the psychiatrists themselves. Whatever the causes, the results were plain. They were all too painful.
On 6th May last year the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was at it again. He put this Queston to Her Majesty's Government:
"how many places are now available in permanent psychiatric secure units."—[Official Report, 6/5/83; col. 271.]
The information supplied was described, not surprisingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, as disappointing. That, again, was a fairly mild term. Coming nine years after the Butler Committee had submitted an interim report recommending the units, it was a rather deplorable story.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, then asked whether the Government were still committed to an overall figure of 1,000 places in the units in the first instance. He asked when did the Minister think that the programme would be achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, then the Minister involved, replied that the Government were still committed in principle to achieving 1,000 places in regional secure units. He hoped that by the end of 1985, 11 years after the original recommendation, about 600 places would be available in such units.
On 7th March this year Mr. Austin Mitchell asked the Secretary of State to publish the number and location of regional secure units planned and in the course of construction. That was a wider question than that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in the previous year. The answer given in the Official Report mentioned 14 such units, but it would seem that a few months ago, in March of this year, only half a dozen of those had become operational. The Minister will put me right there, as he will have the latest information, but reading the answer given in March, it would

377
seem that the permanent facilities were not being made use of by more than 200 patients; but the Minister may have a better tale than that to tell in July.
I can assure him that no one would be happier than I if he can demonstrate to us that at last things are really moving—much better later than never. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the difficulties about which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and others in 1978 have been overcome? What is the attitude of the trade unions and the shop stewards today?
I was told when I visited the secure unit at Rainhill, Merseyside, that the interim unit, which was superseded by a permanent unit last autumn, had been blacked until them, but I was told that the relationship with the trade unions now seemed to he satisfactory. At Runwell Hospital, near Southend, I was told that there had been no trouble of this kind. The fact that the hospital was local as distinct from regional was thought to be part of the explanation. No doubt the Minister will tell us how far difficulties with the trade unions are holding matters up.
Although I have given the Minister notice, I have not given him much notice, that I will refer but briefly to an article that appeared in the Sunday Times on 3rd June by a gentleman called Mr. Brian Deer. It was quite a thorough article. It begins in this way:
"The most ambitious project ever devised in Britain to prevent mentally ill patients from being detained needlessly in top-security hospitals and prisons is in risk of collapse because health authorities say they do not have the money to run them."
That would seem to imply that the Government were at fault. But in the same article Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the health Minister, is reported as accusing health authorities of,
"diverting money for secure units into other projects".
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us how far it is true that the cuts imposed by the present Government are holding matters up and how far it is the fault of the health authorities by diverting money to other projects.
The issue here is not merely quantitative. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to tell us what the Government have in mind when they say that they are in favour of regional secure units. That phrase is a hit of an incantation. It is high time that the Government restated their true objective. The matter cannot be settled today in 1984 by reference to the Butler Committee. We want to know what today in 1984 is considered to be the point and purpose of regional secure units by Her Majesty's Government. After all, these units, quite correctly, are relatively expensive. The staffing ratio is high: two nurses to every patient, which seems to be the accepted proportion. It is difficult to make an exact comparison with special hospitals but it is a very much higher ratio of nurses to patients than special hospitals can provide. The cost per patient seems to be between £600 and £700 a week, but for that money one could go to any private nursing home outside the top bracket.
One great merit of these units is the specialist staff. There is an additional training for all nurses who work in them. There is no doubt that the results in these imaginative units should be better than those in the
378
average mental or special hospital. It is too early to say that this has already been demonstrated; there has not been enough experience but I am confident that as time goes on it will be. But we, the general public, are entitled to ask what are the aspirations of the Government? When the economic difficulties and any problems with staff and psychiatrists have been overcome, where do they hope this great experiment will finish?
I gathered recently from visiting two of these units that a wider measure of autonomy is conceded to the regions. In fact, I am under the impression that marked variations between one region and another are already evident. I do not say that that is wrong. If we see the present stage as one of experiment, as indeed I do, it may be that we shall learn more by studying a number of different approaches than if there were some monolithic arrangement. I will mention one or two topics and ask whether the Minister has any guidance to offer.
Who do we think ought to be treated in these units? In Rainhill, Merseyside, I was told that 90 per cent. of the patients came from the courts in one way or another. They could be called forensic patients. The other 10 per cent. had probably at some time been in trouble with the law. However, at Runwell Hospital near Southend, 10 out of 24 patients in secure conditions were forensic and 14 were non-forensic. I do not say that Rainhill is necessarily right and Runwell wrong or vice-versa. These represent completely different compositions. Incidentally, I may say in passing, for perhaps it is just worth mentioning, there were vacancies at Runwell in the section reserved for women. It may mean that women are not coming forward or proving to be quite the people required to the extent expected.
The staff at Rainhill were proud, and, I am sure, justly proud, of their dynamic approach. The average time spent by a patient in the unit is something like nine months. From the beginning, the patient is made to be aware of a movement forward towards freedom in contrast with what is sometimes referred to as the more static atmosphere of a special hospital. At Runwell, there is less emphasis on a fixed period. Some patients may come for a few days only; others may expect to stay almost indefinitely. As the number of units increases, we may expect to see an increase in these variations.
On all sides—and here, I am sure, there is unanimity—it is stressed that there has been a lot of fresh thinking on all these matters since the publication of the Butler Report. Much emphasis is laid by everyone on the need to see these units not in isolation but as part of an elaborate network of services affecting offenders and non-offenders alike. When I visited Rainhill, for example, a probation officer was present who provides liaison with former patients who are now being looked after in the community. At Runwell, there are 24 secure places but 18 other places were treated as a kind of back-up for the patients on their way to the community. Here, as at Rainhill, much contact is preserved with patients after they leave the hospital.
