Sitting of 18 June 1985

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Free Telephone Information and Advice Service
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has plans to provide the free telephone information and advice service in the Bolton area.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): A free telephone information and advice service is available both in the Bolton area and throughout the country. A member of the public has only to dial 100 and ask the operator for Freefone DHSS.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend consider giving additional publicity to the Freefone service in the Bolton area, which has the largest DHSS office in the north-west region?
    Mr. Whitney: We shall certainly consider anything that we can do. The regional information officers are active in giving publicity to the Freefone service, and certainly the Bolton Evening News and all the relevent television and radio programmes have carried information about the service.

    Children's Homes
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that there are satisfactory procedures available to prevent unsuitable people being employed in children's homes.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he has made to review the disclosure of criminal records to social services departments.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): While I am generally satisfied that local authorities, which are
    152
    responsible for the selection of their own social services staff, and voluntary organisations, exercise proper care in recruiting persons for work in connection with children, I accept that procedures could be improved to assist them in that task. The review of disclosure of convictions policy established by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with which our Department is actively involved, is considering ways in which this can best be achieved.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware of my interest in the Marsh House hostel for mentally handicapped children in King's Lynn? He will be aware that Norfolk county council is in the process of appointing a new head. In the light of previous experience, it is imperative that a person of extremely high calibre is appointed. What can my hon. Friend do to help?
    Mr. Patten: I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep concern about Marsh House, which is in his constituency. He has made that known through correspondence with me and my Department. We are happy to assist Norfolk county council in any way that we can to get the right person for the job. The consultancy service, which my Department offers to social services departments worried about people being put in charge of or having access to children, is widely used. During 1984 there were some 12,000 references, and the rate of references to that service this year is growing yet again.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of people employed professionally in residential homes are pressing hard for some sort of centralised recording system for people with criminal records? Will he give an assurance that he is consulting them on this difficult matter?
    Mr. Patten: Obviously, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the rightful concern of the highly professional and dedicated people who work in our children's homes throughout the country. The review that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is at present conducting is addressing itself to exactly the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. We hope to have a report within the next couple of months.

    Limited List Drugs
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in appointing an independent expert group to review the list of non-National Health Service drugs on a continuing basis in the light of experience of the operation of the limited list.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We hope to make an announcement shortly on the setting up of a committee to keep the selected list under review, and to ensure that it continues to meet all clinical needs at the lowest possible cost to the National Health Service.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in view of the anxious letters that many hon. Members have received about the operation of the limited list it is essential that the independent body starts its work as quickly as possible? Will he assure me that the British Medical Association will be fully co-operating in it? Will he ask the group to study the position of oral mucolytics as a matter of urgency? Finally, will he assure me that the group will contain a Scottish representative, as we have a separate list in Scotland?
    Mr. Clarke: We are receiving some representations, but I think that the introduction of the selected list is going remarkably smoothly. I am glad to say that the bulk of the medical profession is co-operating in its introduction, as it promised to do. There is a genuine difference of medical opinion about Mucodyne and other similar preparations. The unanimous opinion of our experts was that it had no established clinical value in the treatment of glue ear and other conditions, but that is the first issue that our new committee will examine when it reviews the present list. We are about to consult on the exact membership. I shall bear in mind the needs of other countries.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister assure the House that when there are no alternatives to expensive drugs such as cyclosporin, they will not be removed from the list?
    Mr. Clarke: We have not removed from the list any drugs for which, according to the best expert advice that we can obtain, there is no alternative. The point of having the new committee is to take that advice and keep it up to date.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I do not want to have to write to him and wait weeks for a reply, or table parliamentary questions about this matter? What we need is an early and efficient system that will deal with the matter as quickly as possible at local level.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend tends to press me in letters and in every other way on whether we need an appeals system for individual cases. The fact is that we immediately consulted the BMA when it asked for such a system. We made an extremely reasonable offer, which was described as a climb-down by some of its representatives. However, the climate of medical opinion has changed. My latest information is that it is likely to say that there is no need for such an appeal system. The matter is not in my hands.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister has just mentioned the appeals system. Will he go ahead and implement it unilaterally and allow doctors who wish to use it for the benefit of individual patients the opportunity to do so?
    Mr. Clarke: I have to wait for the formal response from the committee which represents general practitioners, with which I negotiated the arrangements, but I repeat that in the substantial body of medical opinion some have never seen the need for such a system, and that a growing number do not see the need for such a system now. We have to be guided in those matters by the best expert medical and scientific advice that we can obtain. We have to be influenced by the votes cast by the representative committee, representing all GPs.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure me that when the independent review group gets to work — we hope as soon as possible—if it finds that there are reductions that can still be made in the list it will recommend them, and they will be proceeded with?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. The point of continuing the review will be to make sure that we have everything that the patients need on the list, and that we continue to provide those drugs in the most cost-effective way. I think that our estimates of savings
    154
    will go up in future years as more generic alternatives to some of the branded products that are on the list at the moment come on to the market.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the general uncertainty in the profession about the appeals procedure, will the committee examine the possibility of having an across-the-board generic substitution, with the general practitioner having the right to say that there is to be no substitute, which would preserve the best of both worlds?
    Mr. Clarke: As I have not yet had a final response from the General Medical Services Committee I am not sure whether it is right to describe the present position as uncertain. No doubt I shall eventually get a certain response to the reasonable offer that we have made. I know that there are still advocates in the House of full-scale generic substitution, particularly in the Opposition, but it would have a ruinous effect on a wide range of the pharmaceutical industry and, in the end, could cost the country the introduction of valuable new drugs of genuine therapeutic value.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the delay in implementing a review and appeal procedure is doing great damage to the limited list policy, which most of us support?
    Mr. Clarke: I am concerned by my hon. Friend's views, but the moment that we were asked to consider the possibility of an appeals system we entered into urgent discussions with the BMA, and my officials and I had meetings in rapid succession with the representatives of the general practitioners. They were unable to give me an answer to the offer until they had had the conference of local medical committees. They still have not given me a final answer. I think that the people with whom I negotiated feel that a reasonable suggestion was made by the Government. It is up to the doctors to decide whether patients need it.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that I am surprised at his use of the word "smoothly", when I have not had a letter answered about the matter for some months, except for a single letter from Baroness Trumpington, saying that letters would be answered in the future? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to my constituency surgery he would realise how much distress the limited list is causing, not only to my constituents, but to doctors, who are now asking me for appointments because they are against it, too.
    Mr. Clarke: My noble Friend's letter is similar to one that I am sending out, too. I hope that it explains to hon. Members the difficulty, which I know everybody is feeling, about answering letters. I hope that people will understand that there are serious practical problems in answering correspondence about individual patient's symptoms, drugs, and treatment. I also note what the hon. Gentleman said about the number of cases with which he has to deal. A great deal depends on the policy adopted by individual practices. Where the doctor advises that a change of drug is called for, little seems to happen to the patients in consequence. In some practices the patients are being told that Parliament has done this or the Government have insisted upon that, and the result is that some patients start to feel uneasy the moment they are subjected to such lobbying.

    Patient Statistics
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were treated in National Health Service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In 1983, NHS hospitals in England treated some 6 million inpatient cases, 800,000 day cases and 8·5 million new outpatients. That is 650,000 more inpatient cases, 250,000 more day cases and 600,000 more outpatients than in 1978. Early indications are that hospital activity continued to increase in 1984.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures show a remarkable increase in the number of patients treated under the National Health Service since the Government took office? What steps is he taking to ensure that the public know about that great improvement in the NHS?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a question about the number of patients treated. The critics in the Opposition tend to concentrate on the number of beds, the number of staff employed and other inadequate measures. Like my hon. Friend. I am more concerned about the number of patients being treated than about the quantity of furniture in hospitals.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister explain why the outpatients' waiting lists in Mid-Glamorgan almost doubled between 1978 and 1984?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not answer for Mid-Glamorgan, which is a matter for the Welsh Office. However, we are taking steps to obtain more accurate information about waiting lists, which can be an extremely uncertain measure of demand, depending on the way in which the records in different places are kept.
    The important factor is that when we know the length of waiting times and waiting lists for a particular specialty in a particular place, that information should then be used by the health authorities to identify the causes and to take steps by reallocating priorities or altering clinical practices to try to reduce the waiting lists.
    Mrs. Currie: Do not my right hon. and learned Friend's figures show that the NHS is not merely safe with us but is thriving and, indeed, doing far better than it ever did under the Opposition when they were in government?
    On the question of waiting lists, is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that, with the changes in management, health authorities are using their resources more effectively and also to combat waiting lists in specialties?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the very welcome increase in the number of patients being treated is the result of more money being spent on the NHS and better management and use of resources. I do not believe that the Opposition could rival that, given their pledge to restore the old bureaucracy and end the search for cost-effectiveness in the support services. Their spokesman seems more anxious to assure the trade unions that all will go back to the previous arrangements than to concentrate on what is needed to improve the NHS.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Why does the Minister continue to cling to the notion that the number of patients treated is
    156
    an indicator of the health of the nation? For example, the clinicians in my area are pleased that the number of people dialysed for renal defects is declining because of the number of transplants. It is by no means an indicator of the improving health of the nation.
    Mr. Clarke: There are other health indicators and we must keep an eye on them. Although we treat more patients, new demands arise as doctors make more advances. The number of new renal patients has doubled during our period of office. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the number of kidney transplants is now higher than ever before and much higher than anywhere else in western Europe. Although that does not mean that we have satisfied all the demands, it does mean that the NHS is in a very much better state than it has ever been before.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, or deny, that the second surrogacy baby has been born in a NHS hospital, and will he ensure, when considering NHS patients coming forward in the next few months, that neither of the next two surrogacy arrangement children will be allowed to be born in such hospitals when money is being paid on a commercial basis and advantage is being taken of the free NHS service?
    Mr. Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friends strong feelings on the subject, but I urge him to consider the consequences of his suggestion. When an expectant mother presents herself for antenatal care and help with the delivery, it is the duty of the hospital to provide that necessary care and not to refuse it because of the background circumstances. On the other hand, I agree with him in deploring the commercial element in both the births that have taken place so far, and I hope that the measures that are at present in another place will bring that to an end.
    Mr. Dobson: Before the Minister covers himself entirely in a halo of glory because of the hard work of those employed in the National Health Service, will he appreciate that if more people are visiting their GPs and more are receiving outpatient and inpatient treatment, that means that more people are sick? Will he ask what is causing that?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept from the hon. Gentleman that we should pay tribute to the staff of the NHS in achieving these improvements. The figures are a tribute not only to the doctors and nurses but to all who work in the service. The second part of his supplementary question is idiotic and ridiculous if his only answer to the figures showing increased numbers being treated under the NHS is to claim that more people are becoming ill. He will have to do better than that.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of child benefit in the current year.
    Mr. Whitney: It is estimated that expenditure on child benefit in 1985–86—the current financial year—will be £4·4 billion.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that most of that huge sum goes to families who are well above the supplementary benefit level? Is it sensible to churn money around the system so indiscriminately?
    Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend will have noted the examination of that proposition in the Green Paper and the fact that we remain dedicated to the existing structure and basis of child benefit. If child benefit were taxed, the effect on the great majority of working families would be the equivalent of a 30 per cent. reduction in child support.
    Mr. Frank Field: What arguments has the Minister found to be the most effective in his attempts to defend the universality of this benefit?
    Mr. Whitney: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the discussion of that point in the Green Paper. I repeat, we have concluded at this stage that we shall retain the structure and basis of child benefit.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend explain why it is fair and reasonable to pay child benefit to those earning £10,000 or £20,000 a year when he intends to cut housing benefit for pensioners on low incomes?
    Mr. Whitney: This is going over the same ground. The arguments on housing benefit are clearly set out in the Green Paper. Our dedication to child support and the family has been a consistent and reiterated principle of this Administration.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that child benefit is usually paid to women and that, if there are changes in the structure, women could suffer unless both the value of the benefit and the means of payment are safeguarded to ensure that it goes to them?
    Mr. Whitney: That point has consistently been taken into account. It takes us into the area of individual responsibility between husband and wife within the family.

    Tax and National Insurance Systems (Integration)
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the integration of the tax and national insurance systems.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The review team looking into benefits for children and young people received a considerable number of representations advocating the integration of the tax and benefit systems. The review team also heard oral evidence on the subject during its public sessions.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's long-term intention to integrate the tax, benefit and national insurance systems? Will he give an undertaking that nothing will be introduced in the next two years which would make eventual integration more difficult?
    Mr. Newton: It is the Government's intention to bring about closer co-ordination between the tax and benefit systems, and the review proposals contain two important steps in that direction. They are the family credit proposals and, not least, the proposal to change the social security uprating year to the same as the tax year. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall continue in that spirit.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recall that, when it was decided to adjust the national insurance system by giving employers a rebate for a year to compensate them for the introduction of 28 weeks' statutory sick pay, the Government made a great point of the fact that the SSP
    158
    measure imposed a burden on employers for which they would be recompensed? What recompense do the Government expect to give? How much will it cost to compensate employers for having to administer the new family credit scheme?
    Mr. Newton: In proposing the extension of the SSP scheme and the national insurance contribution reduction, the Government laid emphasis on their general desire to reduce employment costs, with the aim of seeking to promote employment. The hon. Lady's point about cost was incidental to that. In the light of experience with SSP, I have no reason to suppose that employers will not readily be able to operate the family credit scheme.
    Mr. Galley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the main difficulty with the family credit scheme will be take-up? There is nothing intrinsic in the new scheme proposed in the Green Paper that will increase take-up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of family poverty will not be resolved until we have at least partial integration of the tax and benefits systems for child benefit, family credit and taxation?
    Mr. Newton: Although I would hesitate to describe it as integration, it is of considerable significance that the proposed method of paying family credit is by directly offseting the tax and national insurance contributions that the beneficiary would otherwise pay. That will be a significant step forward in simplifying receipt of the benefit and in encouraging take-up.

    Social Security Reform
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his proposals in the Green Paper, "Reform of Social Security" to alleviate poverty for low-income families with children.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The proposals have attracted widespread attention and debate in the two weeks since the Green Paper was published. The period of consultation will go on until mid-September.
    Mr. Thompson: As more than half of those on low incomes are families with children, will my right hon. Friend press on with his proposals, through family credit, to eliminate the poverty trap and to increase incentives to work? This will not only be fairer, but will improve employment prospects.
    Mr. Fowler: Family credit is one of the most important proposals in the Green Paper. It will tackle both the poverty trap and the unemployment trap. It will end the situation where people can be better off on benefit than in work, and I think that both sides of the House would want that.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great mistake with the family credit system is that benefits designed to meet the needs of children will no longer be payable to the mothers? Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the 1973 Tory proposals, when women made known their opposition to that proposal in the tax credit scheme? Is he aware that women will oppose this proposal for the family credit scheme and will ensure that benefits designed for children are payable to the mothers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposal will fail for that reason once again?
    Mr. Fowler: I certainly do not accept that the hon. Lady has a right to speak on behalf of all women. One of the difficulties about family income supplement, which family credit replaces, which both parties have faced, is low take-up. Before the hon. Lady goes off into her essays on what is wrong with family credit, it is incumbent upon her to make proposals that will help low income families.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend explain what rational justification there is for taxing impoverished young people into the poverty trap while subsidising the child bearing of duchesses with universal child benefits, except perhaps the desire to prevent them from falling into the rubbery arms of the Liberal party?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not know about the last point. The fact is that child benefit provides the only recognition in the tax or benefit systems of the extra cost of having children. That is a good principle. We would be alone among almost all the countries of western Europe if we turned our backs on child benefit.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the British Association of Social Workers, which says that now that claimants who previously received benefits as of right will have to pass a means test to receive benefits from the social fund, a management review of the decisions that will affect those claimants will be inadequate and that there should be an independent appeals machinery to review the decisions?
    Mr. Fowler: The review process will be adequate to check the administration of the social fund, which will provide better help in many areas for whole groups of people, irrespective of whether they are in or out of work.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much extra revenue will be raised if child benefit was still paid to mothers but taxed as income?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not have the figures, but the effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be to reduce the take-home pay of all heads of families throughout the country. We should need to think twice before doing that.
    Mr. Meacher: If the figures can be given in November, why can they not be given now? What is it that will be known in November 1985 that is not known in June? Is it not absurd that the figures are to be given only after the consultation period is supposed to have ended? Is it not obvious that a cover-up of this kind can be explained only by the fact that the Government have a great deal to hide?
    Mr. Fowler: We have made it absolutely clear from the beginning that we want a debate to take place on the new structure that is set out in the Green Paper. We have also made it clear that when the White Paper is published in the autumn we shall set out a range of illustrative rates. The hon. Gentleman referred to a cover-up. I seem to remember that two months ago the hon. Gentleman put forward proposals on behalf of the Labour party. We have not heard a dicky bird about those proposals since. I challenge the Labour party to publish the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: The Secretary of State gave only a partial response to the question of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). If there is to be more discretion with
    160
    the social fund, will he grapple with the fact that it is crucial that decisions should be able to be challenged in a tribunal on the ground of reasonableness?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall look at the suggestion that the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) have made on this point. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West will accept that we do not want to return to a situation in which inflexibility leads to a decision that is made in one part of the country being applied thoughout the rest of the country. I believe that we want to move away from that unsatisfactory position.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of his first priorities should be to deal with the problem of the working poor? If his reforms are to deal with that problem, it is essential that the substantial savings on social security benefits should be used to eliminate taxation on the working poor.
    Mr. Fowler: The major problem over the working poor is to define low income families with children. Family credit seeks to deal with that problem.

    Invalid Care Allowance
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take to implement the EEC directive on equal treatment in respect of the invalid care allowance.
    Mr. Whitney: The question whether the European Community directive on equal treatment in matters of social security applies to invalid care allowance has been referred to the European Court by the Social Security Commissioner in the case of Mrs. Drake. Any action will depend on the outcome of the commissioner's decision.
    Ms. Richardson: It is not absurd that the Government continually wait to be taken to the European Court before they administer social justice? Why should married and cohabiting women, to whom this allowance should have been applied so long ago, have to wait until the Government are dragged through the courts before they receive justice?
    Mr. Whitney: I remind the hon. Lady that it was the Labour Government who excluded married women from the provision of invalid care allowance and that to implement this measure would result in a ninefold increase of expenditure under this head: from £11 million to £85 million a year.

    Private Chiropodists
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is his policy to encourage district health authorities to reduce the numbers of private chiropodists now involved in contract work for those authorities.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Our policy is to encourage the provision of chiropody in the most cost-effective manner. It is for each district health authority to decide to what extent it should make use of directly employed chiropodists as opposed to private chiropodists on a contractual or sessional basis.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the decision by certain health authorities,

    161
    including south Bedfordshire, to reduce the number of private chiropodists in service is against Conservative policy of encouraging the private sector? Is he convinced that this will save money and will he give an assurance that no authority will be allowed to make such a change without close monitoring by him or by the Department?
    Mr. Clarke: I have not gone into the full details in relation to south Bedfordshire, and I have seen no evidence to justify intervening, but if money can be saved which can then be spent on the rest of the community health service as a result of reducing the proportion of chiropodists employed on a contractual basis it may be entirely consistent with our policy. It can be very expensive to pay items of service fees to chiropodists on a contractual basis, and in some circumstances a better service can be provided by employing more in-house staff.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise district health authorities that when private contractors are employed there should be a differential scale as between those who are state qualified and registered and those who are not, just as a state registered nurse has a different rate of pay from that of a state enrolled nurse?
    Mr. Clarke: The National Health Service uses only state registered chiropodists, whether in-house or on a contractual or sessional basis. I should like to see more use of foot care assistants for the less serious work, as that would help to provide a more cost-effective service and to extend the range of service provided for patients.
    Mr. Galley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that neither he nor the health authorities have policies which discriminate against the employment of privately trained chiropodists and that he will not introduce discriminatory policies such as a tightly drawn registration system?
    Mr. Clarke: I fear that the Health Service is already restricted to state registered chiropodists as a result of regulations passed in the late 1970s. I am aware of the dispute between different branches of the profession and about the type of training given to state registered chiropodists and others, but at present I see no case for intervening in Health Service arrangements, which have been running for some years.
    Mr. Dobson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that about 2,000 of the existing 5,000 chiropodists are likely to retire in the next few years and that if we do not put more money and effort into a massive increase in the training of chiropodists we shall not have even the limited number that we now have?
    Mr. Clarke: Steps are in hand that may lead to the opening of two new skill schools, and the number of chiropodists in training continues to rise. We are also encouraging National Health Service chiropody by accepting the review body's recommendation on the pay of chiropodists in service so that some of the more senior will receive up to 16 per cent. increases in pay by the end of this financial year.

    Family Credit Plan
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider adapting the proposed family credit plan in the social security Green Paper to
    162
    enable mothers to claim directly the benefits for children which are currently proposed to be made payable through the pay packet of the wage earner.
    Mr. Newton: Paying the proposed family credit through the pay packet is an important element in making the credit more effective than family income supplement has proved and in developing sensible co-ordination between the tax and social security systems. It could, of course, be paid to the mother where she is a wage earner.
    Mr. Kennedy: I fully accept the point about the low take-up of family income supplement, but does the Minister agree that paying family credit through the wage packet may not overcome that problem, because a great deal will depend on the co-operation of employers? Does he also agree that in nine cases out of 10 it makes eminent sense for the mother, as the caring parent, to have direct access to funding for her children?
    Mr. Newton: We have planned the new benefit with the hope and intention that take-up of family credit will be better than that of family income supplement, and we believe that the proposed mechanism will assist in achieving that objective. As for who should receive it, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the payment of child benefit will continue to go to the mother. Moreover, as has already been said, I believe that it is more realistic to regard the upbringing of children as a joint responsibility for both parents, and I think that that is how most families think of it.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister give us a firm assurance that the Government's proposals in the Green Paper will not be allowed to result in any reduction in real terms of the totality of expenditure on cash benefits for disabled children and their families?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, given that we do not intend to attempt to settle detailed benefit rates until we have made decisions about the structure, I cannot give him a direct answer to that question. He will, however, have heard my speech in the debate last week when I made it clear that I would expect disabled people generally to be among those whose position would be improved by our proposals.

    Nebulisers
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make provisions for nebulisers to be allocated on prescription within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If a hospital consultant considers that it is clinically essential for a patient to practise nebulisation at home, the health authority may supply the equipment. We consider that this is the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing nebulisers and their driving mechanism on the NHS.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a sorry state of affairs that there are people who are coughing their lungs up, people who have had asthma all their lives, and cannot get a nebuliser? A 22-year old girl in my constituency of Pinxston pleaded for a nebuliser to be provided under the scheme to which the Minister has just referred, but was refused. The people of Pinxston got together and collected the money to try to save her life, only to see that young girl die within a few months. That is the real story about nebulisers, not all that

    163
    guff that the Minister has just trotted out. The truth is that he ought to be giving directions to all health authorities to provide nebulisers to save the lives of young men and women and miners who are riddled with emphysema and coughing their lungs up.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member well knows the other story about nebulisers, which is that of Mr. Gibson, his constituent. We are making sure that if a consultant says that he needs a nebuliser, he will get it on the Health Service. The hon. Member therefore immediately turns to another story, that of a girl in Pinxston. That is why the hon. Member asked his question, because he has not put it to me before. We are sorting out all the cases in north Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire that have been put to us and, if a consultant agrees that a patient needs a home nebuliser, of course we shall ensure that the health authority provides it. We can sort out the problems if the hon. Member will put the cases to us in a proper way and not seek to exploit them for his own purpose.

    Income Support System (Pensioners)
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the income support system outlined in his Green Paper will affect pensioners who are entitled to claim supplementary pension at the present time but do not do so.
    Mr. Newton: Precise estimates cannot be made, but I would expect the simpler income support structure to make it easier for prospective claimants to judge their entitlement.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend saying that when this new scheme conies into operation, if it does, there is a very good chance that the 1 million pensioners who today could be claiming a supplementary pension but are not doing so will get their full rights?
    Mr. Newton: The evidence suggests that take-up of supplementary pension among potential supplementary pensioners has improved, on the latest, somewhat out-of-date, figures that we have, following the changes that we made in 1980. In my view, this move to an even more clearly regulated system of entitlement should assist further to that end.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the 7 million people who will have their housing benefit cut, 4 million are pensioners? Will he also confirm that, of the 1·8 million households that will lose housing benefit altogether under the Green Paper proposals, the great majority are pensioner owner-occupiers, especially widows, with a small occupational pension and a total income of only £60 or £70 a week?
    Mr. Newton: Since, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the effects of the housing benefit proposals depend on the income support rates, and as the income support rates have not yet been set, he should refrain from making these wild generalisations.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the Green Paper which pensioners particularly welcome is the provision that pensions will now be uprated in April, rather than having to wait until November, as has happened until now?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. That is a gain, not only for pensioners, who, of course, will have two upratings in a period of 16 months, but in the clarity of the system for all beneficiaries.

    Social Security Reform
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security".
    Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson).
    Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the removal of free school meals as part of the family income supplement package, to be replaced by the family credit scheme, will not cause suffering to any poor families?
    Mr. Newton: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that, in setting the family credit rates, we shall take into account current expenditure on free school meals, and that the 30 per cent. of beneficiaries who currently do not claim free school meals will be assisted as a result.

    Nursing Supplement
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Social Security Advisory Committee has recommended that the nursing supplement payable in respect of residents in private nursing homes who are in receipt of supplementary benefit should be increased; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitney: In its report — Cmnd. 9466 — the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended — and the Government accepted—that research should be undertaken urgently to ensure that the nursing home supplement has been set at the appropriate level.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nursing home supplement differential is inadequate compared to the basic residential scale of payment because of the 24-hour cover that is necessary in nursing homes, with the resulting costly staffing implications?
    Mr. Whitney: We took a careful look at this before setting the rate, and we shall continue to monitor it carefully. At the moment we are satisfied that the level is adequate, but we shall continue to keep it under careful review.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Walker: During my right hon. Friend's busy day will she give consideration to the situation of the Scotch whisky industry, which contributes substantially in jobs, overseas earning and revenue for the tax man? In

    165
    particular, will she give consideration to the concern being felt in Scotland at the proposed takeover of Arthur Bell? Is my right hon. Friend aware that whisky does not benefit from being diluted too much, and Scotch whisky has already been too greatly diluted by overseas control?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned about the Scotch whisky industry, because he has a great admiration for it and has tried to give some help to it. As to the dilution by the Guinness bid, that will be considered under the Monopolies and Mergers Act by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be making the decision about whether to refer the case after he has received advice from the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Steel: Before today's debate on the Green Paper, may I ask whether the Prime Minister recalls that in 1973 the Conservative Government discussed the potential for combining the tax and social security systems in one tax credit scheme? Why is it that, 12 years later, with all our computer technology, we are still miles away from that desirable goal?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, computers were ordered from ICL, and will slowly be coming in. It would not have been possible to carry out that reform before, but before we go into fundamental change, we should look at the consequences of combining the two systems completely.
    Mr. Stokes: At a time of increasing terrorism, does my right hon. Friend think it wise that the EC should attempt to abolish controls at all frontiers?
    The Prime Minister: This is about the movement of goods. Last time we had a European Council I raised the subject of the need to keep strict controls on frontiers for the movement of criminals, terrorists and particularly drugs. All other Heads of Government agreed with that very much.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Prime Minister consider extending the regional aid programme to mining communities where job opportunities have been wiped out by her policies? If not, what advice would she give to her children if they were unfortunate enough to be in these mining communities with no hope of a job?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has been set up and some £10 million has already been set aside for it. A considerable number of applications have been made under the scheme and the largest ever contract of its kind, for adult retraining, has now been signed between the National Coal Board and the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to send a message of sympathy and understanding to the American people at this tragic time, and will she tell President Reagan that, if it is his policy not to negotiate with terrorists, it is a policy that has our support?
    The Prime Minister: I will, of course, pass on the precise message, which I am sure will be very welcome. We all have great sympathy with the plight of those who are on the hijacked aircraft and the difficulties that face the American Government. I will pass on my hon. Friend's message to President Reagan.
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the damage that will be done to the Health Service by the decision not to fund the nurses' pay claim? [Interruption.] Is she aware, in particular, that the general manager in the county of Powys is talking about a 12-month curtailment of capital spending, putting back nurse training programmes and a £300,000 cut in facilities for mental health? Can she tell the House what damage her policies will do to the ill and the elderly in Powys?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman started off with the nurses' pay claim — [Interruption.] It is not always easy to hear against the background of noise precisely what is being said. May I point out that by February the recommendations of the review body on new scales for nurses will be in full operation. If nurses' pay were at the same real level that we inherited, a nursing sister on the maximum of the scale would be over £2,000 worse off than under the new agreement with this Government.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the continued damage being done by certain aspects of the EC, for instance, by the appalling trade deficit against us and by the promise to reform the common agricultural policy, which never comes to anything, what action does the right hon. Lady intend to take against the latest lunatic suggestion that we might get a rebate provided we give the EC the funds to do so?
    The Prime Minister: The 1,000 million ecu rebate will come. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has been approved and has been through the European Parliament. With regard to new expenditure under the new agreement, this country will be liable for only 7 per cent. because of the Fontainebleau agreement.
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although deficit funding has failed to create jobs in the United States, the tax-cutting programme there has enabled the American economy to create more jobs in May of last year than all the EC countries together have managed in more than a decade? Will she therefore give her urgent attention to implementing a job creation programme in Britain based on similar tax reductions?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, what we can do on tax cuts depends partly on what we do about public expenditure and the level of borrowing. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that during our time in government successive Chancellors of the

    167
    Exchequer have made cuts in income tax worth £6 billion. That is £6 billion less taken in tax than would have been the case had the same structure been in place that was left by the last Labour Government. That is an average of £260 per family for a person on average male earnings. I take my hon. Friend's point that the further reduction of income tax is a considerable priority.
    Mr. Kinnock: Talking of gainers and losers, does the Prime Minister recall that two weeks ago I asked her whether she would give us figures for the gainers and losers from the Government's social security review, and she told me:
    "In accordance with custom … we must wait for the May retail price index figures.".—[Official Report, 4 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 150.]
    Those figures were published last Friday. We are to have the statement on the uprating this afternoon. Why have we to wait another four or five months to get those figures? Why will she not keep the promise that she made to me a fortnight ago?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has got two things muddled up. We had to wait for the May retail prices index figure for this year's uprating, and we shall have to wait for next year's May retail prices index figures for next year's uprating. We must await the decisions on the structure of the changes before we can give a range of illustrative figures. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to approve that approach, because when he was asked last Thursday on the radio to give figures for taxes and contributions for Labour's policies he replied:
    "I'm not going to put a figure on two or three years' hence".—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This noise takes up time.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister's hearing is as selective as her memory. If she looks a little further, she will see that I said that the Government have the figures, the DHSS has the figures, the Cabinet has the figures, and apparently the printers have the figures. Why can we not have the figures? Will she now answer my question about her policy and not refer to the policy of the next Government, which I shall lead?
    The Prime Minister: Heaven help Britain if that were ever to happen. The right hon. Gentleman should know by now, in view of his answer, that we can publish a range of illustrative figures only when we know the structure that will come out of the White Paper. Of course, had we been rash enough to give any illustrative figures, they would have been out of date as a result of the upratings that will be announced this afternoon.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why is it, since the Prime Minister is now so keen to give illustrative figures, that when I asked her on 4 June whether we could have "dependable estimates", she flatly refused to give them? What has caused her conversion in the meantime?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman still does not understand. We must decide the structure and then, bearing in mind the latest uprating figure, a range of figures can be given. That is a great deal better than what the right hon. Gentleman said, which was:
    "I'm not going to put a figure on two or three years' hence".
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June 1985.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people ascribe the causes of rising crime and violence in our society to a long-term moral and religious decline? Does she accept that the chief factor in that is a lack of discipline and of respect for law and order? The Government cannot stand aside from that trend, as my right hon. Friend appeared to imply when she replied recently to the Leader of the Opposition about the causes of violence. Will my right hon. Friend lead a campaign to restore high moral standards?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is totally correct. One cannot have a democracy without a system of self-discipline and without upholding law and order. I hope he accepts that, on every occasion, the Government have upheld law and order and have insisted that we do not obey only some laws, but all of them. I cannot personally lead a moral crusade. In our legislation, we insist on religious education in schools as an example that such things matter a great deal to all Governments.
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. McCurley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the document which the general management council of the Labour party issued to English local government councillors inciting them to break the law and to refuse to follow the Rates Act 1984 so as to thwart the Government? Does this not show a two-faced approach to local democracy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good hon. Members saying, "Out of order." I cannot hear.
    Mrs. McCurley: Does this not show flagrant contempt for the law?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The law is indivisible and has to be obeyed. All of the law has to be obeyed. That is what democracy is. There is a chance to change the law, but until it is changed existing law must be upheld, and I totally and utterly condemn anyone opposite—[Interruption.] I totally and utterly condemn anyone who has urged that any law be disobeyed.

Social Security Benefits (Uprating)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the annual uprating of social security benefits which takes place in the week beginning 25 November.
The improvements that we are making, which have been allowed for within the Government's public expenditure plans, will increase the Government's social security budget by over £2,000 million in a full year.
As the House will know, the retail price index published last Friday showed a rise of 7 per cent. between May 1984 and May 1985. The Government are pledged to increase pensions and other linked long-term benefits in line with this rise in prices. Accordingly, the retirement pension for a single person will rise from £35.80 to £38.30, an increase of £2.50 a week, while the pension for a married couple will rise fom £57.30 to £61.30, an increase of £4 a week.
This will mean that between November 1978 and November 1985 pensions will have gone up by over 96 per cent. some 10 percentage points more than the expected rise in prices over the same period. Thus, we have more than fulfilled our pledge to protect the retirement pension against rising prices.
Public service pensions will similarly be increased by 7 per cent. We shall also further ease the earnings rule—that is the amount which a pensioner can earn without a reduction of his pension. This will be increased from £70 to £75 a week.
The basic rate of unemployment benefit will be increased by 7 per cent. from £28.45 to £30.45 for a single person and from £46 to £49.25 for a couple.
Supplementary benefit is increased in line with the retail price index excluding housing costs. This is because people on supplementary benefit have their housing costs met separately through housing benefit. All the main supplementary benefit rates will therefore be increased by 5.1 per cent. The long-term scale for a couple will go up by £2.90 to £60 a week. The ordinary scale for a couple will go up by £2.30 to £47.85 a week. The scale rates for children will go up to £18.20 for a child aged between 16 and 17 years, £15.10 for a child aged between 11 and 15 years, and £10.10 for a child under 11.
The extra weekly payments to cover items such as heating and special diets will be increased in the usual way. Heating additions will be increased by 4.4 7per cent. in line with the rise in fuel prices, while the additions for special diets will go up by 3 per cent. in line with the rise in food prices.
I also intend to make a change to the additions which are given to supplementary benefit households with central heating systems. Those special additional payments were introduced in the early 1960s because at that time central heating was more expensive. That is no longer generally true. In the meantime, there has been an extensive development of additional help with heating costs for those such as pensioners and the disabled. Claimants already receiving central heating additions will continue to receive them while they remain on benefit. However, I propose that no further awards of such additions should be made to people claiming on or after 5 August, but the range of automatic heating additions for the special needs of
170
particular groups will be extended so that from November the lower standard rate of heating addition, which will then be £2·20 a week, will be paid automatically to sick and disabled householders on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit.
Turning to housing benefit, the needs allowances, which are increased according to a formula which takes account of increases in average local authority rents and rates as well as the supplementary benefit rates, will be increased by the full 5·8 per cent. to £47·70 for a single person and £70·20 for a married couple.
The uprating of the housing benefit needs allowances will further increase spending on a benefit which is already paid to well over 7 million households. Expenditure will increase to £4½ billion in a full year. The Government believe that it is right to restrain further growth in housing benefit expenditure. We therefore propose to increase the rates taper above the needs allowance from its current level of 9 per cent. to 13 per cent.
No one on supplementary benefit or with income within £10 of the scale rates will be affected by the change. Indeed, a pensioner couple would need to have an income nearly £13 a week above the retirement pension level before their overall benefit increase was reduced by even lop a week as a result of this change.
The Government believe it right to maintain child benefit for all children, irrespective of the income of their parents. Nevertheless, we have to consider its level both in relation to overall priorities within social security and, in particular, with the aim to do more for families with children on low income.
The Government have concluded that child benefit should be increased in November to £7 a week. However, one-parent benefit will be increased by the full 7 per cent. from £4·25 to £4·55 per week; and families on supplementary benefit will not be affected and will benefit from the increases in the scale rates for children. At the same time, we propose to take two important steps to give additional help to less-well-off families with children.
First, the prescribed amounts in family income supplement will be increased by more than 7 per cent. to give all FIS families extra help. In addition, we shall introduce new higher prescribed amounts for families with older children. That will mean, for example, that the prescribed amount for a child aged between 11 and 15 years will be increased by an extra £2 and for a child aged 16 and over by an extra £3 a week ahead of prices.
Secondly, we shall increase the child's needs allowance in housing benefit to £14·50 per week—£1 a week more than the normal uprating would have required.
Taken together with the reduction in national insurance contributions for lower paid workers announced in the Budget, those two measures are further steps towards reducing the unemployment trap and directing help more effectively to the families most in need.
Benefits for disabled people, war pensioners and war widows will all be increased by 7 per cent. This will mean that the pension for a war widow will go up to £49·80, the higher rate of attendance allowance will increase to £30·60 a week and mobility allowance will go up to £21.40.
For invalidity benefit, the Government propose to make a total increase of 12 per cent. This will restore the 5 per cent. abatement as well as giving the full 7 per cent. uprating. It will mean that invalidity benefit will increase from £34·25 to £38·30 for a single person and from £54·80 to £61·30 for a married couple. This will bring it in line

171
with retirement pension once more and give an increase of £4·05 a week for a single person and £6·50 for a married couple.
I should also take this opportunity to tell the House that it is our intention to take powers to increase the £10,000 vaccine damage payment, which has remained at that level since 1979, to £20,000.
The measures announced in this statement will add over £2 billion to the social security budget. The result is that the budget will now stand at over £42 billion a year, almost a third of all Government spending. I shall be laying a schedule giving the increases in the main benefit rates before the House.
As I have already told the House, this will be the last time that benefits are uprated in November. Next year an
172
uprating will take place in July before the new annual cycle based on April begins in 1987. The Government will be introducing an amendment to the Social Security Bill in another place to enable this change.
Had we continued with the unreliable forecast method of uprating introduced by the last Labour Government, the uprating of benefits that I am announcing today would be substantially less. As it is, this uprating will protect those people in greatest need, give extra help to many disabled people and fulfil our pledges to the pensioners of this country.
Following are the main social security and housing benefit rates:

173

Existing weekly rate £

Proposed weekly rate £

Main contributory and non-contributory rates

Child benefit

Each Child

6·85

7·00

One parent benefit

First or only child of certain lone parents

4·25

4·55

Standard rate of retirement * and widows pensions, and widowed mothers allowance

Single person

35·80

38·30

Wife or adult dependant

21·50

23·00

Earnings limit for retirement pensioners

70·00

75·00

Standard rate of invalidity pension

Single person

34·25

38·30

Spouse or adult dependant

20·55

23·00

Invalidity allowance

(i) Higher rate

7·50

8·05

(ii) Middle rate

4·80

5·10

(iii) Lower rate

2·40

2·55

Standard rate of unemployment benefit Beneficiary under pension age

Single person

28·45

30·45

Wife or other adult dependant

17·55

18·80

Beneficiary over pension age

Single person

35·80

38·30

Wife or other adult dependant

21·50

23·00

Standard rate of sickness benefit Beneficiary under pension age

Single person

27·25

29·15

Wife or other adult dependant

16·80

18·00

Beneficiary over pension age

Single person

34·25

36·65

Wife or other adult dependant

20·55

22·00

Widows allowance (first 26 weeks of widowhood)

50·10

53·60

Maternity allowance

27·25

29·15

Attendance Allowance

Higher rate

28·60

30·60

Lower rate

19·10

20·45

Severe disablement allowance

21·50

23·00

Retirement pension for persons over pension age on 5 July 1948 and persons over 80*

21·50

23·00

Therapeutic earnings limit

23·50

25·00

Invalid care allowance

Increase of invalid care allowance for wife or other adult dependant

12·85

13·75

Mobility allowance

20·00

21·40

Guardians allowance/child's special allowance

7·65

8·05

Rate of the child addition to windows, invalidity, and retirement pensions, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance and unemployment and sickness benefits where claimant is over pension age

7·65

8·05

174

Existing weekly rate £

Proposed weekly rate £

Industrial injuries benefits

Disablement benefit (100 per cent. assessment)

58·40

62·50

Unemployability supplement

34·25

38·30

Special hardship allowance (maximum)

23·36

25·00

Constant attendance allowance/exceptionally severe disablement allowance

23·40

25·00

Industrial death benefit widows pension

First 26 weeks

50·10

53·60

Higher permanent rate

36·35

38·85

Lower permanent rate

10·74

11·49

Main supplementary benefit rates

Ordinary rate

Couple

45·55

47·85

Person living alone

28·05

29·50

Non-householder 18 and over

22·45

23·60

Non-householder 16–17

17·30

18·20

Any other person aged 11–15

14·35

15·10

Any other person aged under 11

9·60

10·10

Long-term scale rate

Couple

57·10

60·00

Person living alone

35·70

37·50

Non-householder 18 and over

28·55

30·00

Non-householder 16–17

21·90

23·00

Board and lodging limits

Ordinary board and lodging

† £45·00 to

£70·00

Hostels

£70·00

Residential care homes

£110·00 to

£170·00

Nursing homes

£138·60 to

£198·60

Heating additions

Lower rate

2·10

2·20

Higher rate

5·20

5·45

Central heating additions

Lower rate

2·10

2·20

Higher rate

4·20

4·40

Estate rate heating additions

Lower rate

4·20

4·40

Higher rate

8·40

8·80

Housing benefit needs allowances

Single person

45·10

47·70

Couple/single parent

66·50

70·20

Single handicapped person

50·30

53·20

Couple, one handicapped/single handicapped parent

71·70

75·70

Couple, both handicapped

74·15

78·25

Dependant child addition

12·85

14·50

Main increased war pension rates

Disablement pension for Private or equivalent (100 per cent. assessment)

58·40

62·50

Age allowance with assessment of:

40 per cent. to 50 per cent.

4·05

4·35

Over 50 per cent. but not more than 70 per cent.

6·35

6·80

Over 70 per cent. but not more than 90 per cent.

9·10

9·75

Over 90 per cent.

12·70

13·60

Unemployability allowance

Personal allowance

38·00

40·65

Increase for wife or other adult dependant

21·50

23·00

Increase for child

7·65

8·05

175

Existing weekly rate £

Proposed weekly rate £

Constant attendance allowance

Exceptional rate

46·80

50·00

Intermediate rate

35·10

37·50

Normal maximum

23·40

25·00

Half and quarter day

11·70

12·50

Comforts allowance

Higher rate

10·10

10·80

Lower rate

5·05

5·40

Mobility supplement

22·25

23·80

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation(maximum)

23·36

25·00

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

23·40

25·00

Severe disablement occupational allowance

11·70

12·50

Clothing allowance (per annum)

Higher rate

79·00

85·00

Lower rate

50·00

54·00

Widows pension—Private's widow

Standard rate

46·55

49·80

Childless widow under 40

10·74

11·49

Rent allowance (maximum)

17·70

18·95

Age allowance for elderly widows

Age 65 to 69

5·00

5·35

Age 70 to 79

10·00

10·70

Age 80 and over

12·50

13·40

Family income supplement

Prescribed amount, family with one child

90·00

Child under 11

97·50

Child 11–15

98·50

Child 16 and over

99·50

Increase for each additional child

10·00

Child under 11

11·50

Child 11–15

12·50

Child 16 and over

13·50

Maximum amount payable, family with one child

23·00

Child under 11

25·00

Child 11–15

25·50

Child 16 and over

26·00

Increase for each additional child

2·00

Child under 11

2·00

Child 11–15

3·00

Child 16 and over

3·50

* An age addition of 25p per week is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over.

†. Depending on area.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the uprating of child benefit by less than one third of the rise in prices is targeting children as the first losers in his Green Paper cuts package? Is he aware that that decision will deprive 7 million mothers and 12 million children of £220 million during next year? Is he aware that that betrays the pledge solemnly given by his predecessor and restated frequently by Ministers that it is the Government's intention
"to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value." —[Official Report, 28 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1063.]
176
Is it not clear that the uprating was revealed today only because the Government had no choice? Otherwise, it would have been concealed like the rest of the cuts in the pipeline. Is this not a clear sign of the shape of things to come, and does it not reveal all too blatantly why the Government have refused to give the Green Paper figures—so that we could not know who the losers would be?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that surveys have shown that one third of all children now grow up in poverty or in low-income families? Does it not demonstrate the Government's scale of values that they would rather cut cash to children than tax perks to the rich? Is it not now clear that the Government have signalled further cuts in or freezing of child benefit when they say in paragraph 4.49 of the Green Paper that they will have regard to the need to concentrate resources on the area of family credit in determining the overall level of child benefit? Does that not mean that the Government intend to cut the value of child benefit even further?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement of the invalidity pension, while pointing out that it should not have been cut in the first place? When will the Government restore the cumulative loss to the long-term sick and disabled for the annual 5 per cent. shortfall over each of the past five years? Why is not the 5 per cent. abatement on maternity allowance and sickness benefit being restored at the same time? Why have the Government three years after the abolition of the earnings-related supplement, still not fulfilled the promise then given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker),
"to improve maternity pay when the earnings-related supplement is no longer paid with the maternity allowance."—[Official Report, 14 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 920.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most significant points about his statement today is what it omits? It omits to give our 10 million pensioners any share in rising living standards. Is he aware that if Labour's policy of uprating pensions in line with either prices or earnings, whichever is the higher, had not been chopped by the incoming Tory Government, single pensioners would today have a pension £3·90 a week higher than today's uprating, and married pensioners would have a pension no less than £6·15 higher every week this year?
The statement is a cuts statement. It shows the path on all the issues other than those for which the Secretary of State is statutorily required to uprate by law which the Government intend to take over the next few years. It shows who the Government Will discard first. Even this Government cannot blame children for their dependence, yet they have started to whittle away the only income guaranteed to every child without fear or favour.
Mr. Fowler: That is one of the most ludicrous responses that I have heard even from the hon. Gentleman. We have announced today an extra £2 billion of spending. The effect is that the social security budget will now exceed £42 billion. That is one third of the total of public spending. Against that background, it is ludicrous to say that the Government are attacking social security.
The fact is that, in spite of all the problems of past years, we have maintained our commitment to those most in need and those in retirement. The fact is that the pensions increase, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, means that pensions have increased by 96 per cent. since November 1978, which is 10 percentage points ahead of

177
inflation. When the hon. Gentleman lectures us about our concern for the pensioners, let me remind him that it was his Government who presided over a 110 per cent. increase in inflation, which was devastatingly bad news for every pensioner.
The hon. Gentleman's major point was about child benefit. We are spending £2 billion in this uprating. We have had to decide the social priorities for that spending. The first priority must be to give help to families in greatest need. That is why we are giving a full uprating of one-parent benefit. That is why we are giving a full uprating of the children's scale rate on supplementary benefit as well. That is why we are giving more help to family income supplement families with older children. That is why we are giving more help through the housing benefit child needs allowance. The first aim is to direct help to the poorest. We have identified the poorest families as being one of the areas that we most want to help. That is precisely what we are doing.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: If, as many commentators predict, the rate of inflation in November, when these increases are paid, has fallen again below 7 per cent., will not that represent a small but welcome increase in the standard of living of the beneficiaries?
Mr. Fowler: That is precisely the point that I made in my statement. As my hon. Friend realises, inflation is now at 7 per cent. The forecast is about 5 per cent. for November-December this year. Had we kept to the forecast method of the Labour Government, the uprating would be less, and pensioners would receive £1 less in their pension than under this up rating.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the decision to cut back the increase in child benefit a one-off decision, or has the right hon. Gentleman taken the view that child benefit will continue to suffer in terms of indexation in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Fowler: Each year, and at each uprating, we have to decide what the social priorities for spending are. We have made it absolutely clear that the first aim, the first call on resources, is direct help for families whom we define as being in greatest need. However, we shall keep the issue under review.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does not my right hon. Friend feel even a little sorry for the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who constantly uses the lurid language of Armageddon and attributes to the Government all sorts of nefarious motives and activities when the facts are just the opposite? Cannot we buy the hon. Gentleman a violin, and then it might sound a bit better? Does not today's uprating of £2 billion show that the Government keep their promises and will care for the most needy in our society?
Mr. Fowler: We do not want to attack the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) too much, because he might be moved unless we are very careful. What the uprating most certainly shows is that we are keeping our word and our pledges to the pensioners, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that I welcome the increase in the vaccine damage payment? However, does he agree that it is no real substitute for a comprehensive compensation scheme, which is what the children merit and deserve?
Rather than feeling sorry for my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that any increase must be more than 7 per cent. — the inflation rate—to be meaningful, and that any increase less than 7 per cent. would be a cut, which would be disgraceful?
Mr. Fowler: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's last point. As I have explained to the House, we have increased spending by more than £2 billion as a result of the uprating. The right hon. Gentleman will know that within a budget of more than £42 billion decisions must be taken.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comment on the vaccine damage payment, and realise that he would like us to go further. Nevertheless, I hope that he feels that we have taken a fairly giant step in the right direction.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Whatever its merits against a wide range of criteria—and I do not dispute that there may be some—does not the announcement represent a massive transfer of real resources from the economically active to the economically inactive population? Do the Government accept that there is a limit to that transfer, and, if so, what is it?
Mr. Fowler: It seems to me and to the Government that we have a responsibility to care for and to provide resources for those in our country who are most in need. It is a responsibility that the Government will fulfil.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement of benefit increases. May I draw his attention to the part of his statement on which he did not dwell? Will he list those benefits and parts of benefits that have been cut? How many millions of claimants will be affected? What will be the total saving of public expenditure?
Mr. Fowler: The major changes concern child benefit, housing benefit and the central heating additions. The measures all told will reduce the increase in the social security bill by £85 million this year and £250 million in a full year.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the fact that my right hon. Friend feels unable to uprate child benefit by the full 7 per cent. suggest either that wealthier people should pay tax on the benefit or that they should not receive it? If either of those policies were pursued, would not more resources be available to those in greatest need?
Mr. Fowler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will concede that we have sought to direct more resources to those families in greatest need through the family income supplement scheme. I am sure that my hon. Friend already knows that if we followed his advice on taxation of child benefit the result would be a reduction in the take-home pay of literally millions of people. That is a step about which we should think carefully before taking it.
Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the most urgent priorities is families with children? Does he recall the