At Rainhill and at Runwell, as, I am sure, with other units as they develop, progress is intended to be continuous. If all goes well, at a certain point the

379
patient will be allowed parole and will be allowed to go shopping on his or her own. I take it that all such developments are approved by the Minister and his advisers.
My Lords, I must come to an end, but cannot do so without paying my tribute to the enthusiasm, confidence and pioneering spirit that I found among the staff in the units that I visited. They deserve to succeed. They will succeed. They have chosen a very difficult but infinitely rewarding vocation. They have devoted their lives to the care and treatment of a large number of afflicted human beings on the borderline between sin and sickness. From the conversations that I had with patients in the two units I visited, I feel confident that the efforts of doctors and staff are truly appreciated. But the Government have still a large responsibility. I hope and believe that the Minister will discharge some part of it at least by what he tells us this evening.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl's initiative in putting down his Unstarred Question for debate this evening. There may not be, at this hour, many people in the Chamber but there is no doubt that a debate of this kind in your Lordships' House does have the effect he is seeking in supporting and encouraging the very important work that is taking place in the penal system or in the hospitals. I should also like to thank him for his generous reference to me at the start of his remarks.
The mentally abnormal offender, the disordered offender, as he tends to be called now, who was the subject of the Butler report a decade ago, tends to fall into a no man's land lying between the special hospitals, the open psychiatric hospitals and, only too often, the prisons. It is difficult to decide in many cases whether such people will respond to treatment or not. Each case has to be considered individually, as has the degree of security that is necessary for the protection of the public. Just how many men and women in prison are mentally disordered, whether or not their state constitutes actual mental illness, nobody knows. But anyone familiar with the penal system can be in no doubt that there are considerable numbers of people in prison who would be much better off in hospital.
Here I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the Parole Board, although I have no direct responsibility for mentally disordered offenders inside or outside the prisons. However, I am naturally—as many others who are aware of the situation—deeply concerned about those offenders who are recognised by the courts as being mentally ill and needing treatment, but who are sent to prison because there is nowhere else for them to go.
The power to transfer an inmate, once he is there, from prison to hospital already exists, providing certain conditions are fulfilled. But the problem has been to find a hospital that will take a mentally ill offender. The reluctance of many hospitals and some doctors to receive such patients is quite understandable. They tend to be highly disruptive and on occasion can present a threat to other patients and
380
to the staff. They are rarely welcomed in ordinary psychiatric wards and in any event some form of secure provision is essential. Until comparatively recently, with the opening of small secure units on an interim basis in most of the regions, the problem had got worse since Lord Butler reported in 1974. The addition of a fourth special hospital has relieved the pressure of numbers, and the disgraceful overcrowding, to which Lord Butler and his colleagues referred, in the special hospitals. On the other hand, the consequence of the "open-door" policy in psychiatric hospitals, desirable as it may be in itself, has led inevitably to a marked reduction in the number of locked wards. As a result, the courts have sometimes had no alternative but to sentence mentally ill offenders to imprisonment because no hospital place is available. Once in prison, they have usually been denied the treatment that they require, as well as affording a great deal of difficulty to an already overstretched prison service.
So that is a pretty black picture. But for once, my Lords, it is a problem with a solution; only a partial solution, it is true, but a solution which is now in sight. Painfully slow as it has been, the establishment of the secure units in most regional health authorities represents an important step forward, as the noble Earl. Lord Longford, recognised in his own speech. We cannot tell whether the scale will be adequate but, where they exist, the facilities, the treatment. and the approach all seem to me to be admirable. From inquiries I have made as to the extent of the current provision, the general picture seems to be that there are six permanent regional secure units providing a total of 216 places that are now open, with a further two units which have been completed but are not yet open. These contain 68 places. Four regional secure units providing another 249 places are under construction, with four more permanent units planned. These will provide an additional 175 places. All in all, there should he provision in regional secure units for up to some 500 or so patients by the end of 1984 or early next year, rising to 650 in 1986–87.
I shall look forward with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has to say about these figures, particularly as they fall short of the target of 1,000 that the noble Earl mentioned earlier. I, too, understand that, because of staffing and other difficulties, not all the places that have been completed are in fact in use. In the meantime, several interim secure units have been established in converted existing accommodation: and these are likely to be replaced when the new purpose-built units are completed and brought into use.
It was one of these interim units, located in Ealing, which I visited in preparation for this debate. I was greatly encouraged by what I saw. In a small but well laid-out unit of 14 beds, there was an effective but not unduly obtrusive standard of physical security. The medical and nursing staff seemed to be keen and enthusiastic, with a high nurse-to-patient ratio. Each patient—both men and women—in the unit had a single bedroom with excellent toilet and recreational facilities. When we reflect that some of the patients in a unit such as this come (and in the future, we must hope, will increasingly come) from prison, the contrast is with a completely different world.

381
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is to reply to this debate tonight, and I both heard the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in another context say yesterday that he has learnt to judge most of the institutions that he visits fairly quickly by their atmosphere. That struck me as a very true remark; and at St Bernard's Wing of the Ealing Hospital the atmosphere was encouraging and positive. The staff are well aware that they have a difficult but immensely worthwhile task to do, and they gave every evidence of relishing the opportunities.
Of course the regional secure units, even if and when the programme is complete, cannot solve all of the problems of mentally disordered offenders who are imprisoned. Nevertheless, for the first time in my experience I left a mental hospital uplifted rather than downcast in spirit.