179
statement of former Secretaries of State and successive Ministers that one of the most effective ways of tackling family poverty is child benefit? How does he justify failing to uprate child benefit in line with inflation?
Mr. Fowler: For the reasons that I have just given, not only are we retaining child benefit as a universal benefit, but in the uprating we are providing a full uprating of one-parent benefit, children's scale rates on supplementary benefit and more help for families on family income supplement. That seems to me a sensible priority aimed at providing more help for low-income families.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when many of us were first elected to this House 15 years ago today the Conservative party was already committed to the abolition of the earnings rule? Can he now set a date for that abolition?
Mr. Fowler: I very much wish that I could, but I cannot at the moment. We have eased the earnings rule and we are entirely committed to abolishing it. We will continue to keep under review the exact date when that can take place.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had the Government not abolished the earnings-related rule in relation to pensions, single pensioners would today be £3·90 and married couples over £6 a week better off? That means that under his stewardship pensioners are worse off than they would have been had the Conservatives not been in office.
Mr. Fowler: It would also have meant that contributions and tax would have had to be increased—[Interruption.] Either contributions and tax would have had to be increased or there would have had to be cuts elsewhere in the social security budget. It would have been a matter of choice. I should have thought it more sensible to keep to the policy that we are pursuing and to keep pensions in line with prices.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which this policy of keeping pensions rising faster than prices can continue in future is to abolish the impossible commitment to the SERPS scheme?
Mr. Fowler: To the extent that the emphasis in future should be on the basic pension rather than on the state earnings-related scheme, I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Charles Kennedy:While the general uprating is to be welcomed, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the comments made by him and the Minister for Social Security at Question Time begin to look rather cynical? Is it not evident that by not increasing child benefit to the rate at which it should be increased and by ploughing enhanced cash support into family income supplement — which the right hon. Gentleman spent Question Time discrediting because of its low level of take-up — this is a cost-cutting exercise which is not targeting in on family poverty?
Mr. Fowler: No, it is making use of the mechanism and structure that we have. We want to replace FIS by the new family credit scheme, but, clearly, that will take some time to achieve. Family income supplement is being increased, and that is one of the effects of what I have announced.
Sir William Clark: By all accounts, £42 billion spent on welfare in this country is rapidly approaching, if it has not passed, the maximum figure that the taxpayer can afford to pay. If it is Government policy, with which I agree, that the poor should be helped, why is not child benefit taxed in respect of the wealthy? Take-home pay will be reduced if child benefit is taxed, but that must be equitable if we wish to help the poorer people.
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right to say that we are spending an enormous amount on social security. About one third of all public spending is going on the social security budget. There is not much that I can add to what I said about child benefit. I know of no other country in western Europe which does not recognise—through the tax system or the benefit system, or both — the additional cost for all parents of having children. I regard that as a sensible policy and a sensible recognition.
Mr. James Lamond: If the budget is £40 billion when inflation is running at 7 per cent., surely that should be increased by £2·8 billion to keep up with inflation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, therefore, that £800 million more is required, in addition to the increase that he has announced? Does he appreciate, in other words, that his statement represents for many people a real cut in benefits of £800 million?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is allowing his conspiracy theory to run away with him. I have explained that there is a different benefit uprating and that it is 5·1 per cent. for supplementary benefit, and we must bear in mind the administrative costs of the system. I gave (Mr. Field) the figures, and I assure the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) that there are no hidden cuts.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Conservative Benches warmly welcome the overall shape of his announcement and its components, notably the real price protection for the unemployed and pensioners? Will he bear in mind that when the change in child benefit was made it was part of the deal that, because it was a move from a system of tax allowances to one of child benefit, it should be available throughout the income scale?
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he really wants to help pensioners, those on supplementary benefit and others, the easiest way of doing so is to get more people back to work to reduce the £20 billion that is spent on financing the dole queue? If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would really help the people who are suffering. If the right hon. Gentleman is so sure that he is doing the right thing, why are there now many more millions of people in poverty than when the Conservative party took office? Although the Tory press will applaud the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow, the truth is that he has tried to turn a pan of boiling water into a seven-course dinner, but we shall see through it.
Mr. Fowler: We look forward to the hon. Gentleman's offerings. The way to reduce unemployment is not to preside, as the last Labour Government did, over an inflation rate which went out of control because that—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: No.
Mr. Fowler: If the Leader of the Opposition does not agree, his credibility is even shakier than it was before.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Why is the Secretary of State implementing his social security review decisions with cuts in housing benefit, heating additions and the real value of child benefit? Does he recall the Prime Minister saying that raising the value of child benefit was evidence of the Government's commitment to the family? Does he recall his statement before the election that child benefit was the most cost-effective way of helping families with children? How many people will lose because of these decisions?
Mr. Fowler: I have already sought to set out the areas of loss with respect to child benefit, housing benefit and central heating additions and the amounts involved. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who continues to be sour on every conceivable point concerning supplementary benefit, that, by any standards, an uprating that costs more than £2 billion a year cannot be dismissed as the action of some mean-minded Government.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his decision that families on family income supplement should receive higher prescribed amounts for older children will make an enormous contribution to the working poor and will alleviate the poverty and unemployment traps prior to the introduction of family credit?
Mr. Fowler: It can certainly be seen as a step in that direction. One of the anomalies of the present position is that, although the child rate for supplementary benefit distinguishes between ages, that does not occur with respect to in-work credit. We have tried to move in that direction.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that he was trying to mislead the House in his remarks about Labour and pensions upratings, as was shown in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)? Will the right hon. Gentleman now state clearly that, if the link between earnings and pensions had not been abolished by his Government, single pensioners would be better off by £3·90 a week and married pensioner couples by £6·15 a week? If the earnings link had applied, they would have received a similar uprating during the Conservative party's period in office. Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that honestly and truthfully to the House?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady has said absolutely nothing about how that will be afforded and how the resources will be gathered. To provide benefits of the size proposed by the hon. Lady, contributions and taxes would have to be increased, or she would have to cut elsewhere in the social security budget. If the hon. Lady wants an example of what the Labour Government did, she should look back to the mid-1970s when Mrs. Castle was Secretary of State for Social Services. She changed the uprating rules, operated on a forecast basis and saved more than £1 billion from pensioners.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the £4 per week increase for pensioner couples will be widely accepted by both sides of the House as the action of a caring and compassionate
182
Government? Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that some hon. Members believe that child benefit should be concentrated on those who are most in need?
Mr. Fowler: I do not have anything further to add on the question of child benefit. I am certain that the increase for pensioners, which we are announcing this afternoon, will be widely welcomed because it shows the Government's continuing commitment to pensioners.
Mr. George Foulkes: Why will not the Secretary of State confess that, even on pensions, he has not been generous? He has done only the absolute minimum required by law to keep up pensions with inflation. There has been no real increase. Will he admit that, because of cuts in housing benefit and heating assistance and his failure to increase the age allowance in line with inflation, many hundreds of thousands of pensioners will even have part of this increase clawed back.
Mr. Fowler: We have committed more than £2 billion of extra resources to social security. The bulk of those resources will go to pensioners. That is a fact, and it does the hon. Gentleman no credit to deny it.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): My right hon. Friend has been criticised for the fact that this Government abolished the earnings link with pensions. So that pensioners may assess what is on offer from the two parties, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that, in three of the five years when the earnings link existed, the Labour Government had to get out of it because they could not even honour their own legislation? When the then Labour Secretary of State for Social Services was criticised for not taking that factor into account, he said, "We had to take it into acccount; we did not have to get it right." What sort of cynicism is that? What prospect does that hold for the future of pensioners under a Labour Government?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are content to be judged on our record with respect to pensioners and to let the public decide on that record.
Mr. William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the Green Paper, which represents a landmark in responsible government. Will he explain more precisely how he will protect widows? Will they receive the 7 per cent. increase that has been allowed for everyone else? He was not entirely specific on that point.
Mr. Fowler: Widows' benefits will increase by 7 per cent. in the normal way and will be fully uprated. I shall make a further announcement concerning widows in the speech that follows these exchanges.
Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that. the non-indexing of child benefit will cut about £220 million a year while the extra resources that he boasts of concentrating on children in families on family income supplement will amount to only about £5 million? Will he acknowledge that he misled the House a moment ago when he said that pensioners would have lost out under Labour's pension uprating formula? That formula included the earnings link, as a result of which after six years of Labour Government pensioners were 20 per cent. better off in real terms, which is far more than after six years of Tory government.
Mr. Fowler: The figure for which the hon. Gentleman is searching is not the one that he has cited. The net saving in child benefit in a full year is £175 million. If the Conservative Government had kept to the forecast method used by the last Labour Government, this uprating would have been less. The Labour Government—I think that the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department at that time—changed the uprating formula to save money. In present terms, a Labour Government would be saving more than £1·25 billion in one of the most cynical moves ever perpetrated by any Government.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the proposal for a draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1985, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr Donald Thompson.]
Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1985, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. — [Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Crown Immunity (Removal from Workplaces)
4.10 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove Crown immunity from premises covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Food Hygiene Regulations; and for connected purposes.
Crown immunity is an out-dated anachronism that allows so-called Crown authorities to flout the food hygiene laws and the health and safety regulations and protects many institutions which cannot be sued in the criminal courts unless it is specifically provided for by legislation. But the Government rarely provide for that. The reason is that Crown immunity has nothing to do with the Crown. It enables the Government to evade our laws which they press other people to obey. That is unacceptable in principle and unjust in practice, especially regarding the food and hygiene laws and the health and safety regulations. A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that the law was indivisible and should be obeyed. One can say amen to that, but the law is being evaded by the Government because they are hiding behind Crown immunity.
I am a Member sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. One of the national officers of that union, John Edmonds, has organised a survey of hospitals. Some of the evidence that he has uncovered about hospital kitchens is horrific. For example, in one hospital there are open gutters. Foul-smelling grids and electrical equipment with broken switches and no proper defence mechanism. People spray insecticide in the kitchen while food is being prepared. That is taking place in a very large south-west London hospital that is preparing food for hundreds of patients. One can only imagine what goes on. The hospital cannot be prosecuted because of Crown immunity. The union survey found that no fewer than 25 per cent. of hospital kitchens would face closure if there were no Crown immunity, so patients and the public are beginning to learn about the dreadful condition of many hospital kitchens.
The Department of Health and Social Security knew about this problem seven years ago. In 1977, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers said that nearly 1,000 hospital kitchens were below standard and that 100 of those hospital authorities merited prosecution—how is that for flaunting the law?—but they could not be prosecuted because of Crown immunity. The response of the Department of Health and Social Security was to send a polite circular to the health authorities inviting them to ask the environmental health officers to visit those hospitals and suggest that they should comply with the food and hygiene regulations.
In bureaucratic terms, the problem was resolved but in reality the problems were neglected, as the tragic events at the Stanley Royd psychiatric hospital in Wakefield have proved. It is not for me to pre-empt the inquiry at Wakefield, but the House should know that a former medical officer of health, giving evidence there, said that seven years ago he warned the health authority that the kitchen of that hospital was a culinary disaster area. Secondly, an environmental health officer has said that he would have prosecuted that health authority, because of

185
the conditions in the kitchens before the tragedy, if it had not been for Crown immunity. Without Crown immunity, therefore, that health authority would have been forced by the courts to act, and without Crown immunity 19 people who have died in that Wakefield psychiatric hospital might not have died.
Food poisoning there is not an isolated case. There have been recent outbreaks at Leicester, Cardiff and London. There are about 40 outbreaks of food poisoning every year in National Health Service hospitals. We can take no comfort from the attitude of certain health authorities. It may be remembered that when some cockroaches were found in a stew a few weeks ago one of the health officials said that it was all right; the cockroaches were sterile because they had been cooked.
The pest control group has said that many hospitals are infested with cockroaches. The Minister for Health should stop smiling and listen, because the hospitals for which he is responsible are in a shocking condition. He is responsible, he is negligent, and he is doing nothing about it.
The pest control group has said that the kitchens of the hospitals for which the Minister for Health is responsible are full of cockroaches and nothing is being done about it. The group has said that those vermin are causing disease—polio, hepatitis, gastro-enteritis and salmonella. The Minister should remember that salmonella killed 19 people in the Wakefield psychiatric hospital. What did the Minister do about the 19 people who lay dead because of negligence? Let there be fewer smiles on the Government Front Bench while I am introducing a Bill about a very important subject that affects people in hospitals.
186
My union is rightly concerned not only about patients but about people working in hospitals. It believes that hospital employees are very badly treated. I have no time to go into the details, but the hospitals cannot be prosecuted because of Crown immunity. Therefore, both patients and employees are at risk because the Government are hiding behind Crown immunity.
The Government defend Crown immunity by saying that the Crown cannot sue the Crown. That is legal mumbo-jumbo. That argument has been resolved in other countries and it can be resolved here. The principal argument is cash. If health authorities could be prosecuted, they would have to find the cash to clean up the hospitals and pay for improvements. If they had to pay for those improvements, there would be an end to this scandal of hospital patients dying through neglect. There would also be more protection for Health Service workers.
I hope that the House will sweep away the cloak of Crown immunity and provide proper protection for hospital patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Ashley, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

CROWN IMMUNITY (REMOVAL FROM WORKPLACES)
Mr. Jack Ashley accordingly presented a Bill to remove Crown immunity from premises covered by the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Food Hygiene Regulations; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July 1985 and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Social Security (Reform)
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's Green Paper, Reform of Social Security, Cmnd. 9517–9; and endorses the Government's aims of achieving a better social security system which would direct help to the people who need it most, make the benefit system simpler to understand and run, base pensions on a partnership between the state and individuals, and put social security on a sound basis which the country can afford.
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. As no fewer than 32 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed interest in contributing to this important debate, I propose that speeches should be limited to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm, but I hope that those contributing later in the debate will also observe that limit.
Mr. Fowler: The central question in this debate is what changes should be made to social security to equip it for the role that it has today and to prepare it for the developments that are to take place in the next half century. Whatever differences there may be in the solutions suggested, very few people outside the House are arguing that nothing should be clone. The case for reform—the need for change—is overwhelming. In the Green Paper the Government have set out their plans for reform. These plans are based on an 18-month examination of the social security system—the most extensive examination for 40 years. In that time we received 4,500 separate submissions of evidence and held some 20 public sessions to take further evidence.
It is clear that social security suffers from a range of defects. It is too complex, with more than 30 different benefits, each with its own rules. Help does not always go where it is most needed despite the vast budget devoted to social security. There is also the totally unjustifiable position in which some people can find themselves worse off if they take a job than if they remain on benefit. The system is not properly equipped with computers to provide the best possible service to the public. The potential for co-operation between the social security and tax systems is not being achieved.
The whole system cries out for reform. That is why the Government are tackling the matter. Of course, there are those who argue that it is all so immensely difficult that Governments should avoid the challenge, but I do not believe that such an attitude is justifiable. Fundamental problems exist today and other emerging problems, such as the future cost of the social security budget, will affect not only our children but many contributors today. Any Government worthy of the name must face those issues. To do otherwise would be an abdication of responsibility.
There is also a responsibility on any other party which has any pretensions to form a Government to set out its policies. In the debate in the coming months we shall want to know just where the Labour party and indeed the other parties stand on their own policies—not just what they are against, but what they are for.
We should not forget that the Labour party has been conducting its own review of social security. According to The Observer of 14 April, the review undertaken by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was
188
intended to pre-empt the Government's Green Paper and was seen by his colleagues as an election winner. On 15 April the hon. Gentleman published his proposals. They involved scrapping mortgage tax relief, scrapping the married man's tax allowance, which would bring about 1 million people back into tax, and spending a further £15 billion. Clearly, not all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues regard him as a natural election winner, but the fundamental point remains that we are still waiting for the Labour party's full report.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has not published the figures.
Mr. Fowler: We have published several volumes of our report. When the hon. Gentleman published the first two chapters of his report he said that the full proposals would be published shortly by Spokesman Books. I hope that nothing nasty has happened to them at the printers.
It is just not good enough for the Opposition, not only to avoid setting out their own policies, but to duck the real debate on the structure of the system on the basis of a bogus argument about figures. The Government have made it clear—and I make it clear again today—that we shall set out a range of illustrative figures with the White Paper in the autumn. The purpose of the Green Paper is to get discussion of the structure and the principles of reform. I hope that by the time we put forward our range of figures the Leader of the Opposition will have put forward not just illustrative figures but some illustrative policies on behalf of the Labour party.
Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
Mr. Fowler: Perhaps I may continue.
The central purpose of the Green Paper is to focus discussion on the structure of social security that we want for the next 30, 40 or 50 years. Nowhere is that more important than in the context of pensions. I hope that one point, at least, will be accepted by the House—that the projections have changed since the estimates published before the introduction of the legislation which set up the state earnings-related pension scheme. The 1974 White Paper published by the Labour Government appears to have assumed that the number of retirement pensioners would rise from 8·2 million in 1975–76 to about 9·5 million in the years 2010. No prediction of the number of pensioners was provided beyond that year. In fact, there are already not 8·2 million, but 9·3 million, people receiving retirement pensions. Moreover, evidence is now available which was not available at that time — in particular, the results of the 1981 census, which did not become available until 1984.
As a consequence of the census figures, the Government Actuary has increased his estimate of the number of pensioners in 2010 by 1 million—that is, 1 million more than expected in 1974. Beyond that, the best estimates available to us show that there will be a further 2·5 million pensioners by 2035. The peak number of pensioners will therefore be up to 3·5 million more than was publicly acknowledged in 1974 and 4 million more than we have today. At the same time, the ratio of contributors to pensioners worsens. The assumptions on which the SERPS scheme is based have thus been overtaken not only on population projections but on the other central assumption of 2·5 per cent. unemployment and a certain 3 per cent. annual growth.
Mr. Robin Corbett rose—
Mr. Fowler: Perhaps I may continue.
It is important that the Opposition should understand the thesis on which this is based. The result in terms of cost is basically this. There are now 9·3 million pensioners in this country. Providing pensions currently costs £15·4 billion, excluding the extra £1 billion of pensions spending that I have announced today.
In 50 years' time there will be 13·2 million pensioners. Providing basic pensions for them will cost between £22 billion and £43 billion a year at today's prices, depending on the basis of uprating—whether it is by prices or by earnings. On top of that, the state earnings-related pension scheme will add £23 billion a year. That is not significantly dependent upon the basis of the uprating. It is inflexibly fixed by the rules of the scheme and the promises which we are now making to ourselves about what our children should pay. In short, we face a pensions bill which will at least treble in real terms if we do not act now.
I do not believe that this evidence can be ignored or simply swept under the carpet. At some stage those issues will have to be faced. The real question is not whether anything should be done, but what should be done. That, of course, is not just my view, or just the Government's view; it is a view supported by a range of other organisations.
Mr. Brynmor John: What is the change since 20 May 1983 and what new figures have become available since then, when the Government fought the last election on a pledge to keep SERPS as it was?
Mr. Fowler: The census figures which came through in 1984 revealed that there would be 1 million extra pensioners, not by 2035, but by 2010. The hon. Gentleman has great experience in this area. On the best evidence available to the Government—which would be available to any Government — the increase in the number of pensioners between now and 2035 will be 3·5 million to 4 million.
It is not just the Government who are setting out this case. It has been made by organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which, referring to SERPS, said:
"It is difficult to discuss the future of social security rationally in the shadow of this foolish commitment."
One has to consider the views of the political parties. The Liberal party has never agreed with the introduction of SERFS. Indeed, in April, Lord Banks, the Liberal party's spokesman in the other place, wrote to The Daily Telegraph to point out that he and his party had
"consistently opposed the introduction of SERPS".
For the Social Democratic party, Mr. Dick Taverne, the party's social security expert, was entirely unequivocal. Speaking on Channel 4 in February, he said:
"The state earnings-related pension scheme is something which we won't be able to afford in the long run, so we should scrap it now before too many rights are acquired."
I concede—if that is the right word—that the leader of the SDP has changed the emphasis from that admirably clear statement of policy. As I understand his position now, it is not that SERPS should be left unaltered. He believes that, rather than a replacement, a restricted SERPS might be a better answer.
That is an option which we looked at in the review and which we discuss in the Green Paper. It is an option which one of the outside advisers on the review, Mr. Lyon, has made it plain he would prefer. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoting
190
Mr. Lyon's views with such reverence last week, for basically what restricting SERPS means is that contributions to the state scheme remain the same while benefits are reduced.
Whatever is done to restrict SERPS simply cuts the benefits without putting anything in their place. That will still leave the two nations in pensions—one nation with its own occupational pension and the other nation without. Frankly, I do not believe—and I am content that the leader of the SDP should pursue that point—that Mr. Lyon's proposals have much attraction, either economic or human.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is it not the case that the Government said in 1981, on the first quinquennial review of the state earnings-related pension scheme, that changing from the relationship of prices to earnings, to prices only, would undermine SERPS? Was that not the reason why the Secretary of State said before the review even started, in November 1983, that to set up the inquiry was not to call into question the fundamental pension structure which had been established with all-party support and to which he was himself a party? Finding another one million people is one thing; calling into question the fundamental structure is a totally different matter. Why has the Secretary of State overturned the promise which he gave when he set up the review in the first place?
Mr. Fowler: For the very good reason—and it is for the House and for the parties to decide on the merits of the investigation—
Mr. Roy Hattersley: And the public.
Mr. Fowler: I accept that, and I am prepared to debate this matter anywhere with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
All the evidence that has become available to us in the course of this review has led me and the Government to question whether SERFS is an obligation. That was the purpose of the review. There is no point in having a review of this kind unless one is prepared to look at the options and at the evidence. One of the most depressing things about this is that Opposition Members call for the figures, but when the figures are produced, they take no notice of them.
Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State speaks with much confidence about these population projections. How does he reconcile this with his own speech, when he said:
"the population forecasts are uncertain; they need to be treated with some caution."
I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. He went on to say that now that it was policy to uprate pensions in line with prices rather than earnings
"it would be difficult to argue that we are unloading an intolerable burden on future generations."
Furthermore, why did the Green Paper include the worker-pensioner ratio only to the year 2035, when it is at its lowest point, and not include that same ratio at the year 2050 — figures which were available to the Government — which shows that the figure is considerably better?
Mr. Fowler: It seems to me that, not untypically, the hon. Gentleman has just shot himself in the foot. He questions my forecasts up to 2035, he says that those are uncertain, and then he wants me to produce forecasts to

191
2050. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the Green Paper, in which we have not only set it out up to 2035, but, in the third volume, if I remember correctly, have shown an ultimate position for the number of pensioners. The point which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make is that 2035 represents a peak of pensioners and a trough of workers, but it is a peak which has to be afforded and sustained. However the hon. Gentleman does his sums—God knows he does them in some peculiar ways at times—over the next 40 or 50 years we shall have between 3 million and 4 million extra pensioners. As social security spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman has to face that fact. If he wants to argue that nothing can be changed, that is up to him, but we must argue on some factual basis.
Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the figures depend upon an improvement in the birth rate, and that if the decline of the past 30 years is not reversed the ratio between pensioner and contributor in 2010 will be a good deal worse than the figures in the table?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, and the ratio between contributors and pensioners depends also upon a substantial improvement in employment. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will find it difficult to sustain the case that we are taking an unduly pessimistic view of the future.
The Government's approach is to begin now to face the long-term problems, and to do so constructively. The problem of SERPS is a problem for the next century and we have put forward proposals which will have their effect in the next century. We do not intend to change the position of any existing pensioner or anybody retiring this century. The time scale of pensions, I fully accept, is too long to make changes suddenly, but by beginning now to increase occupational and personal pension cover we will achieve a position where everybody is building up his own pension through his job.
In short, we are proposing, first, that the basic state pension will continue, and will continue to be protected against inflation; secondly, that the state earnings-related scheme will continue for everyone nearing retirement so that no one who retires for the rest of this century will be affected; and, thirdly, that men in their 40s and women between 35 and 45 will be given a special extra entitlement of rights which will be added to their pension.
In other words, the Government are facing the major problems and the major issues now, while at the same time giving everyone the right of an occupational pension or a personal pension with his job. These proposals should be added to the measures which we are already taking to improve the rights of early leavers from occupational pension schemes and to establish transfer rights so that there should be no obstacle to mobility.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Many people will agree with my right hon. Friend's proposal for changing the structure that deals with an actuarial probability of the liability in the future, but we are still left with the problem of having to pay for the substantial cost of the basic state pension and the new proposals for portable pensions. With the new figures, about which we know, of substantially more elderly people, this will, predictably enough, leave an enormous burden which has to be met out of total expenditure. Is there not a case for saying something about
192
grasping the real nettle, which is whether we are prepared, and can afford, in future years annually to index and uprate these substantial benefits?
Mr. Fowler: I shall listen to what my hon. Friend says on that. The sensible way to approach this problem—we are agreed that a problem exists — is to put one's emphasis on the basic state pension. The Government are committed to increasing the basic state pension in line with the rise in prices, which is a sensible social and economic priority. At the same time, we want to move to a situation where virtually everyone in a job is building up a pension at the same time. In other words, we want to keep the advantage of personal pensions, but also have the flexibility which a pay-as-you-go system gives as well.
One of the fundamental mistakes in the debate on the pensions scheme is that there is a belief that the national insurance pension and SERPS will be paid from a fund. It will not be paid from a fund, because there is not one. We are seeking to put obligations upon future generations of contributors. The Government are trying to tackle that problem. Strengthening individual provision is only one of the Government's objectives. We also recognise the vital role of our social security system in supporting those in need. Our aim is to develop the system of help for those on low incomes so that it is simpler, easier to understand and administer and fairer in providing help to all those who need it.
The shortcomings of supplementary benefit, for instance, are well established. The endless rules and detailed guidance on their interpretation inevitably lead to inaccuracy and frustration for claimants and staff alike. All too often the present system is also ineffective in achieving its aims. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked me about the family income supplement in a question on my earlier statement. It is based on a one-child family, it gives only small additional increases in benefit to those with more children, and it takes no account of the children's ages. Because its structure is to different from supplementary benefit, many families especially larger families and those with children—can find themselves worse off than if they were out of work. That position cannot be supported.
Family income supplement, like housing benefit, is also paid on the basis of gross income. This ignores the 40p in the pound deductions for tax and national insurance which many people in receipt of these benefits still face. The result is that, in some cases, the cumulative loss of benefit is so large as to more than wipe out any increase in take-home pay. The proposals which the Government have now put forward will tackle those problems at their roots.
For the first time ever in this country, a Government have attempted to deal comprehensively with the needs of all low-income families. Up to now, income-related support has always been provided in a piecemeal fashion and different benefits have been cobbled together at different times to meet different problems. They have never been brought together within a single consistent framework.
The new family credit scheme is at the heart of the Government's approach to income-related benefits. It is based on the belief that there should be an effective bridge for low-income working families between the full support provided for children of those who are out of work and the level of universal assistance through child benefit.

193
Family credit will provide that bridge. It will be based on the same structure as the new income support scheme, with extra help for older children and larger families, to help ensure that families cannot be worse off in than out of work. It will be assessed against pay after tax so that families cannot find benefit being withdrawn faster than their take-home pay increases. It will be paid by employers through the pay packet, so that it acts as an offset to tax and national insurance.
I believe that this method of payment will represent a significant narrowing of the gap between the tax and benefit system. Indeed, once the computerisation of the systems has been completed, it may become possible to use the same system for assessment as well as for payment. I also believe that payment through the wage packet will help to ensure that the benefit is taken up by more of those for whom it is intended.
Our proposals for a new income support scheme, backed by the social fund, will also be a major step forward. The new scheme will do much to end the intrusive personal questioning to which so many supplementary benefit claimants presently have to submit. Our system will be simpler. It will use the same resources—I emphasise that—in a better way to help those who are most in need.
Today, for example, additional assistance for heating and laundry is provided through individually assessed payments. The new scheme will build in the additional help automatically for those groups who are most likely to need it.
There is no question of just scrapping the additional requirements payments and of putting nothing in their place. We would be replacing a complex system, where help goes only to certain individuals after a process of assessment, by a simpler system in which entitlement will be clear and automatic. It would be a matter of taking the available resources and applying them so that they are shared equally and as of right by those groups whose needs are likely to be the greatest.
It is the social fund which will have the task of dealing with the genuinely exceptional circumstances and problems which inevitably arise. This goes much wider than the question of single payments under the existing supplementary benefit scheme. The purpose of the social fund will be to provide help much more flexibly and sensitively in a wider range of circumstances. We will be training staff specially to approach problems from a perspective which takes account of the whole range of an individual's problems. There will, of course, continue to be financial crises which have to be met.
More generally, we would expect the social fund to help people in response to their real needs. This will involve providing loans to those on income support to cope with the cost of unusually large purchases. It will also involve providing extra help with funeral costs and the new larger maternity grants. We will also be looking to develop the role of the social fund as a more active partner, with the health and social services authorities, and with the voluntary sector, in finding the right mix of cash and care to meet the needs of the elderly and other priority groups.
Dr. David Owen: Will the Secretary of State accept that if the social fund is to win acceptance it cannot be cash limited, and that it must be able to reflect need?
Mr. Fowler: I accept that it must be able to establish that it is meeting need. I do not accept that it cannot operate within a budget in much the same way as many other areas in the social field operate. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has had experience in the DHSS, is that there is no dignity in the present single payments system. Whatever criticisms may be levelled now at the social fund, I think that very few people would want to perpetuate the present system.
Mr. Frank Field: I think that the Secretary of State's statement on family credit is the most significant that he has made on the Green Paper. He said that it would result in a significant narrowing of the gap between benefit and wage levels. How can he give that assurance to the House if he has not worked out his new scheme with figures? If he has, may we have the figures?
Mr. Fowler: For the very good reason that the movement to net pay is the most significant movement and the most significant policy development in the whole Green Paper. That is set out in the Green Paper, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: We shall have more of the family credit system later. In the meantime, is the Secretary of State giving us a guarantee that, notwithstanding the fact that it will be cash-limited, the social fund cannot run out and that, if there is in any year a large number of claims on that fund, it will be extended?
Mr. Fowler: I said that we believe that the social fund can operate within a budget in the same way as, in the Health Service, for example, the hospital service works within a budget and the health authorities work within a budget. What we are trying to do here is to improve the position, and clearly we will be guided by the experience that we have in the operation of that fund. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—if he does not know, he should know — that the present position is indefensible. The present position, which has existed not just under this Government and not just under the previous Government, but since the 1940s, is indefensible.
The new role for social security will take time to develop, but, as with our aim of improving co-operation between the tax and benefit systems, we are anxious to see those parts of the welfare state which provide help to those in need work more closely and effectively together.
The final part of the new co-ordinated system of income-related benefits will be a much simpler housing benefit scheme. As with family credit, it will be assessed on the basis of net, not gross, income and will be based on the same broad structure as income support. This will mean that those on equivalent incomes will get equivalent help with their housing costs whether they are in or out of work—and that help will extend to 100 per cent. of rent for the poorest groups. As I have made clear, we are seeking to check—and. I am being entirely frank—the amount of money going on housing benefit, for the good reason that one third of all households are receiving help with their housing costs, and help with domestic rates can extend to people well up the income scale.
We have therefore proposed to set a maximum limit on the help which can be given with rates. Much will

195
obviously depend upon the outcome of the Government's review of local government finance, but the principle that everybody should make at least some contribution to the cost of local services is one which the Government believe to be right.
I should just like to clear up one point on which some misunderstanding has arisen. Our plan for the restructuring of widows' benefits was based on the objective of giving greater help to widows at the time when they need it most — that is at the time of bereavement. We intend to replace the present widow's allowance by a sum of £1,000 payable at the time of bereavement. This will be in addition to the continuing benefits payable to widows with children and older widows.
I can tell the House that the lump sum payable to all widows will be entirely tax-free, unlike the existing widow's allowance which it will replace.
The Green Paper is intended to carry forward the debate about the sort of social security system which we want in this country. It is a fundamentally important debate. It is a debate about principles, structures and policies. In that debate, the Government's position is clear. We want a simpler system—one which gives better service to the public and directs help most to those most in need. We want a system which is soundly based—now and for the future —and we have set out in the Green Paper our proposals for achieving those ends.
The responsibility to set out policies is not just on us alone. What has been lacking from the debate so far is any clear statement of the policies and principles which the Opposition Parties wish to put forward. Therefore, we look forward to hearing today from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition what his policies are. We welcome also the opportunity that he has to set out the position; for example, whether he endorses the £15 billion spending programme of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and what his plans are for changing mortgage tax relief. Will he tell us whether he intends to abolish the upper earnings limit for employees? Will he tell us whether his pledge to retain the state earnings-related pension scheme is also a pledge to reintroduce contracting out, or will he instead be looking to put into effect the Labour party's plans for Government direction of pension funds investment? I say to the right hon. Gentleman seriously that those are the questions to which the public and the House will want to know the answers.
The Government's aims are clear. We are seeking a new partnership in social security. We are setting provision by the individual alongside provision by the state. We are looking for a simpler system which is fairer between those in and out of work and which directs more help more effectively to those who need it most. Above all, we are looking for a modern and better managed social security system which is adjusted to the needs of today and able to meet the challenges of the future.
4.59 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'whilst seeking to achieve a more just and efficient system of provision and contribution for social security, strongly condemns the proposals made in the Government's Green Paper, Reform of Social Security, which would, if implemented, destroy many of the established and widely supported principles of care for the needy in Britain, bring about substantial reductions in income, security and, therefore, freedom for pensioners, mothers,
196
widows, low income and pensioner home owners and low paid and unemployed families, result in increased means-testing for the poor in order to produce savings in resources for the rich, and force the great majority of workers to pay higher contributions for pensions without providing for the needs of the disabled; and rejects as fraudulent the Government's claim to be undertaking consultations when they refuse to provide proper estimates of payments and contributions resulting from proposals for major and retrograde change which they have never put to the electorate '
We have just been treated to the extraordinary spectacle of a Secretary of State in a Government with a huge majority in their second period of office, and with major proposals to put to the House, concentrating much of his speech not upon a defence of his Green Paper but on a series of questions addressed to the next Government. That is a confession of a massive weakness in the Government case, and we look forward to hearing more of that from the Secretary of State. Before we go any further, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that when the Labour party puts its proposals before the House and the country before and after the next general election, there are two things that we shall not do. I shall not write to right hon. and hon. Members saying, as the Prime Minister did on 20 May 1983,
"nor are there any proposals to change the system."
Nor will I permit my Secretary of State for Social Security to give any undertaking — [Interruption.] I know that this embarrasses the Secretary of State greatly. I will not permit my Secretary of State to give any undertakings that, if he should set up any inquiry, it will not call into question the fundamental pension structure that was established by the Social Security Act 1975, to which he was a party. He ratted on that, and he has been twisting all afternoon. It is about par for the course.
The Green Paper on the reform of the social security system calls itself the "most major fundamental" review of the welfare state since William Beveridge's report on social insurance and allied services in 1942. With such a monumental project in hand, it is a shame that we could not depend upon the Prime Minister to present it to the House. I am glad, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, to demonstrate the great importance that the Labour party attaches to this destructive set of proposals. The Prime Minister is using the Secretary of State as a figleaf, and never was there such an emaciated figleaf.
This fundamental review—the biggest for 43 years, as the Government repeatedly tell us—was never put before the electorate for their assessment. The independent experts recruited to assist in its compilation are deserting the Prime Minister even faster than she is disowning them. If the review is a set of reforms with the benevolent purpose of improving and clarifying the social security system, Sweeney Todd was a medical researcher and the blitz was an exercise in town planning.
The Government tell us that their review and the changes proposed by it have five objectives: resolving the financial issues of future pensions provision; directing resources effectively; clarifying the social security system for claimants; simplifying the administration of the system; and promoting personal independence. At face value, those are noble aspirations, decent intentions and worthy objectives, and we could all support them. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by their deeds shall ye know them.
The deeds of the Government stretch like a guilty list through the past six years. Those deeds have resulted in a cut in social security for the disabled, the poor and the unemployed of £9,000 million, at the śame time as the

197
Government have made awards averaging £2,000 million a year to the richest 5 per cent. in society. Those deeds include a change in the formula for calculating old-age pensions, which means that a pensioner couple are £4 a week worse off than they would have been had the Government sustained the earnings pension link. Those deeds include the removal of housing support, which has increased rents by a record 165 per cent. during the past six years. They include the denial of board and lodging allowances to youngsters, which has turned thousands of them into travelling paupers.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's proposals will subject jobless and homeless under-26-year-olds to a range of economic, social and psychological pressures with which some of them will be unable to cope, leading to some of them taking up crime, drugs and other symptoms of despair?
Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry to have to say it, but my hon. Friend is right. Many reports have already been received to show that that sort of thing is happening — [Laughter.] I hope that the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) have noted his amusement about the position of many thousands of young unemployed people. Yesterday, I heard of the case of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). A young man who went to Edinburgh in search of work was living on the board and lodging allowance, but was later denied that allowance, so that his income was cut from more than £60 a week to just over £20 a week. The allowance ended on 30 May. He was ejected from his lodgings a week later, and two days later, a young man with no history of instability or suicide attempts, committed suicide. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is still laughing.
I do not say that the consequence for every young person, or for most youngsters, will be to fall into such despair and difficulty. I am saying that a completely unjust system has been inflicted upon those youngsters. That is part of the record of this Government, by whose deeds we know them. Therefore when they protest that they wish to tidy up the welfare state and make it coherent and more direct in its application to needs, I say, "Rubbish." I also say that it is hypocritical rubbish from the Secretary aof State and his hon. Friends.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a great problem caused by the complexity of the present system is the low take-up rate, whereby many people in real need do not obtain benefits that they deserve? Does he agree that the new proposal, which involves a simplification of the process, must lead to higher take-up rates and to real benefit for those in need?
Mr. Kinnock: Although I applaud the hon. Gentleman's motives, I must tell him that he does not understand the scheme. How can the take-up rate for housing benefit be increased, when the scheme will deny such benefit to 7 million people who presently receive it? The same system of application to the DHSS applies to the family credit scheme as it does to the family income supplement. How will there be an increase in take-up
198
there? If the hon. Gentleman's aspiration is to increase take-up rates, he will be a sadder and wiser man when he investigates the matter. I hope that, after he has considered the proposals properly, he will vote with the Opposition tonight.
Hardly anyone, except perhaps for the more gullible Conservative Back-Bench Members, believes that the Government are innocent of malice or that they have decent intentions with regard to this measure. Not even the Government believe it. They know that the proposals are not for the reform of the welfare state, but for a raid on the welfare of millions of poor people and pensioners. They know that it is not a shake-up of the benefits system, but a shake-out of the most needy and some of the poorest people in society. That is why they are so coy about giving the figures that will enable a proper assessment to be made, not just of the structure but of the practical implications for those who will be at the sharp end of the proposed changes.
The Green Paper is for consultation and public debate, but no participant in the debate and no one who will feel the results of the proposals is entitled to see the figures. The Government are asking all of us in the House and elsewhere to judge a monumental proposal for a huge structural change—as they say—with hardly any costing of the components of the various schemes and without saying who will gain or lose by the changes, or what they will gain or lose. It is not so much a review as a riddle.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Given the concern of the right hon. Gentleman with figures, does that mean that he will be telling the House by how much a Labour Government would increase taxation so as to maintain services, bearing in mind the cost to the Exchequer? If he intends to criticise us for our lack of figures, how much does he intend to raise tax to restore SERPS?
Mr. Kinnock: I am coming to that. In the meantime I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cogitate on why in 1975 his party entirely supported SERPS, why it fought two elections supporting it, and why the Secretary of State said that it was not his intention to change that scheme. Those are the questions that have to be answered. It is the Green Paper bearing the name of the Conservative Secretary of State currently in office that we are debating, and not a Green Paper, White Paper, Queen's Speech or any other proposal from the next Government. At that time, if the hon. Gentleman survives the next general election, I shall be glad to respond to his inquiries.
The excuses for changing the figures have moved with astonishing speed over the past fortnight. On 4 June, when I asked the Prime Minister for dependable estimates, she told me that in accordance with custom we would have to wait for the May retail price index figures. When on 6 June I asked for a reliable indication, the Prime Minister wrote to tell me that we could not have the figures for two years because they would have a spurious precision and might be actively misleading. By last Thursday, 13 June, much had changed. The Prime Minister told us then that they would provide a range of illustrative figures when the White Paper was published in the autumn. It was all very matter-of-fact. Indeed, the Prime Minister was almost eager.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who in addition to his job as Paymaster General is

199
currently temping as chairman of the Conservative party, went even further. On a radio programme last Friday he was so matter-of-fact that he said the figures were always to be in the White Paper. Yet for nearly a fortnight previously the Prime Minister had been resisting all efforts to get her to acknowledge that.
We know that the Government have the information; we know that the DHSS has the information; we know that even the printers have the information. The only people who cannot have it are the House of Commons and the British public who have to deal with the proposals. When we know that the Government have the information and will not give it to us, we can reach only one conclusion —that to publish now would be bad politically for the Prime Minister and for her Government; therefore, the figures have to be studied by the Government's statistical beauty consultants so that, with the advantage of the passage of time and two upratings in pensions and benefits within eight months, they can start to become politically presentable. That is why the Government will not come clean.
Of course, if I may coin a phrase, we are given a lot of fudge and mudge about the figures not being available. Would 'it not be extraordinary if, after all the wrangling and toing and froing of Her Majesty's Government, the Cabinet and the Cabinet committees, there were still no figures available?
Mr. Tim Eggar: In the Green Paper it is stated clearly that the Government estimate that the cost of provision for pensions will quadruple by the year 2033. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that figure and, if so, how would he finance it?
Mr. Kinnock: I shall come to that in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.[Interruption.] I insist on making my own speech. The Secretary of State need have no fear; I shall deal with the matter in detail and with delight. Meanwhile, he can give further attention to inventing excuses as to why — proud as he is of his proposals—he still will not give the figures upon which they are based and how many gainers and losers there will be. This makes the right hon. Gentleman restless but I intend to keep on saying it because that is what the people want to know, and they are right to want to know.
The deviousness and the reluctance of the Government to publish figures extend to the review itself. They used William Beveridge as an alibi. On the second page of the Green Paper they quote from paragraph 9 of Beveridge's report in 1942:
"The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."
We all say amen to that. There can scarcely be a right hon. or hon. Member who would not agree with every word of that aspiration.
What the Government do not add is that when William Beveridge wrote that he argued that a genuine system of social security went beyond benefit and pension payments and involved full employment, a free National Health Service and decent housing available to all. When he wrote that in 1942 he was trying to organise the conquest of want, idleness and poverty; eventually he got the consent of all parties in the House of Commons.
200
No such motive inspires this Government. On the contrary, they are the Government of mass unemployment, not full employment, the Government of cuts and charges in the National Health Service, not of a free National Health Service, and the Government who have presided over the biggest rise in rents, rates and mortgage payments and the lowest number of building starts in the whole of modern history. That is the difference between Beveridge and Fowler. They should not try to perpetrate such a confidence trick on the British people as to quote in aid William Beveridge with his different aims. They cannot use that alibi.
Wherever it is examined, the Green Paper demonstrates that the Government do not have the purpose, the tenacity or the humanity of Beveridge or of anyone who has come since. That is evident from the proposed abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme. The Government have convinced themselves that in the second quarter of the 21st century the nation will not be able to afford SERPS. The Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee does not think that. It says that there are no firm grounds for coming to that conclusion. That advisory committee is right, because the Government's assumptions, built into their excuse for abolition, are the most perversely pessimistic that can be made.
For instance, the Government assume in their figures that real pay will rise by only 1·5 per cent. per annum on average over the next 50 years, when over the last 40 years it has risen by an average 2 per cent. The Government assume in the figures that they offer us that the basic pension will rise in line with earnings. That might be good news. Are they planning to do that five years after abolishing the link and causing so many problems for pensioner couples? They go on to try to argue both ways because in regard to the future they say that the cost would be unsupportable, but they neglect the record of the past.
The Government say that we cannot afford a 2 per cent. rise in pension contributions over the next 50 years but they neglect the fact that during the past six years the Government have sponsored an increase of 2·5 per cent. in those contributions. Why can we not sustain that level of contribution over 50 years when we have—because of the Government's policies—sustained a greater level of contributions for the past six years?
The Government assume in their figures that the work participation rate will remain constant over the next 50 years. In the past 40 years it has risen by 4·5 per cent. They assume that the number of pensioners will rise. At last, they are right, but they also assume that the economic growth rate will fall. That will occur only if we have a succession of Governments over the next 50 years who are as ruinous as this Government have been.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Beveridge realised what the proportion of the working population to the retired population would be? Did he have any idea that the percentage would be so great?
Mr. Kinnock: We can discover Beveridge's figures. I can meanwhile talk about 1985 and the attitude that is consistent with William Beveridge's philosophy. In 50 years' time three workers will be getting the equivalent of six workers' incomes now. Every three workers will earn twice in real terms what is being earned now. Even on the Government's assumptions, that will be "the equivalent of

201
double what is being earned now. Nobody says that no problems will arise from that, but that does not make it impossible to sustain a proper pension scheme for retired people.
The Government are pessimistic. They have failed to take into account changes in the economy, the increasingly intensive capitalisation of the economy and the higher production which will occur as soon as they are out of office. They assume next to nil growth over the next 50 years. If that were to be the case, we would be worried about pensions, but that worry would be subsumed in our immense anxiety that the country was going out of business. The Government make all those assumptions and come to the conclusion that we cannot afford SERPS. Even if their calculations were correct, their reactions to the calculations would still be wrong. If the nation will have difficulty paying its retired people a decent pension, the situation will be made worse by abolishing SERPS, which is the fairest, most efficient and cost-effective of the pension schemes in the present system.
As a result of the abolition of SERPS, everyone will pay more for their pensions than they pay at present. That is made clear in one of the few facts that is offered to us in the Green Paper. Some 11 million people contracted into SERPS pay 19·4 per cent. in national insurance and pension contributions. That figure will rise to a minimum of 20·5 per cent. The 11 million people contracted out of SERPS, who now pay a minimum of 17·25 per cent. in national insurance and pension contributions, will be required to pay a minimum of 20·25 per cent.
The abolition of SERPS will make pension provision more expensive for everyone currently and in the future. A guarantee of a decent pension is to be torn up by the Government. With their proposals to abolish SERPS, the Government are not facing the future, as they claim. They are betraying the future of millions of people who will have no realistic means of providing themselves with a decent and dependable post-retirement income. That is a betrayal that applies to today's citizens as much as to tomorrow's. The Government are trying to give the impression that they are seeking to direct benefit more effectively. That is their second aspiration.
The Government talk a great deal about targeting and trying to give the impression that they want to mix compassion and prudence, and that they want to offer the country a mixture of provision and genuine pity.
All experience of Toryism, ancient and modern, is that targeting is not inspired by the aim to help those in need. It is a system operated to limited means-tested aid to the most pathetically destitute. That is what the Government mean when they talk about targeting. Whether it is applied to heating allowances, death grant, matenity payments or housing benefit, the targeting system—nothing that the Secretary of State said this afternoon dissuades us from this—exists to deny, to deprive and cheapen, and not to meet genuine needs of our society. It exists to humiliate, not to help. It exists to put shame back into need.
Mr. Richard Tracey: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman promised my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that he would tell us the rate of taxation that our children would be paying
202
to finance the Labour party's plans for SERPS. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether it is right, as The Economist predicts, that it will be 45p in the pound?
Mr. Kinnock: No, that is not right. [Interruption.] Here we have a Government with a majority of 190 asking for the figures. I am not going to give them. The hon. Gentleman had better answer two other questions. First, what contribution rate will be needed to meet social security needs and pensions in 2015 or 2035? Secondly, if he thinks that SERPS must be abolished to lighten the load, how does he think that private pension schemes will pay for the pensions of the next century? Will that be any cheaper? It will be cheaper only as a result of the conscious betrayal of the people by a Tory Government in 1985 because the basic national insurance benefit, which is all that they will have, will be worthless. That is what the hon. Gentleman must accept if he will not face up to the options and the requirements of the future. We shall do that. Let him try to persuade his right hon. Friend to do so, then we shall have more respect for him.
The Government propose what they call "nilcost" reform — the idea that the sums taken from some claimants and beneficiaries can be transferred to others. As the poor will assist the poor, it is an exercise in crumb shuffling. It is a transfer from the near-poor to the near-destitute; from the needy to the wretched. It means depriving those who are barely managing. They are to be robbed, but even the transfer of those resources—which is not guaranteed—will fail to help those in the depths of poverty.
The result of depriving those who are near-poor to help those who are near-destitute will be a huge increase in poverty overall. I shall use the example of housing benefit. Some 7·2 million households, including 4 million pensioner households, will lose some benefit, and some 1·8 million households, including 1·2 million pensioner households, will lose benefit completely. That will deprive those households without giving anything worthwhile to those who are even poorer—conceivably their sons and daughters. That will hammer pensioners with small occupational pensions.
In my constituency, for example, there is a 68-year-old widow. She is an owner-occupier, as so many of my constituents are because Wales has a great many owner-occupiers. She may be in receipt of a pit pension, a British Steel Corporation pension or a works pension of some kind. She will be hit, because she and her husband were prudent, thrifty, earnest and fastidious enough during their working lives to set something aside to provide an extra £10 or £12 a week. The Government now intend to take housing benefit away from that woman.
They will not admit it yet, but Conservative Members know very well that there is poison in the Government's proposals for those people who might currently think, in their thriftiness in retirement, that they are not affected by the Government's proposals and that the Government would not harm them after their lifetime of service and work. Well, they have some sad news coming and the most appropriate people to tell them are Conservative Members. They ought to tell their constituents now what will happen to the 70 to 80 per cent. of them who are getting housing benefit. They should do one of two things — stand up against the Government and stop them undertaking this act of larceny or take cover, because the wrath, when it comes, of those people—the unjustly

203
deprived—will be mighty and just. It will happen in other spheres—for example with the social fund. The Secretary of State was characteristically evasive when I asked him about it. It is cash limited, but it is as long as a piece of string, or that is what we were given to believe. We shall examine it more closely when we have some figures.
Whatever benefits may be claimed for the social fund or the income support system, simplicity is not one of them. They will introduce a system of eight different classes of benefit in the income support system and a cash limited social fund, presided over by local benefit officers with supplementary training. That will be very good for local benefit officers. How many ways can you say no? Will they need special training to tell people they have run out of the fund or that these people are getting too much pay to qualify for the income support system? Is that what the Government mean by simplification? It does not give simplification or coherence. It gives us a nasty byzantine mess which will snarl up and deprive even more people.
The Government say in the Green Paper that they want to end the Dickensian paper chase. That is a sweet thought. They cannot do that by installing a Dickensian pauper chase which only Mr. Bumble the Beadle and possibly the Secretary of State would be happy with. Family credit will be a nightmare for employers and for those entitled to claim. Employers will need to know the household income of claimants to judge their entitlement. The implications of that in terms of privacy, complexity and administration costs for the employer are huge. The Government, in their family credit proposals, are not decreasing complexity and introducing coherence or simplification, but increasing complexity and passing it on to employers. These days it seems that even chaos must be privatised.
The Government tell us that unemployment is caused by higher wages and, in the same breath, they tell us in the Green Paper that unemployment is caused by higher benefits. Well, it is one thing or the other. They say people cannot get work because wages are too high and that people will not take work because the benefits are too high. It is never the Government's fault. That is what they always tell us. Now, with family credit, they have a new message for the low paid. They are saying, "Take low wages to price yourselves into jobs like good little workers, but do not take wages so low as to entitle you to family credit for, if you do that, you will either not dare to take increases for fear of losing credit or you will be in such problems" — [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell me that family credit, subject to a six-monthly review, will not vary according to the level of wages received by the low paid?
Mr. Fowler: No, but I am trying to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it represents a considerable advance on the family income supplement system, and that basing it on net earnings is a substantial step forward. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants people to be better off and to be taking an increase in salary so that they are better off in work than on benefit. Does he not want that?
Mr. Kinnock: I am strongly in favour of that, but perhaps the Secretary of State can answer another question. Does he think that there is no danger of employers in the system further reducing wages, confident that the deficit can be topped up by the taxpayer? I am anxious for a reply. It appears that the right hon.
204
Gentleman does not think that there is any such danger. I must tell him that the sad thing is that, because of the Government's majority, we might have a chance to find out, but I think that my estimation will be nearer to what happens than his.
In the family credit system, there is no extra independence as the Government suggest is the last and the finest of their objectives. It is insulting and dishonest for the Government to suggest that their proposals do anything to increase people's independence. We are being offered "stand on your own feet" Toryism which will give more people the right to live on their own knees. That is the essence of the Green Paper and of the philosophy of the proposals behind it.
The Government can quote Beveridge and say that security should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility in establishing a national minimum, but when the national minimum is so low, so conditional, so inaccessible, so subject to poking and prying and so subject to means testing, it creates permanent insecurity. That is what the poor will be doomed to if we implement the proposals in the Green Paper. When that permanent insecurity exists, there is no incentive to respond to, no opportunity to be taken, no means of exercising responsibility—much as people would like to exercise it. There is only that paralysing, numbing and disabling state of poverty. Conservative Members must be familiar with it. They do constituency work and must meet people who are poor and who are obsessed in every word and action and thought by their poverty. It is inescapable. It surrounds them constantly and dominates their every consideration.
The idea of those people exercising initiative and of their taking an opportunity of fulfilling responsibility is a taunt and a mockery. That affects men and women, but most it affects women because women and children form the majority of the poor, whether they are low-paid mothers with families, widows with or without families, single parents, wives of men who are unemployed, low-paid or part-time workers getting Britain's lowest wages, or single women unemployed. The fact is that those women are the majority of the poor. Under this Government, for the past six years, women and children have come last for aid and first for attack.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that what drives our constituents to despair is the fact that they simply cannot understand the complexity of the system and that when they get wage increases they are worse off? Those are two aspects of the system which we are trying to cure.
Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere about his question and that he makes every effort to service his constituents. However, in this Green Paper, none of those needs are met. He had better re-examine what the Secretary of State says and the impetus behind the proposals. It is nothing to do with introducing kindness or tenderness into the welfare state, but it is the product of a Government who have shown such gross incompetence in their conduct of economic affairs that they have increased unemployment by 2 million and increased poverty by 3 million, the results of which are the vast new bills for social security which they must meet. With typical meanness, they have decided to respond not by generating employment, growth and new investment, but by cutting benefits and making the poor poorer.