Let me end by asking the Minister two questions: one on an important matter of policy, and the other on a more detailed point. Is it anticipated that virtually all the places in the regional secure units, initially at any rate, will be taken up by patients, whether received from the courts or from special hospitals or from prisons, who have committed criminal offences in the past and who continue to be a danger to others; or, if only a proportion of the patients in these units are to be offenders, what proportion is that likely to be?
I submit that the first priority should be given to mentally ill offenders, to people who have been in front of the courts and who have been found to require treatment and are expected to respond to it. They can only receive treatment in a secure environment. I believe their need is greater than that of long-stay patients, who are less susceptible to treatment, or of non-offenders, who should receive treatment in psychiatric hospitals within the National Health Service, with whatever degree of security is appropriate to their condition. I recognise that that is easier to say than to do, but in the case of the convicted offender there is no choice. It has to be either a special hospital or a prison or a regional secure unit. Those of your Lordships who have seen the conditions in prisons in which mentally disordered patients needing treatment are confined will, I feel sure, understand why I wish to see that particular group of people given priority.
The second question is this. When is it intended to give effect to the new powers contained in the Mental Health Act 1983 which allow a court to remand an accused person to hospital for a report on his mental state or for a period of treatment? Until now, a court has had the power only to remand in custody or on bail. When this provision is brought into effect it will be a useful additional power for the courts. I believe the courts will make good use of it. There is little doubt that a number of judges in the Crown Courts as well as magistrates should welcome it, and I hope that the regional secure units will co-operate in receiving mentally disordered persons who have appeared before the courts and have been remanded to hospital for reports.
The delays in implementing this programme have undoubtedly been deplorable, whatever the reason. The obstacles have not yet been overcome. Staffing shortages, the attitudes of regional health authorities
382
and some doctors, health service union disputes and other factors, itemised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, all remain to be resolved. But, that said, slowly and arduously, a new development of fundamental importance is taking shape. It is one which can have a significant impact on the penal system of Britain, where real improvements in standards are few and far between.
10.3 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this debate tonight. Before coming to the House I, too, armed myself with some statistics obtained from the Department of Health. They relate to October of last year, so I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the situation as it now exists is an improvement on the figures that I have.
Out of the 1,000 places planned in the country, in October 294 had been built and created. That appeared to me quite cheering when I first looked at it, because it was an improvement on the position as, I had known it before. But when you start to read down the notes in the margin against the places that are built and ready, you find that in October of last year only 145 of them were staffed and occupied. Inevitably, one of the tragedies is that the revenue allocations to regional health authorities in support of the regional secure units have been such that they are unable to staff them. In my experience, the main difficulty is not that of finding staff: the main difficulty is the lack of revenue.
A lot of the blame for the slowness of the development of regional secure units is frequently put at the door of regional health authorities themselves. It is often said that they are not totally convinced that these units are necessary. I believe that that is unfair, and I should like to use the few minutes at my disposal to give an example of the development that took place in the region of which I was chairman until 1982.
When the announcement first came that the Department of Health and Social Security were finally prepared to set aside special funding for the regional secure units, that announcement was welcomed within my region and. I believe, in most regions. As has already been said, at that time the psychiatric services in every region followed generally the open door policy. It was therefore almost impossible for the regional authorities to provide a place for the mentally ill offender. I can remember vividly my regional medical officer sitting up late in the evening ringing one hospital after another trying to find a place for a mentally ill offender for whom the court had told us we had to find a hospital place. So it was obviously with enthusiasm that the regions received the allocation of special funds for the creation of regional secure units.
In my own region, we immediately set up a working party. We looked through the region and we found one hospital, the Royal Earlswood Hospital, where we believed that we could provide the secure beds that it was our responsibility within our region to provide. We went through all the planning procedure and through all the consultation with the local residents, and throughout we kept the Department of Health and

383
Social Security informed about what we were doing. It culminated in a submission to the Secretary of State for a go-ahead.
Early in 1979, when we felt that we had achieved the right answer and that any day the go-ahead would be given by the Secretary of State, to our horror we were told that it was refused. We were given two reasons why it was refused. One was that it was felt to be inappropriate to have within the same unit, although properly divided, psychiatrically ill patients and mentally handicapped patients. There may have been something in that, but our proposal entailed a complete division between the two types of patients. We were also given the answer that one of the health service unions, COHSE, was on the point of producing a report on the treatment of psychiatric offenders, and that therefore it would he preferable not to go ahead with our development. That was obviously a great disappointment after all the work that had gone into planning the scheme.
In retrospect, it may have been a good thing that we did not go ahead quite as quickly with that unit, because the creation of one large regional secure unit in virtual isolation from the rest of the psychiatric service in the region could have run the risk of labelling the patients as "impossible", and might just have created a special group of forensic patients in mini-special hospitals not too different from Broadmoor in the minds of most people outside.
As a result of the refusal to proceed, the region had to rethink its policies in order to cope with its responsibilities towards these special patients. This resulted in a decision to develop a much smaller regional secure unit at Netherne Hospital with about 25 beds, and at the same time create secure wards or, if you like, interim units in some psychiatric hospitals on a district basis.
The advantage of such a scheme is that the regional secure unit does not become isolated but becomes an integral part of the psychiatric services of the region. The unit then becomes an assessment unit as well as a short-term secure unit aimed at integrating patients into the full psychiatric services of the region, with the aim of the movement of patients from the regional secure unit to normal psychiatric hospitals, and finally back again into the community.
I have become convinced that the regional secure unit itself must not be too large and that the integration of the service between the psychiatric hospitals and the hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and the creation of a limited amount of secure accommodation in those hospitals, will provide a better service. I believe that many regions in England are thinking along those lines today.
I should like a statement from the Government as to whether they are still wedded to the rather larger regional secure units or whether they accept that a more integrated system is preferable. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about those alternatives.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, like the previous speakers, I am most grateful to the noble Earl
384
for giving us this fresh opportunity to discuss this important subject which, unlike the subject we discussed earlier, is apparently one in which the voice of the Cross-Bencher can appropriately be heard. I am bound to say that the history of this subject does not make it one of the most glorious chapters in our island's story. It is certainly a topic that seems to benefit from parliamentary stimulus from time to time.
I agree with the noble Earl that not very much is to be gained by going into detail about the lamentable earlier history, and that it will be more profitable to consider where we go from now on. All the same, I am bound to say that it is quite distressing to recall that a working party in the old Ministry of Health recommended as long ago as 1960 the setting up of secure units. The department commended that proposal, but nothing happened, with the single possible exception of one faltering experiment which turned itself into a specialised adolescent unit.
I cannot deny that I then had some personal involvement with the setting up of the Butler Committee, and though I had left public service quite soon after. I was not all that surprised when the committee submitted their interim report, to which reference has been made, proposing as a matter of great urgency the setting up of secure units to provide 2,000 beds, so as to fill the yawning gap between the overcrowded special hospitals and the open-door policies of the ordinary psychiatric hospitals. That is the second yawning gap of which we have heard today. We shall discuss how far progress has been made in filling that gap.
It is, incidentally, a matter of some mild interest that in these days of enhanced prices of Government publications, that report of the Butler Committee cost a modest 14p.
Once again the recommendation was accepted and this time money was promised for staff and buildings—and once again for years nothing happened. It was an issue on which the late Lord Butler felt very deeply, and one of his very last appearances in this Chamber was when he came, at some personal inconvenience, to support a question asking about the lack of progress.
There are certainly signs that things are at last on the move. I am bound to say—even if this sounds a bit carping—that progress never quite seems to keep up with the forecasts held out to us. I leave aside any discussion of the interim arrangements, apart from saying that the rather glowing account given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, makes one regret all the more the delays in getting the programme under way.
The list of regional projects for permanent units listed in Mr. Patten's reply in another place (to which the noble Earl referred) shows that there are plans for a sizeable total of beds. According to that reply—and so far as I know this is the latest information given to Parliament, whatever other estimates have been given to noble Lords, or whatever the noble Baroness may know about—there do not seem to be all that many actually in use. We were told that in March there were four purpose-built units open and that on 30th September 1983—which seems to be the last date for

385
which figures were available—there were 75 beds available in those four units. What we were not told is whether or not all 75 beds were occupied, or whether or not there were problems of being unable to use them due to lack of staff or staff disputes for one reason or another. No doubt there has been progress since March and the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give us complete figures when he comes to reply. But figures are by no means the end of the story. Various references have been made to staffing problems. I go along with those, but I say that it would be helpful to know whether or not there are problems regarding recruitment, union disputes, and so forth.
What about training? It would be interesting to know what training is provided in handling disturbed behaviour—an art which for understandable reasons has tended to die out in the ordinary hospitals. Who arranges that training? In running the units, are educational and work facilities provided, as recommended by the Butler Committee? Are the units used, or are they planned to be used, for assessment purposes, and are staff provided accordingly?
I take it, incidentally, that the new Mental Health Act Commission will in due course be addressing itself to the operation of these units, but I imagine it has had its hands full and has not yet been able to get round to these units in any detail.
I do go along with the thought that the most important question is whether the Government themselves are quite clear as to the purposes to be served by these units and whether the profession and those responsible for running the units are themselves fully aware of what the Government consider those purposes to be. The number of patients is so small, so far, that it is obviously premature to come to any overall judgment. For example, there has been no effect at all yet on the population of Broadmoor, but there are some slightly disquieting pieces of evidence.
In the Parliamentary reply by Mr. Patten which was referred to, it was stated that in the Oxford region planning was proceeding for a 20-bed unit but the hospital hoard, it was said, was reassessing policy on security for mentally ill people in the light of its strategic shift towards community based services. One wonders, just what does that mean? Is there a national Government policy to press on with secure units or not? If there is can a region, if it wishes, opt out, as it were, from Government policy? How far is this policy of local experiment to go?
This question of admissions, to which reference has been made, is pretty crucial. The Butler Committee itself, if one looks back at the interim report, thought from the outset that the units should have a mixture of offenders and non-offenders, but, having regard to what the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, have said, may I ask whether there is any national policy and are guidelines laid down as to how this mix should best be achieved if, indeed, it is policy to have such a mix? As regards admissions generally, I think it is not unfair to say that the 1980 report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists found it a good deal easier to say which patients would not be suitable, rather than to say exactly which patients should be admitted.
386
We have heard quite a bit about differing practices in the different units. For my part, I understand that some of them have already adopted the policy that they will refuse admission to anyone thought likely to need more than a year's treatment; whereas I recall that, in an address which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave to a symposium in Chester last year, he referred to an important part of the unit's role as bringing together patients who may be amenable to 18 months to two years of specialist treatment. One is bound to ask: who is right? Who finally determines the policy, whatever it may be? Here again, what are the limits within which local experiments can be made? On other aspects, is there any central guidance about involving the local social services department and the probation service and, indeed, about involving the local community whether through a league of friends or a visiting committee, or whatever?
In conclusion, I just say this. I think that the main danger, which must somehow or other be avoided, is that of treating these units as isolated institutions outside the main stream of psychiatric treatment. It seems to me that they must rather be looked on as providing their own specialised contribution to the whole range of facilities for dealing with one of the most difficult problems facing our society. We shall be in a pretty sorry state unless there is a clear concept of how each part of the pattern fits together—the special hospitals, the ordinary NHS hospitals, the prisons, the community services and now the regional secure units. I am among those who wait with great interest to hear how the Government see that last element fitting into the continuum of care.