205
The condition of women should concern us all. It is extraordinary that the awful disadvantages have been inflicted upon women in this country, by, to her credit, the first woman Prime Minister, who preaches thrift and prudence as great virtues—we endorse that entirely—and penalises people for exercising those virtues throughout their working lives. She penalises women and deprives them of the very means of being prudent and thrifty, which they want to be.
Mr. Robert McCrindle rose—
Mr. Kinnock: I shall accept no more interruptions.
People in such depths of poverty know that, despite their being careful, prudent and fastidious, their income will nevertheless run out after five days of the week, and they will remain poor, not merely next week or the week thereafter, but next month and next year. They remain poor because the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the system has no ambition to use it to release people from poverty.
The poor hate their poverty, and we hate their poverty with them, yet the Government will now make it worse. The Government will worsen their position with the interlocking system of family credit and with cuts in housing benefit and income support. Poor people will be caught in an even bigger snarled-up mess of bureaucracy and means tests. The non-working poor will be disadvantaged by losing benefits and suffering new burdens, and the working poor will suffer from reductions ranging from school milk and school meals to housing benefit and other pass book benefits, which they can claim under the present system.
In this plan, as in every other, the Government will ensure that the burdens are borne by the working population, the poor population, the unemployed population, the pensioner population and the disabled population. That is what they have done in every respect in every Act during the past sad, sour, six years. Their changes will inflict massive disadvantages on many millions of people today and tomorrow. Their policies first impoverish people by denying them work and by inflicting cuts and disadvantages on them through local government fund cuts, health cuts and low pay. When the Government have created that extra poverty, they define the impoverished as a parasitic group who must be afforded only the most reluctant charity. When the Government have turned claimants of right into supplicants for benefits, they pass on their responsibility and put the blame, pressure, power and responsibility on overworked benefit officers, who become the front line between our needy and the British state. That is a poor law philosophy and practice, which demeans both the givers and the takers.
We are fighting and we will continue to fight the Government's defeatism. We shall fight their philosophy and proposals, not because we are complacent about or content with the present system, but because we want greater efficiency, simplicity and accuracy in affording help in the welfare state. In that enterprise our purpose must be to defeat poverty and insecurity, to provide care and opportunity, and not to increase misery and decrease dignity, which will be the direct consequences of the Government's proposed changes. Those aims must be common to the whole House.
206
The purpose of reforming our system must be to remove all divisions, not create further divisions, to eliminate poverty, not stigmatise it, and to enhance security, not destroy it, which will be the consequences of the Government's proposals. We have widespread support for those objectives of change, with consent and in the name of humanity, justice and opportunity. We have widespread backing in our campaign against these proposals. We shall continue to have support, because the Government's policies will diminish the whole country in that they will divide, impoverish and offend against the decency of the whole country.
Every measure of public opinion demonstrates the strong resilient decency of the British people, and shows that they want to wage war on poverty, not on the poor. The British people demonstrate that they are prepared to pay, not merely for themselves but to help those in need. When that comes from the British people, it is not soft sentimentality, but plain, common, ordinary British decency — the greatest attribute of our society. With their pinched and prejudiced attitude, their meanness and malice, the Government are entirely eccentric to that feeling of decency. We are left with the bile and spite of a Tory Government who are pre-Churchillian in their attitudes. I say to the Government, do not commit further wrongs, get rid of these plans and be British.
5.45 pm
Sir David Price: Hon. Members will agree with the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) about the need to find consensus for changes in our social security system. Other than in that respect, his speech bore no relation to the Green Paper. It was a pantomime effort and consisted of all the hyperbole that he uses in his more emotional moments.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the Government on their courage in introducing these proposals and in trying to face the changes in our society and their effects on our social security system. I congratulate them on their readiness to look deep into the next century. In pension terms, to think 50 years ahead is to deal with the present generation. In political terms, it is thinking at least 12 general elections ahead. Although some people would argue that that is thinking too far ahead, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on having the courage to think so far ahead. There was a time when the Labour party talked about forward planning, but from the right hon. Gentleman's speech it seems that the only planning that it does is thinking and looking backwards, if not in anger, at least with nostalgia.
The need for a major reform of our social security arrangements is shown in the chilling figures which appear in table 1.2 in volume 2 of the Green Paper, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. I remind the House, not in absolute terms, but in percentage terms, of what my right hon. Friend said. In 50 years' time the number of old-age pensioners will have increased by 42 per cent., and the number of contributors to pay for those pensioners will have decreased by 30 per cent. One does not need to be a senior wrangler in mathematics to realise that that is a major problem. Anyone who ignores that is being wholly irresponsible.
Furthermore — I interrupted my right hon. Friend when he quoted them—those figures are based on the assumption that we shall recover the birth rate, which has been declining during the past 20 years, to what it was in

207
previous decades. They are also based on assumptions about employment and economic growth which are by no means certain. The figures could be a great deal worse than those quoted. Therefore, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends are being prudent in trying to face those harsh facts. It would be easy for them to ignore that and merely look to the end of this decade. The Government showed great responsibility by looking so far ahead.
We must never forget that, although we talk about the insurance fund, our retirement pension scheme is not funded, but works on a pay-as-you-go basis. We must always consider how big a burden we are entitled to place on the next generation at work. If the burden is too great, they will kick. Therefore, the Government are right and brave to undertake these massive reviews.
The Government are right to introduce their proposals as a Green Paper. I trust that none of us, above all not the Government, will be dogmatic about the proposals and that they are genuinely open for discussion. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has already made up his mind about the proposals and closed his mind to further discussion. I found them complicated, and they require a great deal of study. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is open to changes in them that will come up during the period of discussion. I ask him; how green is his Green Paper? I hope that it is very green.
The scope of the Green Paper is massive, and I therefore regard this debate as simply the beginning of a long period of inquiry and discussion by us all. In view of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps this is a needless and hopeless plea, but I plead for an attempt to find consensus in these matters. The time scale alone requires consensus, because over the next 50 years there will be changes of Government.
The Government's objectives as laid out in the Green Paper are threefold. They are objectives on which I think we can find reasonable consensus. The first objective is that the social security system must be capable of meeting genuine need. I think that we can all agree on that. The second objective is that the social security system must be consistent with the Government's overall objectives in the economy. I know what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is after, but I think that it would be more acceptable if it were rephrased to say that the social security system must be consistent with the economic and social stability of the nation. Other parties are entitled to disagree with the overall objectives of the Government of the day. I think that my phraseology would command more general consent.
The third objective is that the social security system must be simpler to understand and easier to administer. My right hon. Friend has pointed out, on numerous occasions, the complexity of the system. There can be no doubt about that. We have to accept a broader approach to the categories of clients for whom we will be providing help and support. It rejects the "fine tuning". I think that that appealed to many of us as a concept. From experience, I think that it is impossible to achieve "fine tuning" that is too sensitive and too selective. The Green Paper supports that view.
I agree with the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition about the absence of numbers in the Green Paper. We ignore at our peril the wise words of the great physicist, the late Lord Kelvin:
"When you can measure what you are speaking of, and express it in numbers, you know that of which you are
208
discoursing. But when you cannot measure it, and express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a very meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to only three topics in the Green Paper. The first is the provision for the chronically sick and disabled I find this disappointing, and the reason is the absence of definite proposals. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is conducting a new survey of the disabled — a new Amelia Harris — and until we have it, it is difficult to proceed much further.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Department accept what to me is basic in our approach to the chronically sick and disabled; that is the difference between income support and the help that is given to disabled people, because of their disability, to bring them up to the starting gate in life. Into that category I put benefits such as the mobility allowance and attendance allowance. I believe that they are of an entirely different character from what is done on income support, and I hope that during these debates my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security—
Mr. Jack Ashley: When the Secretary of State eventually gives the figures, and if they prove that disabled people will be worse off at the end of the review, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to vote with the Opposition and against the Government?
Sir David Price: I have no reason to think that it will go that way. I was about to say that one thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in his Green Paper about the chronically sick and disabled is that he intends to bring in the blind more positively than hitherto. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have been campaigning for quite a long time for an improved position for the blind, so as one of them I am very pleased. In general, therefore, I am hopeful that there will be not a worsening position, but an improved position, for the seriously disabled.
Mr. Frank Field: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the structure of benefits that we should advocate for the blind?
Sir David Price: I should be delighted to do so, but I am not a Minister; I am not in the Department. We are debating the Government's proposals. I could take up too much of the House's time by describing my own views. I was one of the original supporters of the Disablement Income Group. I should have thought that my general position on the disabled was well known to the House.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the age of retirement. In the last Session of Parliament I produced my own Bill, based on our Select Committee report, to try to make the retirement age equal between men and women, and flexible between 60 and 65. I was delighted to read in the Green Paper that the Government take that idea a stage further and are proposing that it should be made flexible between 60 and 70. That is totally constructive. As far as I am concerned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State need not carry consultation on this proposal any further, but should implement the proposal.
Mr. Rooker rose—
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Sir David Price: I should also like to put to my right hon. Friend the thought that he should consider not just full retirement but the problem of semi-retirement. In a civilised society, many people wish to reduce their work burden as they get older. There is something between total retirement and total work. If we are trying to look ahead, we must bring that factor a great deal more into our thinking.
Mr. Rooker rose—
Sir David Price: With the growing number of older people in our society, that becomes a great deal more important, and we must think much more imaginatively about what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State calls a decade of retirement.
Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members:Give way.
Sir David Price: I do not want to detain the House for longer than I need to.
My third point is about family support. As I read it, the proposals for the family support—
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Sir David Price: As I read it, the proposals for family support seem close to ideas which some of us were discussing in the 1972–73 Session in the Select Committee on Tax-Credit. That is why I await with anticipation the Green Paper of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on personal income tax. I believe that this is relevant; otherwise these proposals would be only a revamp for the family income supplement. I assume that they are very different. Let me remind the House of what we said in our Select Committee report. I refer in particular to the minority report produced by Lady Castle, in which she said:
"The one field in which there is an overwhelming case for merging tax allowances and social benefits is in the case of children since there is no other equally effective way of preventing the existence of children from plunging a low-paid family into poverty. The proposed merger of child tax allowances, family allowances and FIS into a child endowment payable to all children including the first is therefore in principle wholly desirable."
That is something to work on. I see Opposition Members nodding—
Mr. Field rose—
Mr. Rooker rose—
Sir David Price: I shall not give way. I would love to carry on the debate, but I am not giving way, for the simple reason that many more Members wish to speak.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right within the rules of the House for an hon. Member to refer to the report of a Select Committee? The hon. Gentleman has read from it at some length. Is that in order?
Mr. Speaker: If the Committee has reported to the House, it is in order. If it has not, it is not in order, but I imagine that it has reported.
Sir David Price: The Select Committe reported to the House on 20 June 1973.
Mr. Frank Field: Is there not one point that makes a difference between what the hon. Gentleman is commending to the House and what the Green Paper is
210
commending to the House — the fact that both the majority and minority reports of the Select Committee said that the credit should be paid to the mother rather than to the father, whereas the Green Paper says that it should go to the father?
Sir David Price: These are all matters for debate. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for my view that we should move towards a tax credit system. A further consideration is when both husband and wife are working. I look forward to my right hon. Friend telling me the Government's view on that. I am sure that the House and the Select Committee will go into that matter in detail. However, I am glad that we have established the principle that the tax credit approach is desirable.
I take seriously your counsel, Mr. Speaker, to be brief. Let us enter into what I believe will be a long debate about the future of our social security system constructively and enthusiastically, and not simply defensively and bitterly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I have been out of the Chamber for a while. When I announced that I would limit speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm, I had not anticipated that the Front Bench spokesmen would take 84 minutes. I therefore propose to revise my judgment and apply the 10-minute limit between 7 pm and 9 pm. I hope that those hon. Members who are called will not abuse that limit.
6.1 pm
Dr. David Owen: A review of social security was inevitable and right. But what do we have from this Government? We have a menu without prices and a menu in which the central proposal is half baked—that is, the way in which they have chosen to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme. It is a menu for which we are now beginning to calculate some of the prices. The poorest households—those with a gross income of £70 a week or less—will be worse off as a result of the changes. Among working families, single-parent families make big gains and there is some redistribution in favour of couples with children generally, which is welcome. But families with high housing costs, whether public or private tenants, will lose housing benefit and will be substantially worse off.
Among pensioners, those on or just above the supplementary benefit level will gain £2·50 a week. Pensioners who own their own houses lose heavily—as much as £3·83 per week. On the whole, the Institute of Fiscal Studies calculates that more than half of all pensioner households will be worse off.
The gainers under the review will be working and non-working families, with children, earning £90 to £150 a week. The losers will be the single unemployed under 25, childless couples in work and pensioners. It is now all too clear why the Government have withheld the figures so far and why they have insisted on a menu without prices. Put simply, it is because 3 million pensioners will be made worse off by the review. That is the larceny, and that is why we charge the Government with stealing from pensioners. That is why, in or out of SERPS, the basic pension element must be increased substantially.
The SDP-Liberal alliance sees considerable merit in a 25 per cent. increase in the basic pension as the consequence of the abolition of SERPS. If SERPS is

211
abolished, there is no more contracting out, so we could give an increase in basic pension by transferring the amount that is currently being put into the private pension industry through contracting out. I calculate that to be £3·5 billion, which could finance a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in the basic pension. It is a more comprehensive change, but it provides for comprehensive cover. It is also by far the most egalitarian scheme. It means swapping the contracted-out portion of occupational contributions under SERPS for a basic pension rise.
The half-baked portion of the review's menu relates to the privatisation of pensions. Although the Secretary of State has been fair in the terms that he has offered for the phasing out of SERPS, the compulsory private earnings-related pension scheme that he wants to take its place has neither the support of significant sections of the private pension industry—which were not consulted and are showing increasing signs of concern—nor the support of actuaries or accountants who doubt whether a private scheme is any more affordable than the presently structured SERPS that it is meant to replace. It does not have the support of the SDP, the Liberal party or the Labour party, so there is no all-party agreement on the Secretary of State's proposals.
It does not have the support of organisations devoted to the alleviation of poverty. Will the disabled, as Mr. Stewart Lyon fears, be sacrificed on the altar of expediency? In short, the Government's privatisation proposals put pensions back into the very political cauldron from which many of us hoped the inter-party agreement in 1975 had rescued pensions. While the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was very keen on the proposals; the Secretary of State for Social Services was less keen. That poses a dilemma not only for alliance Members but for everyone in the House who wants radical reform but political stability. We have lived through the period of the Boyd-Carpenter scheme, there was the Crossman scheme, the Joseph scheme and then the Barbara Castle partnership. All credit to Barbara Castle for her readiness to compromise in 1975. What I fear is that we may ditch that scheme and replace it with a Fowler scheme which, too, will be ditched in its turn. The pensioners will be the innocent victims of a party political squabble in which none of us is prepared to make any change in what we think are our most prized objectives.
Pretending that there is no problem over SERPS, as the Labour party does, is, quite frankly, to bury one's head in the sand.[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition recognises that there is a problem with the financing of SERPS, we can begin to talk about what should be done. If he is saying that, he must be ready to enter into some form of discussion on how to reduce the cost of SERPS. If he is not prepared to do that— [Interruption.] I am prepared to do that. I have made it clear that we want a basic pension. The alliance has recognised the virtue of some degree of stability. We are prepared to look at the cost. Before the Labour party goes to the rescue of SERPS—
Mr. Kinnock: The House should have the benefit of greater detail about what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. Nine years after heartily endorsing SERPS—together with the actuarial estimates about its installation and continual running—the right hon. Gentleman said recently that he wanted the qualifying period to be
212
extended from 20 to 30 years. That would grossly reduce the effectiveness of the scheme, but that is what he told the pension fund that he spoke to a couple of months ago. He also said that he did not want anyone to be able to claim under the age of 65, including women. He also said that other changes for widows would be desirable. If we are to have a general discussion, it would be worth while for everyone to know about that.
Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman's intemperate speech is now more explicable. I never said anything of the sort. I said that we should keep the 20-year eligibility rule—not the best 20 years, but the average. I did not say that the pension retirement age should be raised to 65 for women; I said that we should follow the Social Services Select Committee's proposals for averaging out, bringing it to between 60 and 65 and having a flexible pension age.
Much more important, if we want to cut the cost of SERPS, we should look at the provision of the three pensions. We should allow the survivor to choose which pension is more favourable to him. Those are three serious proposals to cut the cost of SERPS. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider them, he should exact a price from the Government for changing the structure of SERPS. He should say that he will not cut the cost of SERPS unless the Government are prepared to trade in, as it were, to make it a more redistributive scheme. The scheme was a compromise in which the then Labour Government were forced to make concessions, as a result of which 50 per cent. of SERPS current costs are now due to inflation-proofing private occupational pension schemes.
The right hon. Gentleman should face the fact that no couple earning less than £6,500 per year benefits financially from SERPS. They get instead a basic pension plus supplementary benefit. It is not a perfect scheme. It could be changed with advantage to make it more redistributive, even at a lower cost. Such a response would make sense.
It would, of course, mean that we should all be giving up a little, but the prize would be great. The prize of all-party agreement would be immense, being stability in pension provision and structure into the next century at a cost the nation could afford, with a fairer and more redistributive system. Do not let anybody tell me that that would not be widely welcomed, including by the private pension industry and by pensioners, who are currently apprehensive about what will happen— [Interruption.] We are prepared to compromise. It would mean the Government dropping their scheme of privatised pensions. It would mean the Labour party recognising that there must be changes and a cutting of the cost of SERPS. It would mean us in the alliance giving up our basic wish to have a 20 to 25 per cent. basic pension. But it would be an important and substantial provision, and perhaps only now those in the private pension industry could bring it about. They made the compromises possible in 1975. They, in 1985, could make this House compromise.
We have heard much about Beveridge. For the long term, what would be the approach of a really radical Government? First, they would link benefit reform with tax reforms. The two go hand in hand. A basic benefit would be introduced simplifying and integrating the tax

213
and benefit system. Some of what the Secretary of State has done on child credit represents an important step towards a basic benefit, and we welcome that.
Secondly, such a Government would inject new money to float off the individual anomalies and restrictions that are always created by any reform of benefit. That is where this reform falls down; there is no new money and, while it is meant to be neutral, it is savage in its consequences on some individuals. To create that buoyancy for a radical reform of the social security system, we have said for some time that we should be prepared to abolish the married man's tax allowance, adding to any reform package £4·1 billion, which would ensure that the poorest made substantial gains and that nobody suffered harshly or unfairly.
Thirdly, a radical Government would tackle the hidden welfare state, where relief goes to the well-off through preferential tax treatment of the savings of the rich and where payments in kind distort the tax and benefit distribution pattern, company cars being the most obvious example.
Fourthly, a radical Government would expose the mythology surrounding the contributory principle. National insurance contributions are deeply regressive. They do not fund benefits. They are part of the Chancellor's overall tax take. The Conservatives have raised national insurance from 6·5 to 9 per cent. from 1979 to 1984, raising three times as much through national insurance contributions as they have lost through much vaunted reductions in income tax.
The combined effect of the present tax and benefit separation is that a couple earning £8,000, living in a council house and without an occupational pension scheme pay 26 per cent. of total earnings in tax. On the other hand, a couple earning £24,000—that is, three times as much — with a £25,000 mortgage and contributing 6 per cent., which is about average, to an occupational pension scheme pay 24 per cent. of total income in tax, 2 per cent. less. Such are the distortions of the system, and many hon. Members in all parties believe it is high time that it was reformed.
National insurance takes a far greater proportion of the income of the lower paid because national insurance has a threshold which starts lower, on £34·50, than with tax; employees pay a contribution, once over the threshold, based on all of their earnings, not on that portion that is above the threshold, as with tax; and there is a ceiling to the contributions, unlike for tax, beyond which the better-off pay nothing. It is time that we looked into that.
The course of true radicalism would be to abolish in time national insurance contributions both for employees and for employers and to abolish the rating system and introduce a progressive and simple personal tax structure based on three separate identifiable elements—income tax, social security tax and local taxes. A new corporate tax — perhaps a cash flow tax — would be needed to replace both the employers' national insurance contribution and non-domestic rates.
What we have is no Beveridge. It is, in many senses, a miserable reform package. It has within it the ingredients of some excellent ideas, but it lacks the financial buoyancy to make it a great reform. It also lacks that sense of trying to bring the nation together which is unfortunately the hallmark of this Government's divisive policies. If only
214
the Prime Minister would listen to the voices and treat this consultation period as a genuine period of consultation and say that she is willing to pay a price for stability in pension provision into the next century. That would be the modern equivalent of Beveridge—a great Liberal reformer—and it is no accident that it is to such a broad programme that the alliance is committed.
6.16 pm
Mr. Ralph Howell: I wish at the outset to congratulate the Government on those parts of the Green Paper with which I agree. I congratulate them on their courage and foresight in tackling the problem of SERPS. That was indeed a courageous step and they have my fullest support in tackling what is a grave problem confronting the nation.
The Government were also right to have initiated major reviews, although they should have included the taxation system, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) pointed out. More has come out of the reviews than I had expected. Although what we have is not a new Beveridge, it could be an important stepping stone towards the new Beveridge that we must have at the earliest opportunity.
I welcome the proposed changes for the under-25s. It is high time that we put a stop to some of the nonsense that has been going on, with young people leaving home and being able to obtain benefit too easily. That has been a major factor in discouraging young people from working. Even worse, it has destroyed the authority of the family. Reform of that aspect of the system is long overdue, and I welcome the steps that are being taken.
That said, there are other aspects on which I am not so keen. I am particularly disappointed that there is not to be a radical change in the system of child benefit. It no longer makes sense to give a universal child benefit to everybody, including the most wealthy. It should be means-tested. Any family with an income of more than £120 a week pays more in income tax and national insurance than it receives in child benefit and housing allowance.
It is ridiculous for us to be imposing heavy taxation with one hand and giving benefits with the other. Taxation could be cut by £3 billion if we had the courage to face up to means-testing child benefit. Nobody who needed it would suffer and it would be a logical step to take. We tax the very poor—for example, widows and pensioners—to give tax-free money to the richest, the highest taxpayers, and that must be wrong.
Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring one point about which he normally informs the House. Child benefit has two roles — first, the benefit that he is describing, and, secondly, the tax role. How can the hon. Gentleman put forward an argument along the lines he has described unless he says also that other personal tax allowances should be abolished at the same time as child benefit is abolished? Unless the hon. Gentleman does that, he is shifting the burden of taxation from those with children to single people.
Mr. Howell: I agree that some tax allowance should be incorporated in the new system.
This brings me to another criticism. We are proposing to extend social security in the form of family credit to those in work to solve the problem of making it worth while to work. This is the wrong way to proceed. We are

215
suggesting that we shall repeat the mistakes that were made in 1970 or 1973 when we extended housing benefit to the private sector. We must find a means of reducing the extent of social security. Between 20 million and 22 million people — nearly half the population — are receiving benefits. I think that everyone will agree that it is intolerable that more than half the population are receiving benefits.
My criticism is that we have not combined this review with an overall review that includes taxation. There is no logic in this proposal, nor can it he successful. The graphs in the Green Paper are meaningless because they do not take account of the impact of income tax at 30 per cent., or whatever the percentage will be in two years' time. The graphs cannot be smooth because the poverty trap will be seen when the impact of taxation is imposed on them.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider holding back the review until we have the Green Paper on taxation. We should then combine the findings of that Green Paper and the ensuing White Paper in an overall White Paper that takes account not only of welfare and taxation but of our employment systems.
We have heard a lot about the Beveridge report. This Green Paper has been portrayed as a new Beveridge report. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor the Leader of the Opposition mentioned what Beveridge said about unemployment. We have never put the Beveridge report fully into operation. Therefore, we are in this appalling position. We still have not found a clear way out of our difficulties. It is as though we are in a similar position to a case reported a few weeks ago in the press. A lady was driving up the motorway with only three wheels on her car and sparks were coming out as the axle hit the highway. I do not want to go too far along the road of that analogy. Suffice it to say that the Beveridge coach has had only three wheels—the fourth was never put into position.
Beveridge said that, after a certain period, people would become dependent upon benefits and would become comfortable living on them. He said that paid work or training must be offered to the long-term unemployed in place of benefit. I believe that that can and should be done. We have come a long way with community programmes and other schemes. Why not have a comprehensive, as-of-right community programme? We would then be able to make considerable savings. If every adult were offered work at £80 per week, or £2 per hour, and unemployed 16-year-olds were paid, say, £40 a week, the 17-year-olds £50 a week, and so on, the entire cost would be less than £11·5 billion. Not all the unemployed would turn up for work — many would not wish to work the full 40 hours—and the probable cost of offering every one of the long-term unemployed the right to a job would probably he no more than £7 billion. We are spending between £15 billion and £20 billion on unemployment benefit and measures to solve the unemployment problem. Considerable tax cuts could then be made to get the Government off the backs of all those who are working and creating wealth. If this suggestion were seriously examined, I believe that we would find a way of raising tax thresholds — hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that this must be done — and disengaging benefits from taxation.
No person should pay tax and receive benefit at the same time. Those with high incomes should pay tax and those with insufficient incomes should receive
216
benefits. There should be an incentive area where a considerable number of people in the middle neither receive benefit nor pay tax. Until we have such a comprehensive review, we shall never get out of our difficulties.
6.26 pm
Mr. Hugh Brown: It is a privilege to participate in this debate, which has been excellent so far. There have been some original ideas, even from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I hope that I shall maintain that standard.
I begin by referring to some qualifications to enable one to contribute to the debate. I should refer to the type of constituency that I represent. Half of my constituency is officially described as a deprived area. A report published last week referred to my region in these terms:
"Male unemployment of 40 per cent. and much higher in some neighbourhoods;
Overcrowding at seven times the national rate;
Three in four households without a car—twice the national level; and
Almost one in 20 infants dying before their first birthday—five times the national rate."
That shows some of my qualifications to contribute to this debate.
The local DHSS office in my constituency is one of the largest in the country, with a staff of more than 200 and a live load of 14,500 supplementary benefit cases, 7,000 of them unemployed. There are 27,000 claims for single payments a year, 2,000 of which are either disallowed or are the subject of appeal. About 4,000 people receive direct fuel payments. That is another reason why I think that I can highlight some of the problems concerning social security.
Another qualification for participating in this debate is one's personal experience. I know that I am getting old. I can even remember when the Beveridge report was introduced. I have been a member of the parliamentary Labour party's health and social security group since becoming a Member. I have had the unique distinction of spending 15 years in a local DHSS office. I think that I am in a better position than most to appreciate the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). The result is that the service to the public too often fails as the staff hunt for files in a Dickensian paper chase. Anybody who has worked in such an office will know the truth of that statement.
There have been changes during the 40 years since Beveridge was introduced in a wartime atmosphere of full employment. It is sad that the only countries that enjoy full employment are either Communist or Fascist or democracies during periods of war. No hon. Member can suggest convincingly that we have all the solutions and that society can be transformed overnight by abolishing unemployment. Nevertheless, we should examine present conditions and those that prevailed at the time that Beveridge reported.
There were hopes then of a better life. Peoples' aspirations had not been so tainted by the poverty and depression caused by unemployment during the 1930s as is apparent now. It is tragic that, although 4 million people are unemployed, there is no outcry. Even the attitude of the Left wing of the Labour movement was different then; it was fashionable to be against Beveridge because it was

217
thought that to support reform would help to bolster capitalism. Thank goodness that the Left wing of the Labour party has learnt a wee bit during the past 40 years.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn:But not much.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) says that we have not learnt much. However, I am a pragmatist. If I am properly to represent my constituents, there is merit in looking at the way in which we can help the disadvantaged. The Labour party's manifesto for the general election in 1983 contains certain points upon which we can all agree. On a fairer benefit system the manifesto said, "We shall reform it." It then said:
"Forty years have elapsed since the Beveridge Report which led to the setting up of the National Insurance scheme by the postwar Labour Government. We shall conduct a thorough review of the scheme in the light of today's circumstances."
All hon. Members agree that the system needs to be reviewed and reformed.
That does not take us very far, but it provides a background for the next point upon which I hope that there can be agreement—the need for simplicity. There is no hon. Member who is not completely baffled by the complexity of the system. I used to be able to say what the rate of benefit would be and that a constituent would qualify if he had made various contributions, but when a constituent comes to see me now, I sometimes have no idea what kind of benefit he is talking about, so many of them are available. It is desirable that any system should be made as simple as possible. Computers would provide better assistance for overworked and sorely tried staff who are trying to provide this service.
All hon. Members are in favour of the general principle, but how can it be implemented? I am a practical man. My constituents do not like waffle, rhetoric and speeches from me. They want to know whether they will be better off under the new system than they are at the moment. What is the answer? I am sure that the Secretary of State could not provide them with an answer to their question. He would have to say that it would depend upon this and that and it would depend upon the level of benefits and personal circumstances.
The Secretary of State knows that single payments are an important part of the income of very many people. If all the single payments are to be absorbed into a universal rate, it must be set at a much higher level than is contemplated. That is the dilemma that will face any Government. They will have to try to find resources with which to apply a sound principle that is accepted by most people. Will the Secretary of State be able to provide further information? I am unable to tell my constituents whether they will be better off, or whether this is just a sham and a public expenditure exercise that is designed to save money. I do not think that it is, but there is an element of doubt about it. The Secretary of State knows that he is stuck with a review that has been badly costed. It is not very encouraging to have to begin a review of anything in that way.
It is said that income support will be simple to administer, but it is surrounded by practical problems. Premiums will be paid to different client groups. We shall need to know into which group a constituent fits. The payment will then be topped up with a certain premium,
218
but we do not know what it will be; and if the premium is not sufficient the social fund will be used. The Secretary of State was asked about the size of the social fund budget.
There is merit in local benefit officers being given discretion to provide a top up, but that is very difficult to comprehend after more than 40 years of an adjudication and appeals procedure. There will be no appeals machinery against the new system and no scrutiny. I do not complain about the officers who serve my area. They are co-operative and thoughtful, but a great responsibility will be placed upon their shoulders.
The Secretary of State said that we should not build up a great deal of case history. There is merit in that suggestion. Commissioners' decisions are getting out of hand. An expert is needed to advise upon what another expert said about something one did not understand in the first place. How is humanity to be built into the system? Is my constituency to be treated in the same way as those of Conservative Members who know very little about the way of life of my constituents? Will the machinery allow my constituents to get more out of the system than the constituents of other hon. Members? Who will make the judgment? What will be the criteria? Shall I, as a Member of Parliament, be consulted? Will the community groups in the area be consulted?
I should warn the Secretary of State that now there are welfare rights officers. Welfare rights organisations are to be found throughout the country, and a decision that is favourable to one of my constituents in Provan is soon communicated to other people throughout the country. We are almost back to where we began in trying to consider the universality of benefits and rights and the tremendous increase in resources that will have to be devoted to this part of the social security system.
I have not referred to housing benefits, savings on pensions or many other matters that my hon. Friends will be raising. I have simply raised some of the practical problems facing any Government in this one aspect of one part of the social security system, but I say this with some conviction. The priority should not be tax concessions for the wealthy. That would be obscene in view of the contrasting life styles and opportunity to enjoy life in society today.
It would be quite wrong and it would not be tolerated if any Government proceeded with a cost-saving exercise designed purely to hand out more to the wealthy. I believe that a Labour Government could distribute wealth more fairly and better than ever before. The challenge is whether we can create more wealth. I am not complacent. This is a huge, complex problem. It will take a great deal of guts and ability to solve it, but I believe that we can do it.
6.41 pm
Mr. Tim Eggar: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow the observations that he made, but one cannot but respect his experience and sense of perspective.
The structure and objectives of the Government's proposals have been widely accepted outside the House, even if the debate so far has not given that impression. I especially welcome the assistance given to working families and the emphasis on simplification of the system.
I do not believe that the Government would have achieved that widespread acceptance outside the House if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not had the courage to go to open consultation. In my view, it is no

219
coincidence that the proposals which have created the most controversy—those regarding the state earnings-related pension scheme — were the least discussed and publicised. I hope that lessons will be drawn for other areas of Government from the success of the consultation process instituted by my right hon. Friend.
In today's debate and throughout the discussions since publication of the review documents, a great deal of fuss has been made about the lack of figures. Yet when the Leader of the Opposition was asked today to comment on certain figures relating to SERFS 30 years on he deliberately refused to comment or to explain how the real increase in the cost of pensions would be met. In other words, having figures to discuss did not raise the level of the debate. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to ask us to concentrate on the structure before discussing the details. Had we been given the details, we should have had the fragmented discussion that we had in the consultation phase when each pressure groupb pleaded for its own section of the community.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I do not often interrupt, but does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to have a Green Paper which does not contain detailed figures there must be adequate time between publication of the White Paper and the introduction of legislation to implement it?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury wish us to concentrate on the structure at this stage, as I believe is right, they should not jump to any conclusions about the willingness of Conservative Members to accept particular levels of benefit. That discussion will come later and follows logically from the position that we have taken so far.
I have one major reservation about the proposals. I, too, should have welcomed more progress towards integration of the tax, national insurance and benefit systems. As was pointed out at Question Time today, there has been some movement in that direction with employers' payment of family benefit and the alignment of the pension and tax years. They are definite steps forward. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have gone out of their way to stress the importance of the contributory principle, because their measures actually move away from that principle. I hope, therefore, that after publication of the Green Paper on personal taxation they will make a clear and unequivocal commitment to work towards integration of benefits and taxation. I believe that that would be welcomed in all parts of the House.
I am tempted to make various detailed comments, but I shall restrict myself to three areas. First, I believe that Conservative Members and the public in general accept that everyone in the community should make some contribution to the provision of local services. We must, however, look very carefully at how the level of that contribution is implemented. I believe that a sudden increase to a 20 per cent. contribution to the rates bill would bear unduly harshly on many people, whether they have frugal or high-spending local authorities. I do not believe that the problem can be circumvented by means of the income support system. I believe that the contribution should be phased in over a period of years rather than increased it to 20 per cent. at one gulp.
220
Secondly, there is the suggestion that we are moving towards a decade of retirement and a flexible retirement age. I welcome that unequivocally, but I hope that there will be a very speedy response to that proposal from the occupational pension funds. Many of them are significantly overfunded and this is a major opportunity for them to work with the state to produce an incentive for people to retire in their early 60s. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will play a catalytic role in this context.
Thirdly, there is the impact of the reviews on DHSS staff and their method of operation. In 10 years' time, local offices will bear no resemblance whatever to those that we know today. In addition to technical change, the advent of the social fund, which I certainly support, will demand a level of skill, responsibility, discretion and decision-taking from local benefit officers far exceeding that which they are called upon to exercise today. The first priority of the new social security management board must therefore be to institute major training programmes and to develop further the proposals already introduced in the Department towards devolving budgeting and decision-taking to regional offices and from there down to local offices.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Eggar: I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because the time is short.
We all know that these proposals involve major change — change which is long overdue and is certainly welcome to nearly all of us on the Conservative Benches. The proposals are a challenge to Ministers, which they have so far risen to and met extremely well. But I suspect that there are choppy waters ahead as we come to discuss the detailed levels of benefits.
The proposals are a challenge to the Department as well, because it will be called upon to make a major management and philosophical change in the way that it operates. The permanent Civil Service officials within the Department have a duty to show all of us in society that they have the ability to manage that change. That is a significant challenge.
The proposals are a challenge also to all of us in the House. We must have the courage to face some political criticism now in order to avoid placing a burden on future generations. That is not an easy thing to do as politicians. That will also be a challenge in the coming months, as we have to take a broad view of the benefits to society as a whole of these proposals, rather than the benefits or disbenefits to certain particular sectional interests, which I am sure will be championed very effectively by many of the claimants' unions and others.
I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals should command the support of the House tonight.
6.51 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is obviously living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He says that these proposals have been widely accepted outside the House. Could anyone believe that? I have never heard a sillier comment in any debate for years. These proposals have aroused a sense of outrage among ordinary people, because they are going to damage ordinary people. When hon. Members speak

221
about "outside the House" they should not be speaking just of stockbrokers and other well-off people outside the House; they should be speaking also of disabled people. People I have spoken to, and other ordinary people, are outraged by these proposals.
It has also been said that these are courageous proposals. They are not so much courageous as callous, because they will damage poor people very much indeed. And of all the destructive actions in these Green Paper proposals the worst is the abolition of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme.
The Government cynically suggest that the simple substitution of private pensions will solve all problems. Of course, they live in a very different world from the millions of poor and disabled people who were relying on SERPS for a decent old age. The prosperous people with friendly bank managers and accountants and all the accoutrements of wealth and a comfortable middle age will have no difficulty in fixing up nice cosy pensions; there will be no problem for people like that. But the poor people and the disabled people will not know who to turn to.
The Government are to give free rein to the fly boys. Many pension companies will not bother looking at poor people; they will not want to know disabled people with small incomes; they will reject them and provide nothing. And the clever fly-by-night pension schemers will come back. We shall find people operating just as they operate with encyclopaedias and double glazing. The smooth talk will go on and ordinary people will be flummoxed and will not know what to do. They will be out-talked and out-manoeuvred by the crafty boys, and they will suffer very much indeed. Their pensions will be either non-existent or very low. It will be the "Fowler's Folly" pension line for the poor and the disabled.
The ending of SERPS is a disaster for disabled people because SERPS, unlike private pension schemes, gives flexibility and allows help for the less fortunate. In particular, state earnings-related pensions are based on the best 20 years of earnings, and that makes all the difference between poverty levels and an adequate pension.
Disabled people are also very worried about what will happen to the earnings-related element of invalidity benefits when SERFS goes. The little bit of security that this gives disabled people is threatened by the bland comment in the Green Paper:
"The Government is giving further consideration to the implications of the new arrangements for invalidity benefits."
They can say that again. I hope that it will be very careful consideration.
Three quarters of disabled people rely on supplementary benefit in their effort to get a decent standing of living. They face very heavy additional costs, and supplementary benefit is of crucial importance to them. The proposal to end the supplementary benefit additional payments and replace them by a disablement premium sounds fine when Ministers stand at that Dispatch Box, but I warn the Government that this premium will have to be a very generous one indeed. We do not want any piffling token gesture by the Government, because if they do not make a very generous payment, severely disabled people are going to be in what the hon. Member for Enfield, North called "choppy waters"—a good phrase for the plight of
222
someone with no money, no pension and unable to buy food even. "Choppy waters," the Government will say, "that is what you are in."
Disabled people will require about a 30 per cent. supplement to their income provided by the special premium. That is necessary. Anything less than 30 per cent. given by the Government in that special premium would mean serious hardship for disabled people.
The supplementary benefits extra payments, although means-tested, were made available by right and each one could be claimed if it could be justified. They are a tolerable way of meeting individual needs until we get a proper disability income. The proposed system of just one premium will falter at that fence and will actually fall, I think, at the other fences.
I also note that the Minister has pledged full protection only in cash terms and at the point of transition. In other words, that is a loss leader. What happens when the disabled people get past the shop window? What commitment is there—I should like an answer to this at the end of the debate, if possible—on real value and for the longer term?
I have no doubt that many disabled people will find the extra costs of disability far higher than one disability premium. Few non-disabled people quite appreciate what extra costs mean. Disabled people require extra heating because they cannot move and are confined to wheelchairs; they require extra food for special diets; they require extra clothing because of heavy wear; they require extra bedding if they suffer from incontinence. All those extra costs are the responsibility of society, and society is represented by the Government. The Government really ought to meet those special needs in their new system. The indications are that the premium will be grossly inadequate.
Finally, there is no mention in the Green Paper of those who care for disabled people. They are very important. I do not mean the paid professionals but the friends and relatives and people like that who go along to the homes of disabled people and help out. There must be some special provision for those carers because without them, the Government's bill for looking after disabled people in institutions would be enormous. The Minister might be able to calculate what sort of bill he would have to pay if the carers backed off. They do not do so. They help disabled people because they want to.
I have kept well within my 10 minutes, and I should be congratulated for that. I hope that the Government will do far more for disabled people than they are doing. They should talk to the organisations for the disabled, which have well-briefed, expert individuals. They will help out and give him all the facts and figures, and disabled people will give their experience. If that is taken into account, then, and only then, shall we have a proper Green Paper for disabled people.
7.1 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: There is much in the Green Paper of which I strongly approve. Some parts of it require clarification and one or two approaches are flawed. To start by accentuating the positive, the Government are to be congratulated on recognising the disincentive effects of what has been called the unemployment trap. The promise in the Green Paper that we shall be moving towards a situation in which it will be impossible for anyone out of work to have a

223
larger income than anybody in work is a move in the right direction that should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
The family credit scheme is broader in its application than the family income supplement. It is an effective bridge between the incomes of those in and those out of work. The fact that we are moving towards a system whereby employers will be responsible for payment, which will be carried out through the wage packet, is a move in the right direction, as is the consideration of the net income after tax as the trigger for payment rather than what has been the case in the past.
Still accentuating the positive, I turn my attention to the income support scheme, which is to replace supplementary benefits. Here, the aim is to provide a reasonable level of help and then let people manage their own financial affairs. I noted from Labour Members a tendency to expect not only high benefits, which we understand, but a nannying approach to people as though to imply that, because one is on social benefit, one is incapable of looking after one's own finances. That is not a proper approach, and the income support scheme aims in the direction of the removal of that approach.
Under the scheme there will be welcome additional help for particular groups. Among those groups are families with children, the long-term sick and disabled and lone parents. That commends a scheme which I sometimes think, while I listen to Labour Members, they must have overlooked.
Another part of the Green Paper that I warmly welcome is that relating to the proposed changes in capital and earnings rules. I warmly welcome the idea that there is to be a sliding scale up to £6,000 before benefit is discontinued. The sharp cut-off is a disincentive for thrift, and this party, of all parties, should never be on the side of penalising those who seek to make some preparation for their old age or misfortune.
The proposal that people will be able to earn up to £15 a week before unemployment benefit is effective, subject to two years unemployment, is a step in the right direction. If I were to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at all, it would be in the direction of considering whether the same approach is not possible after one year. After all, for most people, one year is still long-term unemployment. Will he give some thought to that?
I warmly welcome two changes in the Green Paper—those in the maternity grant and the death grant. I have long considered that the £25 maternity grant is not even capable of purchasing a decent cot. It is not required and not appreciated by a vast number of people, but some require a great deal more. To be moving in that direction earns my commendation.
The same applies to the death grant. The £30 death grant is an insult to many people, while it is cruel and inadequate to some who need vastly greater help. The fact that the Government are to concentrate assistance on those areas where it is needed will ensure that anything up to 10 times the £30 is payable when it is needed.
I warmly welcome the idea of the social fund, but I am a little concerned about the fact that it is to be cash limited. By all means, let there be some intimation in, the Budget as to how far we can go in that regard, but if it is to meet emergencies there is a possibility of an overspill in finance. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell us
224
whether something can be done to bring a greater sense of assurance to those who will obtain their benefits in future from the social fund?
There is no question but that housing benefit has been difficult to administer and not always understood. Therefore, simplification has been needed and reform is overdue. However, to move from six tapers to one can lead only to a loss of part or all of the benefit for people who are by no means well off. Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that those with a small occupational pension, and in particular widows of those with a small occupational pension, could be affected by this change?
Furthermore, if we are to commend the idea of occupational pension schemes in one part of the Green Paper, it may not be altogether wise to penalise in another part those who moved into occupational pension schemes some years ago. I appeal to the Government to keep an open mind on housing benefit reform and to see whether there is some way to cushion the movement from housing benefit.
I am quite well disposed to the idea of expecting people to become involved in a contribution to local rates. However, I wonder whether it is wise to contemplate moving to a system in 1986 in which all will have to contribute to local rates when, in 1988, if one is to accept the direction in which I think the Government are moving, there may no longer be rates to contribute to. Is there not a better way than introducing a system only to wind it up fairly shortly afterwards?
I have a long connection with the pensions business, and I believe that there is great merit in taking pensions out of politics. I should regret any move in the other direction. However, I must pay some attention to the Government's suggestion that we shall not be able to afford SERPS in the early part of the next century. While I do not deny the burden, I wonder whether it is entirely fair of the Government to base their estimates as to whether we can afford SERPS in the early part of the next century on predictions that seem to allow for no growth in the economy. While there may be a burden, the Government seem to have gone out of their way to accentuate it, and if there is even the smallest growth in the economy I suggest that, although it will be difficult, it will not be impossible to meet.
On balance, I should have preferred to opt not for the abrogation of SERPS but for simplification and amendment. I see no reason why we should not turn our attention to an adaptation of the benefits to reflect average pay over 20 years rather than the best 20 years of a person's working life.
However, I have to accept that the proposals before us are a great deal more acceptable than those that we thought might emerge before the publication of the Green Paper. On balance, I am prepared to accept that we shall move in that direction. I am prepared to welcome warmly the opportunity that this provides for the private pension sector, but I warn the House that this will provide only a panacea.
It is not often noted that the payments that are required under SERPS will not produce the same benefits under a private scheme. In part, this is due to the administrative costs of a private scheme and in part to the fact that index linking can be brought about only if there is sufficient Government index-linked stock. Nobody has referred to this. So that we can estimate the comparative benefits under SERPS and under a private pension scheme, perhaps

225
the Minister when he responds will pay some attention to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely in the new situation to issue sufficient index-linked stock to enable some form of index linking to continue in the development of personal pensions, which, broadly speaking, I very much welcome.
Although, this presents a great opportunity to the financial community, I think it also places a considerable responsibility upon it. I will be watching as the months go by with growing interest to see whether the Government will expect the private pensions world to be rather cautious in the estimates it makes of the pensions which are likely to be received. I shall have to leave the matter there and expand on it on a future occasion.
7.10 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) will forgive me if I do not directly refer to all the points that he raised. I will, I hope, touch on a few before I have finished. I aim to speak well within the 10 minutes.
Much has been made in this and previous debates about the lack of figures. The Government assure us that what we are considering is the structure of the scheme and that it is unimportant to have the figures to consider whether the structure is right. That is similar to someone in the medical profession saying that he can easily and effectively undertake X-rays without barium meals, yet we all know that it is the barium meal in the X-ray which points out the dangers, the weaknesses and the points of pressure. Without those figures, the Government know perfectly well that we cannot sensibly discuss the structure which they are putting forward, and discuss with them what we see as the scheme's weaknesses and dangers.
Even though the Government have hidden the figures from us, it is clear that one group will be singled out for special treatment. That one group is receiving this treatment because of the Government's concern to increase incentives to work. Without the figures, we know already that the under-25s who are unemployed are less likely to receive more benefit under the review than they now receive. In addition, we have to consider the Government's proposals to cut board and lodging allowances.
I begin my short contribution with a plea to the Government to look back to the measure introduced by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970. It was very similar to the measure which the Government have now introduced, and was called the four-week rule. If there has been one move in the whole social security field since the war which I would dub as evil, it is that one measure. For reasons similar to those given by the present Government in putting forward this reform, the then Government became concerned about the length of time that young people were remaining on benefit, and cut benefit to four weeks for young claimants in certain areas. About 160,000 young people lost benefit.
Thanks to the work that Molly Meacher did, we now know what happened to many of those people. We know that half of them who were denied benefit did not find the jobs which the then Government said existed and were waiting for them to pick up, but had to resort to male prostitution and crime. Therefore, I put it to the Government that, whereas they are right and have the
226
support of the House in their attempt to control the abuse of some, perhaps many, landlords under the scheme, they are wrong in aiming those measures at young single claimants. I fear that many such young claimants will end up in the same position as many of the young claimants under a similar measure introduced by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970.
In the absence of figures for the scheme, I want to consider the objectives which the Government say the scheme will fulfil and to ascertain whether those objectives are fulfilled. If one reads the Green Paper carefully, one sees that there are four in all. First, the Government say that help will be targeted on those who are most poor. Without figures, it is difficult to respond to that. We know overall that those who are most likely to be poor are women and children, yet throughout the Green Paper there are a series of measures which transfer resources from poorer women and give them to poorer men.
Let me give the Secretary of State a few examples. Under the family credit there will be a system which moves from the family income supplement, which is mainly drawn by the mother, to a situation in which, for reasons which the Secretary of State has explained and which carry weight in the House, the benefit will be transferred to most men. That is one of the transfers from men to women.
We also know that, with the abolition of SERPS, the widow's additional component will be lost. With the abolition of SERPS, we know that women generally stand to lose in another way. I believe that there are considerable faults with SERPS, and I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not say today that we will re-enact SERPS when we win the next election. I think that that is a welcome non-pledge. One of the advantages of SERPS, however, is that it takes account of the fact that most women spend a great deal of time outside the labour force bringing up children and should not be disadvantaged when it comes to drawing a pension. But in the abolition plans women will lose. SERPS favoured lower-paid workers as against higher-paid workers. As most women are low-paid workers, this is yet another blow to women.
How can the Government say that this measure will target on those in greatest need? We know that it is women more than men who are poorer in society, yet in this reform women will be significantly disadvantaged by this move.
The second objective which the Government have set themselves is to simplify the social security system. Once the social fund has come into operation and questions are asked in the House about its operation, I wonder whether the Government will continue to maintan that that has been an effective simplification. Thanks to pressure from the Government's own Back Benchers, we now know that SERPS is to be phased out over a long period. Can one really say that that phasing out over a long period will add to the simplification? Given the solution which the Government have come up with, thanks again to pressure from their own Back Benchers and beyond, a number of us may well have three pensions on which to draw to make up one basic pension. Is that the simplification of the scheme at which the Government are aiming? Lastly with regard to simplification, the new family credit is to be run by employers. We all know the difficulties that will occur with take-up in a scheme run by employers. The