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Earl. I would just like to say that it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He and I are the only two Cross-Bench Peers who have spoken the whole day. I have a feeling that the House would not want me to speak for long; it has had a long working day. But as I come from the North I just wanted to say a few words.
Credit should be given where credit is due. The Northern Region went ahead of all the other regions and established the first secure unit. This is in the grounds of St. Luke's Hospital in Middlesbrough. I have spent a day at that unit. As the regional health authorities were supposed—as the noble Earl's Question states—to establish those units, the Northern Region should be congratulated on obeying the instructions that all regions were given.
There is no doubt that some of the units have many problems that have to be overcome or lived with. They are very expensive to run. They are a combination of a prison and a hospital unit within a hospital. Other hospital staff may look at the unit with suspicion. Because it is such a secure unit with double locked gates, the staff within the unit could become isolated from other hospital staff. Within the units there is a very high ratio of staff to patients. Because patients and staff live at very close quarters, it is important that the selection of staff should be carefully considered. I would say that, unless there is a very good team approach and compatibility among staff, there might be problems.

387
The more secure the units are the more rehabilitation is required to get the patients back into a normal environment and eventually back into society. Are not the units meant as short-term and assessment units? May I ask the Minister how long patients are meant to reside in those very close quarters? Many of them are difficult patients to place. May there not be a tendency to leave them there for years and thus block the beds for other patients who might benefit from an intensive, well staffed programme?
This year I visited St. Andrew's Hospital, Northampton. That is an independent hospital, set in large spacious grounds. For years that hospital has taken, on a contractual basis, difficult patients from many regions. I tried to ascertain why it had coped where other hospitals had not. One reason may be the high ratio of staff to patients. The secure units have that too. But the other reason may be a reward system for patients. Has the NHS studied that means?
The Yorkshire Region is about to open its secure unit at Wakefield. The hold-up has been staff negotiations. I think it is important to look very carefully at the existing units to monitor the successes and failures, to learn from the mistakes and be sure that there are plenty of recreation and therapy facilities. These were inadequate at the St. Luke's unit.
These are difficult patients. Many of them are young. One should hope that assessment and short-term treatment will be the main aim, so that the stay in these units will not be for too long.
All penal institutions have a board of visitors. I wonder whether these secure units should not have attached to them a board comprised of a few interested lay people who would be seen and would represent the interests of the patients and those of the unit, which I feel will need some outside representation. Community health councillors do not have the time and are not so closely attached to individual units as are boards of visitors. I would ask the DHSS to look into this. It must not be forgotten that these are special units with very special problems. They need a great deal not only of monetary but also of moral support.
I hope the Minister, after his long hours in this Chamber, will be able to answer some of our questions, the main ones being approximately how long patients should stay and which patients qualify for treatment in these secure units.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House, as well as the disturbed or dangerous mentally disordered offender, and possibly the non-offender, who could benefit from psychiatric treatment in hospital, owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this important debate. The noble Earl has explained the concern about the future, which prompted him to initiate the debate. His concern has been echoed by every other speaker. We believe that concern to be well-founded.
The position of this relatively small group of unfortunate patients is quite unacceptable. Moreover, they are patients who do not, by the nature of their affliction, generate a sympathetic response from the
388
community at large, particularly when NHS funds are under pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has outlined the deplorable record of the last decade. Ten years have gone by since the powerful Butler Committee recommendation that there be 2,000 beds in secure units. That recommendation was accepted 10 years ago. The Government of the day committed themselves to the provision of a minimum of 1,000 beds. But, as at 30th September of last year, the total number of permanent places staffed and available—though I am not quite sure whether that term means that they are fully operational—in the 14 regions of England was 87. In addition, there were six or 10 places available in Wales. So progress, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has been painfully slow.
The provision of the secure units is clearly a regional planning issue in England and a Welsh Office planning issue in Wales. Central Government departments may say that the regions or the health authorities have fallen down on their task. It is equally arguable that central Government have also fallen down on their task.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that there is some evidence that some dedicated doctors and staff in some districts are, in retrospect, possibly gratified that it has not been possible for their districts to move forward faster, and that, meanwhile, important lessons have been learnt through trial and error. But, on the other hand, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that some of the health authorities may have lacked the necessary enthusiasm, or awareness of what can and should be done, and that the central departments have not been exercising their role in a sufficiently positive way to ensure the provision of the facilities along the lines recommended by the Butler Committee and modified in the light of experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has already referred to the important statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in the other place on 7th March. The information in that statement referred to the position as at 30th September. According to those statistics, 284 beds had been provided, 209 beds were under construction, tenders for 40 beds were under consideration, and planning was proceeding for 165 beds. When this programme is completed, whenever that may be, there will be about 700 beds available. I say "whenever that may be" because it is possible, on the evidence of a Welsh Office consultative paper, issued about a fortnight ago, that some of the beds would not be available until the eighth year from now. The Welsh Office consultative paper, issued on 14th June, relates to 60 new places in secure units to be planned and made available in Wales. But it acknowledges that half of those places, which have been talked about at this stage, will not be available until the eighth year after the decision to proceed is taken.
Another question has to be asked. Even when the beds are available, how soon will it be before they are fully operational? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has underlined the significance of the Under-Secretary of State's statement on 7th March. I am sorry if I

389
appear to be descending into details, but I think that the details are important. Only the 10-bed Runwell unit has been described as being fully operational. Of the 30 beds in Middlesbrough, only 20 were staffed and available. Perhaps the Minister will explain the distinction between the term "fully operational" and the beds being "staffed and available". Of 60 beds at the Towers Hospital, Leicester, only 15 were staffed and available. Of 30 beds at the Langdon Hospital, Dawlish, only 10 were staffed and available. Of 50 beds at Rainhill Hospital, only 30 were staffed and available. In other words, of the 180 places described as being available, just over half are not staffed.
These occupancy figures demonstrate that there are difficulties in getting the units operational. Reference has been made to the difficulties. We have been told that there has been community resistance in some areas, union resistance, difficulties in training or recruiting trained staff, and possible clinical disagreement locally about the criteria for admission or about management. There may also be administrative inertia. The House, I am sure, will want to know whether the departments, after the experience of the last few years with interim units and permanent units, have now identified the problems that appear to have plagued the units. Have they found ways of resolving them? If the problems have not been identified correctly, and if they have not been resolved, they will continue to obstruct, inhibit, or even prevent progress.
We wish also to have more information, though not necessarily tonight, about the units which are described as being fully operational. How many patients are admitted in a year? What has been their average length of stay? Again, the question has been asked: what percentage of the patients who have been admitted are offenders, and what percentage are non-offenders? How many patients have passed in progressive steps from the units into the community, freedom and normal existence? Those are questions which have been raised this evening by a number of noble Lords.
We want more rapid progress with the implementation of the policy, if there is a commitment, a continuing commitment, to it. We should be mindful that the consequence of not having psychiatric secure units is that people who are in need of treatment are detained in prison. Some patients who are in special hospitals could be transferred to such units and so ease the conditions in the special hospitals. The courts are unable to make appropriate hospital orders and have become increasingly impatient.
As we have said, the position is unacceptable and worrying. Therefore, in the short term specific action is expected of the departments. It is for consideration whether the DHSS and the Welsh Office should establish a task force or a catalyst group (call it what you may) within the departments, with special responsibility for monitoring closely the progress towards establishing permanent regional secure units, to consider, discuss and promote possible ways in which the establishment of the units can be speeded up substantially, and to monitor the operation of the units, once established, including the extent to which prisons and special hospitals could transfer offenders
390
to the units. I should be grateful if the department could consider the desirability of setting up such catalyst groups at the DHSS and the Welsh Office.
10.43 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for raising this important issue, and to assure him that the Government are fully committed to the RSU programme. The establishment of a network of regional secure units is an integral part of a comprehensive range of services for care and treatment and it should not be seen in isolation from the mainstream of psychiatric care.
I think your Lordships might find it helpful if I put the regional secure unit programme in a national context. We have heard tonight quite a lot of statistics and figures, and at this hour even I am getting slightly confused, having already had quite a lot today. But the position nationally is that six permanent RSUs are now open and two further units are completed though not yet open; but they will open later this year. Three permanent RSUs and a five-unit multi-site scheme are under construction. All but one of these are expected to be complete this year, and, in addition, four more permanent RSUs are at various planning stages. The six that are open, when fully staffed, will provide 216 places. The places are being brought into use on a phased basis, and I think that that is an important point to bear in mind when we talk about staffing versus availability. I understand that currently 100 beds are staffed and available for use.
So far as concerns the noble Earl's suggestion that lack of co-operation could be delaying the establishment or staffing of RSUs, I can say that that is not the case. There might have been some difficulties in the past, but these were general difficulties with unions in mental hospitals receiving difficult patients.
I also said, I think, that two further units were completed but not yet open. Both are expected to admit their first patients during this year. In order to get the statistics right, perhaps I should add for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that the latest available information is, as I have said, that 100 beds in six permanent RSUs are staffed and available. So far as timing on the 100-bed unit at Rubery Hill, Birmingham, is concerned, it has slipped. The region's present plans suggest that by the end of 1985 about 500 places countrywide in 14 permanent units will be available; by the end of 1986 about 580 beds are planned to be available; and more beds will become available in 1987 and later years. I shall of course check those statistics—we have heard quite a lot of them bandied about this evening—and if I have been in any way inaccurate I shall let your Lordships know.
I am well aware that there has been widespread criticism about delays in establishing RSUs; that there have been allegations that the Government's attitude towards them is lukewarm, and that resources set aside have not been properly used by some health authorities. I want to say a few words about those criticisms and perhaps dispel some of the myths which have arisen, but I should first like to say how we see RSUs fitting into the rest of the psychiatric service.
As I mentioned earlier, our aim with the programme of regional secure units is to form part of

391
a comprehensive service. This consists of community services, including, for example, primary care, inpatient care in a variety of settings, regional secure units and special hospitals. They are all inter-related and inter-dependent. It is essential that regional secure units should not be seen and treated as isolated units outside the main stream of psychiatry, and I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. This is, to a certain extent, what happened in the past to the special hospitals. It resulted in unnecessary difficulties in placing patients in facilities that met their current needs, and it also created gaps in the system instead of continuity.
First, there is the question of delay. We and our predecessors have been criticised about the rather long-drawn-out timescale of this operation. My noble friend Lord Windlesham described it as painfully slow. Local anxieties have given rise to opposition in places, and this, in turn, has led to delays. But RSUs were a new concept, and detailed discussions have been needed with health authorities, and by them with professions, staff, other statutory bodies and the public. Services for mentally disordered people are, regrettably, not among the most popular, not necessarily because it is a time of tight resources—as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, seemed to suggest—in every case. Facilities for those who may have offended and come before the courts are even less popular. It is not surprising that people need reassurance, and that they are anxious and sometimes hostile about the setting up of a secure unit near to their homes, especially when confronted with some of the rather misleading articles and headlines they see in the press. If the price of obtaining local understanding and agreement is a certain delay, it is a price worth paying, particularly if the community can later adopt the very important supportive role for the unit.