227
calculations will continue to be done by social security officers and they will be referred to employers. Where is the simplification in that measure?
Thirdly, we are told in the Green Paper that the scheme, once enacted, will increase incentives to work and will lessen the poverty trap. Both sides of the House should welcome any moves which achieve that end, but are the Government really telling us that the proposals which they are putting forward will add more weight to the incentives to work than, say, tax levels or wage levels? The Government's plans will ensure a reduction in the 100 per cent. marginal rate of tax which some claimants face to a situation where many more claimants face a marginal tax rate in the 90 to 100 per cent. bracket. Will that make a major difference to the real problem which many of our constituents face with regard to incentives to work—a problem with which I believe the Opposition have yet fully to grapple?
Lastly, we are told in the Green Paper that the aim is to reduce state help. Twenty or 30 years hence, will we be able to say that that objective has been achieved? The Secretary of State knows that the only measure on the statute book which will lessen the number of those who end up drawing poverty relief from the Supplementary Benefits Commission is SERPS. That is the only measure which in time is likely to break the link between poverty and old age, and that will be abolished by these measures if they go through. In its place is a proposal to fund part of the pension scheme from the private sector, yet nobody from the private sector has come forward to state that the level of contributions put at 4 per cent. will give a pension which will be inflation-proofed at a decent enough level to break the link between old age and poverty — a problem from which most of the population in the past have suffered in this country.
These, then, are the four objectives which the Government have set themselves and which I believe will not be fulfilled. If I am to achieve my objective of finishing within 10 minutes, I had better sit down now.
7.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, his team and all those involved in the immense amount of work that has been done in producing the Green Paper. We live in a very different world from Beveridge. In the late 1940s, the single pension was £1·30 and the married pension was £2·10. However, the Green Paper leaves many unanswered questions, and I believe that it has some serious flaws.
The only comment that I wish to make on SERPS is that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes his scheme to remain in place for many years, he must, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, look for broad, all-party agreement. If he does not obtain that, as the political history of the past 40 years has shown, his scheme will be scrapped and replaced by another. That would not be in the best interests of future pensioners.
I shall concentrate my remarks on housing benefit and housing subsidies. When one considers the history of housing subsidies, one understands that it was logical to reduce the general subsidies that used to exist, to change the system for rent and rate rebates and to provide a safety net for poorer tenants. In those days, the schemes were financed by, the Department of the Environment. It is
228
worth reminding the House that there have been tremendous savings in that Department's budget since 1979—at least approaching £1·5 billion. However, my poor right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has had to pick up the bill in his budget. I wonder whether, considering the overall figures, that position was sufficiently taken into account by the Treasury. I doubt it.
Assuming that the Government are thinking about reducing housing benefit by about £500 million, I must say that, on the basis of one taper for rent and for rates, the proposals are unjust, severe and even callous. They will create real hardship for many pensioners. I cannot believe that the Government intend to hit 4 million pensioners, many of whom have had three cuts in their housing benefit during the past 18 months. I estimate that 1·2 million will lose benefit altogether, and that nearly 3 million will lose between £1·40 and £5 a week. I base those figures on the information presently available, but I trust that events and time will alter that position.
Let us consider a pensioner on a far-from-high income, remembering that we are talking about the joint comprehensive taper for rent and rates. A pensioner couple living in their own home with an income of £75 a week and paying rates of £9 a week will, as I interpret the proposals, lose no less than £4·70 a week. The proposals will hit many pensioners who worked for their occupational pensions, which are not inflation-proofed, on an unreasonable scale.
Another proposal in the Green Paper that disturbs me greatly is the intention to abolish the discretion given to local authorities. That would hit war pensioners and war widows especially hard. Do the Government really intend that some war pensioners will lose up to £10 a week? That is what their proposals, as presently interpreted, would mean.
I shall make two specific suggestions. First, the Government should consider separate rent and rate tapers. Instead of a composite 70 per cent., they should consider 20 per cent. for rates and 50 per cent. for rent. That would be fairer and workable. Secondly, local discretion must not be abolished. The Secretary of State said earlier today when he presented his uprating statement that the Government will help those most in need. That is right, but I remind him that there are also those to whom the nation owes a debt and those who through no fault of their own have had the purchasing value of their savings and occupational pensions largely destroyed.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about housing benefit. He must not penalise war pensioners and those whose occupational pensions have been destroyed by the policies of previous Governments.
7.25 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: First, I should say that a consultation period which started at six weeks and which has now wound its way up to three months is a derisory period for a Green Paper of this importance. It shows what some Conservative Members still do not realise—that the Government have made up their mind on this matter, and that there will be no significant, as opposed to cosmetic, changes. The Government's approach to the matter is an attack on consensus
I wish to concentrate my speech on SERPS. I hope that I can base my argument on the affordability of the present system and on the burden, but one of the problems in this matter is the value of the words "the Prime Minister". This

229
is not the first time that rumours of what is proposed have surfaced. They surfaced before the 1983 general election, and I wrote to the Prime Minister—I gave her notice that I would raise this matter today—asking her for reassurance that she would support the SERPS scheme as it was then constituted. On 20 May 1983, she replied:
"Nor are there any plans to change the earnings-related component of the state penson. The 1975 Act was in fact brought on to the Statute Book with the full support of Conservative Members."
The Government have gone back on that clear and unambiguous pledge. We must examine the reasons for that with some care. First, perhaps the Conservative party was considering those changes before the Prime Minister wrote the letter, but she did not choose to disclose it. That would be a very serious matter for the country and for the House. Secondly, to return to what the Secretary of State said earlier, perhaps something happened after the general election and the Prime Minister's letter to change the Government's mind—something so radical and startling that the viability of the scheme changed. The Secretary of State said that one reason was the availability of the 1981 census figures. It is interesting to note that Conservative Members, who are now calling for a return to concensus, do not remember that at no time since the census figures were available has the Secretary of State tried to discuss with other parties the difficulties that would be caused. Indeed, until just before the publication of the Green Paper, much more condign remedies were being mentioned.
The true reason for the change cannot have been the population assumptions. First, if his hagiographers are to be believed, in 1975 the Secretary of State warned about the affordability of the scheme in the long term and pointed out the ratio of retired to working people. Indeed, we knew then all the major assumptions of those who were in work to those who were retired. As the Secretary of State said, the retired population can be calculated, but what cannot be calculated, because someone born during this debate will be 50 years old before we reach the point of maximum strain on the insurance system, is what the working population will be.
The other factor to be taken into account in whether it is affordable is the relationship not with prices, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to pretend in his Green Paper, but between the rates of contribution and the cost to the retired population. It is precisely there that the right hon. Gentleman, who is so reticent in other regards, gives two figures, both of which are misleading.
First, he relates the cost of the scheme to prices and not to earnings,. and for good measure throws in a spurious earnings link that the Government have no intention of restoring. Secondly, he assumes for the future a rise in real earnings of 1·5 per cent. per annum. The average annual rise over the last 35 years has been 2·1 per cent. per annum. The difference between the assumption of the Government and the historical figure makes a great deal of difference to the contribution.
Let us examine both points. The present class 1 contribution in respect of pensions in 1984–85 is 12·5 per cent. On the assumption that 1·5 per cent. is the real growth, the percentage contribution in 2025 will have gone up from 12·5 per cent. to 14·7 per cent.—hardly a scheme-busting rise. If we assume a 2 per cent. growth
230
rate in real wages over the next 40 years, the class 1 contribution will rise by only 0·6 per cent. to 13·1 per cent.
Are my figures wrong? Do the Government challenge those calculations, or do they say that the increase will be such that future generations cannot afford it? The people who will lose on SERPS are fairly charted. Those who are forced into private pension schemes will not get anything like the same retirement pension as people in SERPS. They will get a 4 per cent. money purchase scheme. One can never hope to reproduce the same level of benefit with such a scheme, nor can there be any certainty in the scheme because a money purchase scheme is the product of how well or how badly the fund performs. People who need certainty in planning their retirement will never know what their income will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) talked about the way in which women will be affected disproportionately. But people in occupational pension schemes will also be adversely affected. They will have to pay towards national insurance 3·5 per cent. more than the 13 per cent. they are already paying, without any rise in benefit. They will no longer have inflation proofing of their guaranteed minimum pension after retirement. They will lose the benchmark for their scheme, that it must be at least as good as SERPS to be contracted out. Therefore, all comparability will be lost.
Most of all, there will be a strong temptation for employers to wind up schemes or to worsen the terms for existing contributors or for new entrants. Therefore, the whole pensionable population is threatened by the Government's proposal. Any Government, faced by that, would pause for thought. We know that the Government are doing this on ideological grounds and with the connivance, not of the pension funds, which have behaved honourably, but of some life assurance companies whose greed has known no bounds and whose selfishness to get a piece of the action is becoming an obscene feature of modern development.
When we obtained a consensus in 1975 it was a monument to the work of the late Brian O'Malley. His search for a consensus was much more honest, open and painstaking than that of the Secretary of State in his co-called consultation. The work of Brian O'Malley should not be in vain. We should resurrect this scheme, which would be a monument to his memory.
7.34 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: May I first take up a point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about board and lodging payments? He and the Leader of the Opposition sought to give the impression that the reduction in board and lodging allowance for young people could lead again to male prostitution and crime. The Leader of the Opposition quite disgracefully sought to imply that that measure had somehow led to the suicide of an unfortunate young man in Edinburgh. My suspicion is that the right hon. Gentleman does not know the full circumstances of that case. Certainly he should not have used it.
Those who in the past have encouraged young people to move away from their homes into big cities, where there is neither accommodation nor often work available, are culpable, and not the Minister of State who has in a courageous measure sought to get to grips with the problem. It is also wrong to suggest that there are no

231
alternatives available to young people. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spelt out in a parliamentary answer only last week the alternatives. Funding under the non-householder allowance is available to young people and it is pitched at a level that is designed specifically to ensure that young people can still be accommodated in what used to be known as digs. It is more desirable that a young person should be accommodated in a family unit—not necessarily his own—than in the sort of field kitchens that some disreputable hotel proprietors have been operating recently.
The prospect of good hostel accommodation is also available to people in the 18 to 25 age bracket. So is accommodation in the private rented sector with support from housing benefit, if that is necessary. Those options are available and are all more attractive than the enticing young people away from their home areas to big cities. The impression that we are creating a nation of gypsies and compelling young people to move is wrong.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead is not lacking in courage — and never has been — in supporting a good idea when he sees it. When my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) expressed his belief, which I endorse entirely, that the introduction of a full programme of community work for the long-term unemployed offered the only real prospect of a long-term solution to some of our difficulties, I noted that the hon. Member for Birkenhead was nodding. I should like to take that a stage further, because it is important that the House recognises the implication in that kind of proposal. It is a consideration we should undertake. We must terminate unemployment benefit after one year and move to such a scheme, but the one is dependent on the other. Whether the hon. Member for Birkenhead is still nodding, I am not sure.
Mr. Frank Field: The point with which I was agreeing was Beveridge's point that the payment of benefit should be linked to a genuine search for a job. That is something we need to put back on the agenda and which we have moved away from in the last 20 years with the establishment of jobcentres and so on.
Mr. Gale: With respect, my impression is that the measures introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to curb the payment of supplementary benefit willy-nilly were designed to do exactly that.
There are three points that I wish to cover briefly in connection with the Green Paper. First, in regard to support with rates, I endorse entirely my right hon. Friend's suggestion that we should go back to a system of accountability. It is wrong that people should be encouraged to vote, with no responsibility for the manner in which the money they are voting is spent.
The Green Paper contains a proposal — I hope that it is only for discussion — that a maximum of 80 per cent. rate support be provided while the ratepayer pays the remaining 20 per cent. That would give the ratepayer some responsibility. I suggested to my right hon. Friend that, following a review of the domestic rating system, there should be a scheme of nationally agreed rates. The amount would be paid in full by the Government for those receiving benefit. If the recipients of that benefit voted for a local authority and persuaded it to fix a rate which was lower than the national scale, they would not receive a bonus. If, however, they chose to vote for local
232
government expenditure above the nationally fixed level, they would have to pay the extra. A level of responsibility would therefore be fixed. It is an alternative to the proposal that my right hon. Friend outlined this afternoon, and I believe that it is worthy of consideration.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that the timing of the introduction of any such proposal is vital. I agree with him that it is ludicrous to consider introducing a benefit change and then to change the entire rating system and confuse the issue still further. The two measures should be introduced in tandem.
I wish to deal with disablement allowances. The Green Paper states that an in-depth survey on the needs of the disabled is being conducted. I hope that the result will provide an opportunity to consolidate the many and varied benefits that are available to the disabled and enable us to exercise the true Conservative principle of allowing disabled people, like everyone else, to choose how they spend their money. The social fund will not be an answer to that problem. A social fund will not work if it is cash limited.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gale: The enthusiasm of hon. Members is overwhelming. I said that I wished to make three points, and I believe that I have a couple of minutes left.
I notice that the discussion document says that the basic national insurance pension will remain unchanged. I believe that that unfortunately is a missed opportunity. The review provides the Government with an opportunity to introduce a basic pension that caters for living, transport and leisure needs. It will involve expenditure and we then have to decide how it will be funded. I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that, as the contracted-out system was to be ended, a sum of money could be released for the retirement pension.
The Green Paper mentions the building up of additional benefits on the basic pension. It is wrong for some profligate councils to give transport passes to people who patently do not need them. The passes are given away by Socialist-controlled authorities, and lie unused in drawers, at a cost to the ratepayer. It is wrong that some pensioners should receive a 5p television licence because they live in one type of property, while others have to pay the full cost because they live in their own houses.
We must introduce a basic pension that understands and recognises the three needs of elderly people — living, transport and leisure. There is no reason why one person should be compelled to have a free television licence when he or she may not own a television and may prefer to use the money to go to the opera. I hope that those matters will be considered during the consultation process.
I welcome the proposals contained in what I believe is a far-sighted overview. The decisions taken now will ensure that our grandchildren will not be left with a legacy of bankruptcy, and they will meet the immediate requirements of those in genuine need.
7.44 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: In 1966, national assistance was rechristened supplementary benefit. It appears that we shall be going through the same exercise in 1986. We shall rechristen supplementary benefit income support, and there will be a discretionary social fund.

233
It is clear that the reality of a means test is not changed for those people dependent upon such benefits. It is significant that the most important aspect of the supplementary benefit system is scarcely discussed in the Green Paper.
If we compare the Tory Government's 1980 reforms with the present proposals, we can see that the take-up issue figured in the 1980 objectives with the Government's desire for a simpler system, while the present reforms aim for clarity.
It is clear that the issue of take-up is now less important than fitting the social security system into the Government's overall public expenditure policies. It is important to remember that the latest estimates show that 30 per cent. of those people eligible for supplementary benefit do not claim it. That amounts to more than 1·25 million people. Between £760 million and £800 million of benefit is unclaimed. The so-called reforms contained in the present proposals will not tackle the crucial issue of take-up.
The change from supplementary benefit to an income support system wth premiums is unlikely, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, to make a real change in the income levels of the beneficiaries.
The Green Paper contains theory but no facts. It is literacy without numeracy. Although the proposals for a premium for pensioners, the long-term sick, the disabled and families appear to provide a broad structure of support, that will not be the result. The structure will not change the income of those people dependent upon the scheme because of the level set for the benefits and the items that will be excluded from the income support. Those items will be swallowed by the catch-all social fund, which is to be cash limited, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North said.
Some anomalies are thrown up by the Green Paper. Premiums relate to client groups and not to regions. Water rates as a proportion of household expenditure are an important issue for Wales. They will be left out of the income support system. It is proposed to abolish the weekly additions. Some people receive as much as £20 in weekly additions. Those people will have to look to the social fund.
The new social fund will become a propping-up device, a new safety net and a catch-all for many people in need. The Green Paper proposes that we move from the appeals and accountability which have been a traditional and democratic part of the way in which clients have been treated under the social security system to a system which provides expert advice on budgeting.
The social fund, with its four elements of community care needs, which can be described as short-term, maternity and funeral expenses, budgeting arrangements and financial crises, will be a fund to which people will increasingly have to turn because of the low level of basic income support. It will not be possible to administer the fund coherently throughout the United Kingdom because of its being cash limited and because of the failure of accountability of the system between local offices.
We are all aware of the amount of pressure on local DHSS office staff. It would be difficult to get accurate information about how the social fund operated throughout the United Kingdom. It is unacceptable that the urgent
234
needs payments of the present system should be absorbed into the social fund and be determined by some budgetary expert.
I should like to consider a matter that worries members of and workers in social services departments. No doubt a link between the administration of the social fund locally, and the work of social services departments' section 1 money, and the work of voluntary bodies will emerge from the review of personal social services. We must ask what kind of local poor law institution the Government are reviving and consider how the family credit scheme is proposed as an alternative to family income supplement, with its 13-week proof of earnings and 26-week period of credit payment.
What will happen to the 27,000 family income supplement claimants who are self-employed? How will administration through employers work? We must consider the low-wage sector in which the scheme is supposed to operate and remember the Government's other proposals which attack the wage rates and living standards of low-paid people such as the abolition of wages councils.
If we consider how benefit will be paid, it is clearly a form of sexual discrimination as, unlike family income supplement, family credit will be paid mainly to the male breadwinner through the employer. What will happen if child benefit goes the same way?
I am also worried about the withdrawal of entitlement to free school meals. The Government have been unable to say that the value of those meals will be made up in the level of replacement benefit. This is the Government who undermined the nutritional standards of school kids by doing away with the minimum requirements for school meals imposed on local education authorities. This is another attack on living standards.
The Green Paper is a further attack on the basis of the welfare state system. Two great Welsh Members of Parliament established the British national insurance system—Lloyd George and James Griffiths. In 1935, the Welsh people rose up in a mass demonstration against real cuts in unemployment benefit. I warn the House that, if the Government push these proposals through, there will be a similar uprising next year.
7.53 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Green Paper. On the whole, it is well written and an honest attempt to redirect the system, which is obviously and demonstrably failing in several important respects.
The final product is a good deal more impressive than the manner of its birth. The leaks and counter-leaks earlier in the year were unedifying. It is always disappointing when it is clear that newspaper editors are better informed than hon. Members about Government thinking. That is the past, however, and the pension proposals of the Green Paper are persuasive.
Much has been made of the fact that the predictions in the Green Paper are open to question. They are estimates, as they must always be, because who can predict future growth rates, birth rates, death rates and the rest? That is another reason for not guaranteeing high and inflation-proof pensions well into the next century, regardless of how the economy performs in the intervening years.
If the predictions and assumptions in the Green Paper turn out to be pessimistic, it will be open to future Governments to increase the basic pension. As I represent

235
a great many old-age pensioners, I hope that it will be possible in time to release more resources to them. That is a better mechanism than locking ourselves into SERPS now, which would be impossible to disentangle.
I ask alliance spokesmen to make their attitude to pension increases clear now. In the debate on the elderly on 6 June it seemed to be Liberal policy to increase the basic pension now. If that were done, taxes and national insurance contributions would have to rise, and that would accentuate the poverty traps which we all agree are an unacceptable feature of the present system.
Under assumptions in the Green Paper, even if the basic pension is maintained in real terms, the cost overall will increase by about 40 per cent. in the next 50 years. If it is alliance policy to promise to increase the basic pension some time in the future, will it not therefore pass on to the next generation a similar and unsupportable obligation on basic pensions instead of SERPS? I hope that alliance spokesmen will address themselves to that and give us some figures. They have been critical of the lack of figures in the Green Paper, so we should have some from them.
As for housing benefit, I should like to re-emphasise the importance of every householder making some contribution towards the rates. I hope that we continue to use rates as a means of financing at any rate the non-educational expenditure of local authorities. If that is to be done, the rating system must be reformed and the rate base must be broadened.
The Green Paper proposes that everyone should pay at least 20 per cent. of the rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) had an ingenious formula, but I would prefer everybody on full housing benefit to receive a basic lump sum and only 50 per cent. of any excess, leaving the other 50 per cent. to be paid for by the householder. For about the same expenditure, that would give people a more lively interest in what happens to their rates and whether they are increased.
My more serious and fundamental criticism of the Green Paper is that it is timid and misses an opportunity. This might be our last chance fully to integrate the tax and social security systems. The Green Paper says rather coyly that the matter will be discussed further in a future Green Paper on personal taxation, which is to be published later in the year. That is not good enough, and I am not bought off by the assurance that the two systems will be coordinated better in future.
Once again we are being drawn into discussing two separate systems in isolation when we should be discussing the future of one integrated system. The moves towards simplification in the Green Paper are in the right direction and ought to be welcomed, although any move towards simplification must entail an element of rough justice.
The present system attempts to deal with individuals case by case. It is supposed to put the money where it is needed, but we know that the system does not work. There is plenty of evidence to show that people who do not deserve money are getting it, whereas others who need it do not receive it. Anyone who has seen the supplementary rules will know what I am talking about. The regulations are longer than the Bible, and not as well written. It is not enough to streamline and prune the regulations. At the end of the day what matters is whether an individual receives money from the state or pays money to the state. The income tax system is as much a part of that as the social security system.
236
The family credit system outlined in the Green Paper is on the right lines. It is based on logical principles and will be paid through the wage packet or salary cheque. I do not find it a serious objection that family credit will be received by the family breadwinner, and not always by the mother. I know that that worries Opposition Members, but the distribution of money within a family is a matter for husband and wife, not the state. It is a clumsy way of enforcing the redistribution of money from husband to wife, to tax the husband, churn the money through the Inland Revenue, the Treasury, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Post Office, and to pay it into a mother's purse.
Having set out what I regard as the right payment system, the Green Paper reform stops halfway. The DHSS will still administer family credit. As this is a structural review, that is a structure which should be altered. The tax system provides the best way of assessing eligibility for benefits because information is already held there. A tax return or an income tax coding is a means test. When Opposition Members refer to means tests, it is as though they are talking about a Victorian rite, and a way of stopping Oliver Twist from getting his bowl of soup, yet when they fill out a tax return, they are undergoing a means test. That information could and should be used to determine whether an individual is eligible for benefit, either in cash or through tax relief. Instead, the Green Paper regrettably proposes that we should continue with two separate systems, even if better co-ordinated.
The most striking mistake, which is a consequence of that failure, is that we are to continue with child benefit as an indiscriminate subsidy to rich and poor alike. The cost of child benefit this year is more than £4 billion, which is more than the housing budget. Why should wealthy mothers continue to receive what to them is mere pocket money? They pay for it through their taxes and then receive it after it has been churned around the system. The Green Paper fudges that issue. Child benefit in its present form must be abolished or merged with family credit, or has child benefit become one of those well-loved anomalies of British life, to which the Chancellor of the Exchquer referred in his Budget statement? If so, it is expensive and equivalent to 4p on the standard rate of income tax.
Child benefit and family benefits should be assessed and administered by one system, using one source of information, making one benefit calculation and leading to one payment. We should have a spectrum that extends from cash benefits being paid to the badly off, through tax reliefs to those who pay tax, to nothing for those whose income is above a certain level.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman should have concluded his speech.
8.4 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I heard the Secretary of State introducing his Green Paper, I said that it was a kick in the teeth for disabled people. The Secretary of State expressed his dislike at what I had to say and waved in front of me the prospect of the special premium rate for the disabled. On further study of the so-called reform of social security, I am convinced that the sum result of the review for disabled people will be to undermine their already low standard of living. They will be under attack in three ways.