There is undoubtedly an urgent need for regional secure units—no one would deny that. Ever since the inception of the National Health Service it has been part of its responsibility to provide facilities to treat all types of patient with mental disorder. But with the advent of the "open door" philosophy, to which my noble friend Lord Windlesham also referred, in some psychiatric hospitals and the emergence of district general hospital psychiatric departments, it became increasingly difficult for the National Health Service to care for some patients. It is against the interests of patients who do not need the high security of a special hospital to place them there; and the overcrowding if we did would be against the interests of the special hospital patients who do, unfortunately, need to be there.
Secondly, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, health authorities have been criticised for not using the whole of the RSU revenue allocations for the RSU programme. Ministers have been criticised for not directing them to do so. Let me put the record straight: these allocations were set aside from funds voted for health services: the money is therefore NHS money and not a new source of funds; if it had not been set aside in this way it would have gone to the NHS anyway. So where health authorities have not been able to use all of it on secure facilities they have been encouraged to use it on psychiatric services generally. I am pleased to say that returns from regional health
392
authorities show that practically all these revenue allocations are now being used on psychiatric services and an increasing and substantial proportion on secure facilities as these are brought into use.
In the meantime, until permanent regional secure units become operational throughout the country, regional health authorities have been asked to designate particular hospitals to provide treatment and facilities in conditions of security. A range of facilities has been developed, including the provision of designated interim secure units in which about 300 places are currently available as well as over 900 beds in other types of secure facilities, including special care wards.
So far as finance for RSUs is concerned, between 1976–77 and 1983–84 regional health authorities received over £66 million central revenue support as a contribution towards the running costs of regional secure units and interim secure facilities: nearly £12 million has been made available for 1984–85.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the Sunday Times article and the use to which RSU revenue is put. Since 1976 the Department has identified a special recurring amount in RHAs' general revenue allocations for the funding of the revenue costs of RSUs and of the interim secure facilities pending the establishment of RSUs. The RSU revenue allocation is derived from general funds voted from the National Health Service, but it was always recognised that RHAs might not be able to spend the whole of this amount on secure facilities.
After a slow take-up in the first year the proportion spent on psychiatric services rose from over 60 per cent. in 1977–78 to 90 per cent. in 1982–83, and the proportion spent on secure facilities also rose steadily and in 1982–83 was 60 per cent. Department officials are currently trawling regional health authorities on the use to which the 1983–84 revenue allocations were put. The decision in 1976 to leave the revenue funds within the general allocation was taken in order to avoid money being lost to the health service when local delays, such as adverse decisions by planning authorities, prevented the expansion that was intended. Moreover, some health authorities have also been putting to one side, and carrying forward, some of their revenue to be used when their permanent units begin to operate. I hope that answers some of the noble Earl's points about the assertions which the article made.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I quoted what the article said that the Minister had said. I do not know whether the article was correct in the quotation from the Minister of Health.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have not seen the quote but I shall certainly look into it and let the noble Earl know. On the capital side, some £55 million has been set aside for the building of permanent regional secure units, of which over £23 million has now been allocated. A further £5 million is likely to be allocated in the current financial year.
Turning very briefly to research, the regional secure unit programme breaks new ground. To that extent it is an experiment. But it is an experiment founded on

393
a lot of earlier experience, and with clear and specific objectives. An integral part of the process will be research and evaluation of how the units are functioning, the extent to which they are meeting needs and whether they have brought to light any other gaps in our psychiatric and related services. The department is funding a three-year research study under the leadership of Professor Gwynne Jones into just these sorts of questions. His study is now about half way through, and the findings should help all those involved, in both planning and running RSUs, to build on the lessons learned.
On the question of who should be admitted to RSUs—this point was taken up by several noble Lords—those responsible for the patients' care have to make individual decisions with regard to the particular behavioural problems of individual patients and their likely response to treatment. After treatment in an RSU many patients will be transferred to ordinary mental hospital wards and some will be discharged direct into the community. For those who are discharged into the community, detailed arrangements for future care would of course be discussed and agreed before discharge, with the appropriate aftercare services. Social services, probation services and community psychiatric nursing services all play a major part and this is why it is essential that RSUs should form part of a continuing process of care and not be thought of as isolated units outside the mainstream of psychiatric care. I very much take the message from this short debate that that is what your Lordships would wish.
Some of your Lordships seemed to be under the impression—and perhaps this answers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Windlesham—that RSUs are provided solely, or almost entirely, for offender patients. I ought to make it clear that RSUs are not intended solely for mentally disordered offenders. They provide intensive treatment and rehabilitation in conditions of security—high staffing ratios, as well as physical security—for men and women who are judged by experienced professionals as likely to benefit from the kinds of treatment offered. This applies irrespective of whether or not these men and women are offenders. They are admitted from a variety of referring agencies, including prisons and special hospitals, or direct from courts, other psychiatric hospitals, and the community. It is impossible. I am afraid, to predict what proportion of offender and non-offender patients will be admitted. This will vary from one unit to another and, over time, in any particular unit.
I turn briefly to staffing and a point raised by not only the noble Earl, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Naturally, in the early years of the new RSUs there are likely to be relatively few nursing staff who have extensive experience of nursing patients in these secure conditions, but in many cases there will be a number of nurses in RSUs who have previously worked in interim secure units and who have acquired some relevant experience there. I am also aware that the Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies sponsors short training courses in psychiatric nursing in secure environments.
The number of nurses qualified and unqualified in
394
psychiatric services has increased gradually in recent years and the target for mental illness services of 100 nurses per 100,000 population in the 1975 White Paper entitled Better Services for the Mentally Ill was exceeded some years ago. There may be some difficulties in recruiting trained nursing staff in some parts of the country, but I do not believe that these problems cannot be overcome. I have no reason to believe that there will be any insuperable problems in recruiting suitably qualified medical, paramedical, or other staff for RSUs.
There are many signs that in a couple of years we shall be able to count the introduction of the RSUs as a success story, if perhaps a rather slow-moving one. I think a main reason for this is that this new challenge has attracted high quality medical, nursing and other staff into what previously was rather a neglected sphere.
I, too, should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the doctors, the nurses and the other staff of the secure units. They have a difficult and demanding job, and without their skill and dedication the National Health Service could not possibly provide the caring and effective service which is now developing across the country.
I have a few points which I think it would be useful for me to answer now. I hasten to add that these are in no particular order. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the need for better facilities. I should say that currently the department is carrying out an evaluation of the design of the unit at St. Luke's. As the noble Baroness knows, I have been there and seen it for myself. The design team is considering space standards generally and the need for facilities of various kinds, including those for leisure and recreation. As she knows, the unit at St. Luke's was the first to be opened, and nobody pretends that it is by any means perfect.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked about the difference in approaches to the provision of RSUs being adopted by regions. The two reports, the Butler Report and the Clancy Report, gave general advice on the types of patients for RSUs and on the siting of RSUs. There can be no rigid model for all regions, although the principle of a range of facilities will be generally applicable. The policy will be reappraised in the light of the experience of running both the permanent and the interim units. Different sizes of RSUs are either completed, under construction, or being planned in different regions which were arrrived at in the light of local needs and circumstances after much consultation and consideration within the planning team.
I have visited three of these units. I hope to visit more soon. I cannot say that in visiting any of them, although they have all been different, I have noted any particular weakness in the design of them in the way that perhaps the different approaches by different regions might seem to suggest. So far as Oxford is concerned, the department is in close touch with the Oxford Regional Health Authority about its plans for a secure unit. I understand that consideration is currently being given to the establishment of RSUs in one or two districts in the region. Planning for a unit, primarily for mentally-handicapped patients, at Borocourt Hospital is already under way.

395
Several noble Lords asked about the length of time that a patient would he in one of these units. Up to two years, yes. It is impossible to be absolutely categorical about this because it varies from patient to patient. One would not envisage them being there for longer than two years and, hopefully, for less. I think the important point to make is that in most of these units—certainly all that I have seen—the people who are there are looked after in different degrees of security, depending upon the progress they make throughout their time there. So far as the Mental Health Act Commission are concerned, yes, they are concerned with all detained patients and they have already visited RSUs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the planning of secure facilities in South-West Thames. I can tell her that the department has given consideration to the paper submitted by the region for the development of a regional secure treatment centre and regional forensic psychiatric service and accepts in principle the proposals which have been put forward. The next step will be for the department to agree a formula with the region based on mutual agreement of certain criteria by which the comprehensiveness of the region's proposed service can be judged. I fully accept the noble Baroness's point about the need for a fully integrated service. A letter confirming the department's approval in principle of the region's proposal was sent to the region last week.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham referred to people seen by the courts as needing treatment. I would like to refer to the provision in the new Mental Health Act for giving the courts powers to remand mentally disordered persons in hospital and to make interim hospital orders. As was explained during the proceedings on the Mental Health Amendment Bill of 1982, because of resource considerations it was not possible to implement the remand hospital and interim hospital order provision on 30th September 1983, at the same time as the rest of the Mental Health Act 1983 came into force. We propose to implement these sections on 1st October this year 1984, and we are currently considering comments received from health authorities and others. When the new provisions are brought into force, it is likely that RSUs will accommodate a number of those who will be subject to new provisions and will provide for assessment of a person's response to treatment and need for security.
I close by raising what seems to me to be a crucial issue. After talking to many people and dealing with a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and having undertaken several visits to them and to other parts of this particular psychiatric service, I have a strong feeling that there is still a great deal of uncertainty and a great deal of unnecessary anxiety about the role and functions of RSUs. Some people regard them as mini special hospitals. Others see them as a panacea for resolving all the problems in placing disturbed and mentally-disordered patients and offenders. There are many other misconceptions, and I shall not attempt to catalogue them now. But all the misconceptions create problems for those seeking to set up and run services, particularly where services need to work closely together.
396
It is essential to the success of the programme that we increase the level of understanding of the aims and objectives of RSUs and how they fit into the pattern of treatment and care that I have described. We need more understanding among the public and among some of the professionals in the health service, local authorities and other services. I am sure that the discussion this evening will add to the general understanding, and I would again express my thanks to the noble Earl for the opportunity he has created for this interesting and helpful discussion.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I know the noble Lord has had a very long day, but could he say one word about the point the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I raised about the involvement of the community and the possibility of having boards of visitors, or whatever you may call them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that is a good point. I should like to look into that; I think it makes sense. It works well so far as the special hospitals are concerned, and I am thinking particularly of Rampton. I see no reason why it should not work and I shall look into it and let the noble Lord know.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NUCLEAR TESTS: SERVICEMEN'S PROXIMITY
  NUCLEAR TESTS: SERVICEMEN'S PROXIMITY
  POLICE OFFICERS IN SCOTLAND: LEGAL REPRESENTATION
  POLICE OFFICERS IN SCOTLAND: LEGAL REPRESENTATION
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: REPORT
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: REPORT