237
Disabled people will come under attack in terms of additional payments of supplementary benefit, the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme and the reduction in housing benefit. The most severe of those attacks is probably the proposal to sweep away the legal entitlement of disabled people to the vital additional payments which they now receive as of right. Because of the absence of a comprehensive disability income and the inadequacy of existing invalidity pensions, disabled people are forced on to supplementary benefit. Although that may be deplorable, under the present supplementary benefit system additional payments are available to meet special needs.
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said about the special needs of disabled people for extra heating. People who are confined to a wheelchair or to bed require a special allowance for heating. In many cases the chronically sick and disabled require a special diet, for which there is no concession, and allowances, which are at present on offer from the Department of Health and Social Security. Many of them are incontinent and require money to cover the extra costs of laundry services. Many people rely on their families, but those without a family gathered around them require the assistance of a domestic help.
In 1982, 62 per cent. of all claimants received an additional allowance, and 87 per cent. received £7 or more a week. The Disablement Income Group has shown that in many cases—this is well documented—20 to 30 per cent. of benefits are paid out in additional allowances. In many cases the amounts are between £15 and £20 a week. The general secretary of DIG, Pauline Thompson, stated that if the proposed special premium, of which the Secretary of State seems so proud, is to be paid to disabled people, it will have to be at least £16 a week above the present £57·10 a week supplementary benefit level for a couple, if they are not to suffer a loss of income.
So far, as in many other cases in the review, the Secretary of State has produced no figures. Disabled people are entitled to know what they will receive. I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us whether the figure of £16 that DIG mentioned will be met under the special premium, which is to maintain the standard of living of disabled people.
In 1982, 1·5 million people claimed single payments averaging £54 a week. Those payments are to be swept away. Some 3·5 million claimed weekly additional allowances — that is, 90 per cent. of supplementary pensioners. Those allowances are to be swept away. The abolition of additional allowances is all to save a relatively measly £670 million. The aim of the exercise is cost-cutting, not cost-effectiveness.
What are the Government's proposals on payments for domestic help, which is so often required by those who are sick and handicapped? The allowance for a live-in domestic help can now reach £44·90 a week. What is to happen to that under this proposal? How is the special premium to take that into account? We want more details and figures to explain that. When my party returns to power after the next election—that becomes more of a certainty because of the proposals that we are now discussing—I hope that we shall endorse a comprehensive disability income for all disabled people. Disabled people, who are often disabled all their lives, should not
238
be catered for merely by a supplementary benefit system or a special premium income support system that is thought sufficient for those whose needs may be temporary because they are unemployed, or for some other reason.
The abolition of SERPS will hit disabled people; 800,000 disabled people who are on invalidity benefit cannot buy into private pension schemes. How ludicrous it is that they should be faced with the prospect of appealing to a private insurance company. Is it not known that insurance companies regard the chronically sick as bad risks? What is in it for them after the year 2000? If the proposal becomes law, young disabled people have the dismal prospect, not of a welfare state, but of a workhouse state in the very near future.
Of the 800,000 disabled people who are on invalidity benefit, only 120,000 are in receipt of supplementary benefit, so many of the remainder are dependent on housing benefit. Many disabled people who work are often in low-paid jobs. For them, housing benefit is crucial, but under the proposed scheme no one will get a 100 per cent. rate rebate; 20 per cent. of rates will have to be paid by everybody. That is indeed a redistribution of income, but it is not a redistribution from the rich to the poor; it is a redistribution from one section of the poor to another. Far from likening the system to Beveridge, one could liken it to Scrooge when he said, "Are there no workhouses?"
There is no doubt that under this Government disabled people have lost on several occasions. This is not the first. They lost when the supplementary benefit scheme was simplified in 1980. They lost when the available scale margin was extended to heating allowances and increased at the same time from 50p to £1. In many cases they lost when the severe disablement allowance was introduced to take the place of the non-contributory invalidity pension. They lost when optical services were withdrawn from the National Health Service.
Those who advise the Government are not the people who are now writing to us to advise us against their policies. They are not the disability organisations, not those who will inundate us with correspondence in the near future. I hope that those people will not only push at the open doors of Opposition Members, but will inundate Tory Members, particularly the one-term Members whose stay in the House is now probably limited to a year or two.
The Conservatives should be challenged on the cash limits for the social fund. Under this Government, there are cash limits for the social fund to aid poor and disabled people, but there are no cash limits when it comes to Trident or satisfying the greed of the NATO generals. I would never discredit the Government by saying that they have failed, because I have said on previous occasions in other debates that they intend to recreate the old Victorian society, and to keep the poor, disabled and handicapped in their place.
Therefore, there is not much consolation in the Green Paper for anybody who is in want. There is not much consolation beyond the fact that the measures will bring about the inevitable demise of this Tory Government. The Green Paper is probably the last nail in the Tory Government's coffin. I believe that more and more people will come to understand—
Mr. Peter Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in believing that Mr. Speaker changed the time for 10-minute speeches from 6 pm until

239
8 pm to 7 pm until 9 pm? If so, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is out of order in continuing his speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir Paul Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not realised that. In that case, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, (Mr. Wareing) must finish his speech with one more sentence.
Mr. Wareing: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I have had 10 minutes.
The one sentence is this. I hope that there might just be enough Tories with guts tonight to go into the Division Lobby with us in advance of the letters that they will receive, which will tell them what ordinary people think of the way in which they are being treated compared with the Tories' rich friends in the stockbroker belt who will benefit from the massive reductions in taxes which they have been promised but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is finding it difficult to deliver.
8.16 pm
Mr. Roy Galley: It is a pity that the Labour party has decided to debunk the whole of the Green Paper in advance of reading it. Labour Members wrote their scripts in advance of the Green Paper coming out, and now they have decided to debunk it. In doing so, they are in great danger of throwing out several healthy babies with what they regard as rather murky bath water.
There is one point which I should like to urge on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and which has been made strongly. We should have some indicative figures earlier that November. I say that not because I regard that as sound management. It is obviously sound that we should discuss principles, consult and then establish rates. However, I am concerned that the hysterical reaction of the Left that we are seeing in the debate and in the country will cause considerable mischief primarily for the most vulnerable and needy in our society, who will be needlessly frightened by the exaggerated tales that are already coming from the Opposition. I beg my right hon. Friend to take that factor into account when he issues the figures.
Opposition Members claim to care about the vulnerable in our society, but in fact they regard them simply as pawns in their power game. Surely everyone will welcome the intention in the Green Paper to remove the unemployment trap and, as far as possible—it may not be entirely achieved—to ensure that people in work are not disadvantaged compared with those out of work. The anticipated reduction of 100 per cent. in marginal tax rates is crucial. Even if the price that we have to pay is that more people will have a marginal tax rate of 90 per cent. or more, it is an improvement on the present 100 per cent. marginal tax rates, with which we must deal. One hopes that one will minimise the 90 per cent. rate, but it will be a vast improvement.
The family credit scheme based on take-home pay calculated by the employer is also potentially a vast improvement, in that it will target money on those in greatest need. The critical problem, as ever, will be that of take-up. It is not axiomatic that a six-monthly application system, a 13-week income assessment system and employers making the payment in the pay packet will necessarily improve the take-up. One hopes that it will do so, but it will not necessarily of itself do so. There will
240
need to be a substantial marketing effort and a positive, active role by employers in encouraging their employees to take up the benefit.
If we are to deal effectively with family poverty, we need a high take-up rate of family credit. We will need additional resources to achieve that. From where will the resources come? They could come from other parts of the package, but if that is the intention, the resources will be tight.
I wish to give considerable support to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on child benefit. It is becoming a popular plea from these Benches that those who are rich should not automatically be entitled to child benefit. Unless we have a system of taxing child benefit, or having an income cutoff point, we will not produce the resources to make family credit an adequate response to our family poverty problem.
I doubt that we will solve the problem of family poverty unless we have a partial tax benefit integrated system with family credit, child benefit and tax brought into the same system as a first step. All the signs are that we can do that fairly soon, so let us get on with it as soon as possible.
There is silence in the Green Paper on whether the credit will apply to the self-employed. It is vital that it should do so, because there are low-earning self-employed people, many of them starting new businesses, who need help and encouragement. We need to know how the system will work for them.
The family credit proposals include the highly commendable principle that people should be given cash in their hands, not benefits in kind, so that they can decide how to spend it. Already the hysterical Left is claiming that free school meals will be abolished, rather than applauding the fact that we will be giving people money and the dignity and independence to decide how to spend it.
So often it has been claimed that a great deal of stigma attaches to benefits in kind, such as free school meals. The issue is greatly exaggerated, but for some people there is an element of stigma. If we have the opportunity to abandon that, let us do so. If the argument can be applied to family credit, why is it not logical to extend it to those on income support? Surely the most potent argument for the retention of free school meals must be the variation in payment from one area of the country to another. If it is accepted that we can achieve an appropriate addition to family credit, why cannot that addition be added to the child rate for income support, so that we can go further along the road of abolishing the ludicrous benefits in kind?
The whole principle of income support with circumstantial premiums is to be commended. It will target benefit on those in greatest need. When deciding on the premiums and the rates, I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the poverty often found in single households, especially among pensioners. I suspect that, after families with children, that is the greatest area of poverty. We must take that into account in setting income support levels.
I wish to raise three points relating to income support. For the first time, the Green Paper has established the presence test for income support, which is to be commended. It is quite right that foreigners, of whatever origin, should not be allowed to enter this country and immediately claim benefit. The reality may not be as substantial as the inclusion of the presence test suggests since primary immigration is virtually at an end, so there

241
may not be too great a difficulty. The only problem is what to do about political refugees. Will they be paid from money in the social fund?
The capital rule change for income support will be widely welcomed. The £3,000 cut-off has been a source of resentment to many people for a long time. In carrying out this reform I hope that my right hon. Friend will also take the opportunity to align the rules for charges for local authority and private homes with the changes. At present there are anomalies and there is an incentive for old people with capital of between £1,200 and £3,000 to enter a private home, while there is an incentive for those with capital over £3,000 to enter a local authority home. I hope that that anomaly will be tackled when the new changes are introduced.
The easing of the earnings rules and the disregard rules will also be welcomed, but I wonder whether we could be a little more generous in the disregard rules, especially for overlapping benefits. There are many groups for whom the disregard rules mean the loss of all the £4 of their secondary benefit. For example, I especially wish to mention the war disabled on supplementary benefit, which is their only source of income. They are currently losing substantially.
There are many gems in the Green Paper which have not been given sufficient attention this evening. I commend much of it to the House.
8.26 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: What we are debating tonight is a review that the Government call the most fundamental reform of the welfare state for 40 years. It is a review from the consequence of which they admit almost no family or household will be spared. It is a review about which the electorate was not warned, about which details are still denied, to which additional weekly cuts —such as in child benefit—are added and from which advisers are daily deserting the Government, having sat on the review teams.
Quite simply, the Government have had to impose the review because the economy that they are running can no longer meet the standards necessary for a civilised and decent society. The review displays principles of simplification, targeting and partnership only as a pretext for what has become clear as penny-pinching and piecemeal cuts in provision for ordinary people.
With £500 million cuts in housing benefit already announced, with almost 4 million pensioners affected as a result, how can the Government say that to simplify is just not another shorthand for cutting? When the Secretary of State had to admit on "A Week in Politics" 10 days ago that the housing benefit cuts were only the major savings of this review, and when we know that £200 million is to be saved in child benefit, how can he maintain that this is a nil cost review? We know that the right to a death or maternity grant is to be abolished, that single payments to more than 1 million households are to be abandoned, that heating additions to more than 2 million households are to be abandoned, and that in their place all we will get is citizens claiming or begging from a social fund with no rules, regulations or right of appeal. How can Conservative Members, even with their new-found interest in philosophy and structures, tell us that the philosophy of targeting presented in the review is not
242
simply the proliferation of more means testing, linking shame to need, even at birth and even, in some cases, for people beyond death?
How can the theorists of the new Right tell us that cutting benefits for the unemployed under-25s by perhaps £5 a week, and then asking them to pay £2 a week in rates —at a time when we know that, for example, in my constituency there is only one vacancy for every 30 people seeking work, which is true for most constituencies—is fostering work incentives when all that they are doing is penalising the unemployed?
I have a question for Conservative Members who applauded the Secretary of State two weeks ago and who have been laughing tonight as my hon. Friends and I have been explaining some of the facts and figures about the reviews. They cannot blame the Government's recommendations on expert advisers, because those advisers do not submit to the review conclusions. Nor can they blame the review recommendations on their manifesto, because the proposals were not in it. They cannot even blame the state of the economy for the proposed cuts, because they say that we are in the fourth year of sustained growth.
I ask them what they intend to say to their constituents to justify the plight of a pensioner on £35·80 a week who was promised protection by the Conservatives but who is now to be penalised for his or her thrift, who will be deprived of perhaps all help with rates because that pensioner saved up and has a small occupational pension worth, say, £10 or £15 a week?
What excuse can Conservative Members give to the young unemployed for cutting their benefit, when the Secretary of State for Social Services said just prior to the last general election that cutting unemployment benefit was an unacceptable price to pay? They are now, however, likely to be worse off to the tune of £7 a week as a result of the reviews.
What explanation will Conservative Members give to the widow whose allowance of £50 a week paid over six months is to be consolidated into a smaller, one-off benefit of £1,000, remembering that many widows, particularly those who are childless, will lose hundreds of pounds as a result of the changes?
What justification will they give to pensioners who will be deprived of their heating addition? What will they say to the 7 million mothers who will be deprived of a rising level of child benefit and even of the right to maternity benefit?
The Secretary of State has compared himself with Beveridge. The Leader of the House said of the right hon. Gentleman that his reforms would stand alongside those of Beveridge and Lloyd George. The test which the Secretary of State asks us to apply to his proposals is the test of a Beveridge report which commanded national consensus.
Where does the review, in its many aspects, raise its horizons to those of Beveridge? Where does it refer to the giant evils of poverty, want and idleness which concerned Beveridge? Where does it refer to the present worsening poverty that would have challenged Beveridge? Where does it refer to the inadequacy of benefit levels which would have enraged Beveridge? Where does it refer to the need for the redistribution of wealth, from rich to poor, instead of the redistribution of poverty, as the review proposes, among the poor?

243
We are looking for a vision to deal with the giant evils of want, idleness and poverty. All we find is an obsessive, compulsive concern about the burden on taxpayers, about costs and about cuts.
What the Government propose is not designed to meet the social challenges of the future. It is designed to deal with the chaos of economic failures on the part of the Government. The test for the Chancellor in the reviews is not a reduction in poverty but a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement.
Under the SERPS proposals, it is suggested that the growth rate of the economy in 40 years' time will be half what it is now. In other words it will be less than it has been under almost every Government since the last war. The truth that emerges about the Government's policies is that we have a third-rate welfare state for a second-rate economy.
The Government should know that the British people are concerned more with poverty, are less selfish and are less self-centred than the M3-obsessed faction who are now ruling over the nation. They should know that the British people do not regard the welfare state as a luxury but as a lifeline. They do not see it as a sort of optional extra to be discarded at the whim of the Government. They see it as an essential component of a decent, modern society.
The Labour party believes in the welfare state. The country believes in it. The Government are isolated in their proposals to cut benefits, to penalise the unemployed and to introduce new means tests into our society.
8.34 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: Most Back Benchers — rightly, considering that we are debating a Green Paper — have concentrated on making constructive suggestions. It is all the more to be regretted, therefore, that the opening speech by the Leader of the Opposition was a 45-minute Second Reading rant, and he lost a great opportunity to express some of his views.
I congratulate the Government, as other hon. Members have done, on the prodigious amount of work that has been involved in the reviews. I welcome a number of the proposals, though I shall, like other hon. Members, concentrate on those things with which I do not agree.
I wish at the outset to put the alternative argument on child benefit, and I do so because I have for long believed, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, that until and unless we have a proper, working, operational, combined benefit and tax system, it is folly in the extreme to do away with the most effective means of reaching out to poor families. Literally dozens of reports sustain me in that view, and I need quote from only one. That is the Policy Studies Institute report, which is well respected and which states:
"PSI research … clearly identified hardship experienced by out of work families with children, and leads to the suggestion that increased rates for children should be the number one priority for social security … In fact the overwhelming majority of families in receipt of child benefit are tax-payers; the most efficient mechanism for targeted tax relief is child benefit. An increase in this could be counted as a tax credit to avoid an apparent effect on public expenditure. The resources are available from a demonstrably less well-targeted form of family tax relief, the married man's tax allowance."
My hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and others who have not yet spoken should accept that if we are to launch into
244
an attack on all-embracing universal benefits, we should consider that one and, even more obviously, mortgage tax interest, before we start tackling a benefit that goes to the very heart of support for the family.
I come to supplementary benefit, or income support, as we may have to learn to call it. I welcome without reservation the simplification proposed in the Green Paper. Few, if any, hon. Members can doubt that the present complexity of the scheme prevents many people—who justly and rightly should be receiving it—from getting this benefit.
I hope that the House will forgive me for dealing with an instance of the consequences of removing all special single payments. I quote from a letter that I have received from the Newham neighbourhood energy project, a voluntary project which I know well and which does a great deal to assist low-income and elderly people with their heating. The letter states:
"Dear Mr. Squire,
I wrote to you in March regarding the possible cessation of 'single payment' provisions for draught-proofing under the review which the Government were then carrying out. As now announced, this provision is being dropped and there appears to be no replacement provision under the proposals published in the Green Paper. This is devastating news to our potential clients and to the 170-odd staff whom we employ on these projects, sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission. A substantial number of our elderly, sick, disabled and low income clients rely on this single payment provision to cover the costs of the draught-proofing materials which we install … Over 40 per cent. of the long-term unemployed whom we recruit subsequently find full-time permanent work. The removal of the single payment provision will seriously affect the numbers whom we can potentially assist and will have a detrimental effect on our provision of jobs for those who most need them. Yet, nationally, we are talking about very modest sums. If every one of the 4 million currently qualifying for single payments were to have their homes draught-proofed to an efficient and effective level, the cost would be less than £100 million and the energy savings alone would recover this sum in less than two years —disregarding the qualitative benefits of warmer homes and greater comfort. 1986 has been designated 'Energy Efficiency Year,' yet one of the main-stays of the service which we provide is now under threat."
I do not expect the Minister, when summing up tonight, to give me a detailed answer to that, but I trust that he will look into it and contact me in due course. If that were a consequence of the change, I and many other hon. Members would regret it.
Having called for some time for a simplification of what is universally accepted as a hopelessly complex system of housing benefits, I thought that all others would, like me, welcome what is proposed. I am surprised, therefore, that some hon. Members have not agreed on that. Wherever the blame for the present system lies, it is self-evident that any scheme that involves the DHSS and local authorities in interminable negotiation must need major reform, such as that outlined in the Green Paper.
Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) have pointed out the consequences of moving from six tapers to one. Ultimately, that is a political judgment which the Government and the House will take. If we combine the housing benefit for both rent and rates, there will be substantial losses of £3 or £4 a week for those receiving benefit. Often these people are the elderly. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take that aspect into account.
I urge the Government to continue to listen to the various experts. Of course, political decisions must

245
properly lie with the Government, but I urge the Government to listen to the experts when considering the mechanics of the benefits to be implemented. Many warnings have been given by groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Shelter Housing Aid Centre and Shelter before the introduction of the housing benefits system. It is incumbent upon us to listen to the warnings from people who say, "If you implement the system, it will be chaotic and haphazard."
I turn to the general principles that permeate each of the benefits. It is easy for hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, to welcome the improved targeting of benefits towards those most in need. I would be the first to say that, where that can be done, it must be done. The benefits are obvious. A balance must, however, be struck. Time and again in the Green Paper we see that the consequence of making that targeting the only standard would be unacceptably high marginal rates of income tax. We must be consistent. The Government rightly deplore any suggestion of again imposing income tax at the lunatic levels of 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or even 95 per cent. We must continue to point out the danger that that would cause if an alternative Government pledged that they would introduce that system.
If we are consistent, we must recognise the disincentives of such taxation levels being imposed on people with a fraction of the resources of the people to whom I have referred. If part of the cost of making the slope of benefit withdrawal more gentle is regarded as a direct contribution to a reduction in the marginal income tax rate, that is money well spent. It is important to make that point rather than to believe, with all our experience of means-tested benefits, that an abrupt termination of any benefit would do anything other than keep many people in a poverty or unemployment trap. I know that all hon. Members want those traps to be removed.
As I wished to demonstrate that I can speak in less than 10 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to give a fulsome welcome to the Green Paper. I look forward to the discussions continuing beyond this evening.
8.43 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: I hope that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) will forgive me if I do not follow his last argument, but I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
An underlying theme of the Green Paper worries me greatly. Apart from the individual measures proposed, their merits and demerits and the review's poor law approach, I am worried about the underlying assumption that women are the dependants of their husbands. I deplore that. For some time we have been trying to move away from that concept. Although the state believes that women are dependants of their partners, that view is becoming increasingly less acceptable to women, especially the 40 per cent. of the work force who are women and the 1·25 million women who are the main breadwinners in their families. In spite of that trend, many of the proposals in the Green Paper take us backwards and encourage a more Victorian and outdated approach.
The ending of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which puts the onus on the individual to organise an individual pension on top of the basic state pension, will be disastrous for women, because they are already in a
246
dependent and unequal position. The present system does not provide equal pension rights, but at least it gives women some protection. Many women will not be able to organise themselves to have an additional pension. They will be subjected to the new high street cowboys, who will try to sell them a cheap pension which will appear attractive but which may prove not to be so. They will be landed with an inadequate pension. This applies to many groups, including the low-paid and women.
Women who do not work will be dependent upon their husbands' schemes, which may not always be adequate. Widows will suffer if no scheme is organised or if the scheme is discriminatory or inadequate. The proposals hit a vulnerable section of our community who are at the bottom end of the pay scale.
It is proposed to abolish family income supplement and to replace it with the family credit scheme. This will involve payment through the wage packet rather than through the Post Office. Free school meals and welfare foods will go in favour of a possible increase in benefit. I say "possible" increase because no one has quantified what will happen. In the majority of cases, payment of family credit will be made through the male wage packet. The woman in the family will have no guarantee unless she and her husband have a good and shared relationship. She is in charge of the family income and has to budget, yet under this system she could be much worse off.
There is no guarantee that family credit will reach the woman's purse. Removal of the safety net benefits, such as free school meals and welfare foods and the payment of money through family credit, may mean that the woman will not receive the resources. This is a reversal of the concept of redistributing resources within the family and will mean an increase in the number of women who are seen as dependents of their partners.
Whatever the age groups or the circumstances, the Government are hitting women. The Government do not even protect women during pregnancy, which is a vulnerable time. For a long time I have campaigned for maternity grant to be increased. It is abysmally low. It is no good telling me that the flat rate, means-tested benefit of £75 paid from the social fund to replace the concept of a universal maternity grant and single payments for baby clothes are improvements. We shall lose the principle of the maternity benefit, which is a precious principle on which we should build. We are saying that women will have to go with hand outstretched to the social fund to obtain money for their children.
Next week the DHSS will go to the other place on appeal against the judgment in the case of Mrs. Gillick, who wants to ban the giving of contraceptive advice to girls under 16 years. As a result, there may be more pregnant girls under 16, yet the Government propose in the review to cut off maternity benefits to schoolgirls. That is a disgrace. This is a vulnerable group of people who have made mistakes, but who should be protected.
As far as can be calculated from the maternity allowance, half a million women will lose the maternity grant, and women on income support may get less than they receive from the single payment, plus the maternity grant. Expectant mothers, who might have expected the review positively to update the benefits to which they are entitled, will not benefit from it.
The abolition of the death grant will affect the elderly, a large proportion of whom are women. The death grant will be discretionary and I understand that it could be

247
repayable. Why is this extra worry being heaped upon the bereaved? The Government believe that they are being generous by abolishing the weekly widow's allowance and replacing it with a lump sum payment, but most of the £1,000 will be spent upon burial expenses and resettling the widow in new circumstances.
The Government had a golden opportunity to provide women with greater equality and financial independence, instead of which they are thumping women. The Government thump girls when they are at school and might get pregnant; when they grow up, get married and try to set up home and start a family; when they try to make ends meet on a low family income; when they work and try to provide for their retirement; when they retire and also when they are bereaved. If a woman is beaten up by a violent and uncontrollable husband, that is called domestic violence. I call this Government violence, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.
8.52 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: The principal reaction to the Green Paper, which I share, has been one of homage to the political skills of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in avoiding the numerous banana skins that lie in the path of any Conservative politician who proposes the modernisation of the welfare state. The avoidance of banana skins, however, is not a sufficient guide to statesmanship. True, one does not fall over if one does not stride purposefully forward, but one does not achieve very much either, apart from being remembered for shrewdly defending one's corner. For however much the Labour party may attempt publicly to adhere to the sacred shibboleths of "welfarestate-speak", every independent commentator has come to accept in recent years the need not just for a review of the welfare state but for a radical reform, not merely to improve the old ways but to change direction altogether.
It would be unfair to describe my right hon. Friend's review as mere patching of a rotting edifice. He has planted the seeds of an exciting new structure, but they still lie buried very deep. In these seeds I hope we see the beginning of the end of the contributory principle, long since dying in fact if not in sentiment, the end of the principle of universality and the beginning of negative income tax and the integration of the tax and benefit systems. We see that in the new family credit.
But why is a new start needed? It is needed because Lord Beveridge in his wildest dreams could not have conceived his creation developing into a bureaucratic monster employing 70,000 people administering 43 different means-tested benefits, costing £40 billion and now £42 billion a year—more than we spend on defence and health combined—and allowing, according to the Daily Mail, so it must be right, middle-class Italian students the privilege of free holidays in Great Britain.
Three weeks before this year's Budget I was lucky enough to come top of the ballot for private Members' motions and I chose as my subject for debate the need for the integration of benefits and taxation. I like to think that that motion was a provocative thrust against the Treasury mandarins who, it is becoming increasingly clear, are determined to adhere to the outdated principle that we are two nations: a nation of thrifty workers paying taxes, and a nation of the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed gratefully receiving the fruits of the nation's labour in benefits.
248
To the Treasury mandarins the glory of PAYE stands as a monument to their ingenuity: pure, intellectually whole and satisfying but quite separate from the messy jumble of those 43 means-tested benefits. Alas, the truth is very different. All of us — I apologise for vulgar language—have our noses in the trough of state support.
The most infamous example is that of child benefits. This afternoon, in questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, I asked him what rational justification there is for taxing struggling young families on low incomes into the poverty trap in order to subsidise the child bearing of a duchess. "Ah," said my right hon. Friend, if I may paraphrase him, as he desperately searched for an answer which would not smack of political opportunism, "child bearing carries particular costs and responsibilities for the duchess as for everyone else." Granted; but why make her pay crippling income and capital taxes on the one hand and give her a benefit that she does not need on the other? Do we really think that the higher income classes of this country are such dolts that they enjoy the state deciding for them what crumbs they shall be offered in return for the taxes that they pay in order to subsidise the monstrous leviathan of an out-of-control bureaucracy spending £40 billion a year?
But child benefit is only one perk that we all enjoy from the state, however well off and successful we are. Old-age pensions, mortgage tax relief, free health care, and income tax thresholds are all there. The Treasury mandarins are wrong. The walls of their castle have long since been breached by middle-class voters who would rather enjoy a perk now than look forward to the chimers of tax cuts.
However, my right hon. Friend's success in his Green Paper has been to start a move towards the reluctant acceptance by us all that the apparatus which aims to mix up contributory and non-contributory benefits and universal benefits for the well-off and the hard-up alike cannot survive. It is not fair; we cannot afford it. It does not adequately target help to those most in need. We must choose between a whittled-down Beveridge concept based on the state paying the premiums of those unable to contribute and a fully integrated tax and benefit system. To choose the former way is to suffer under the continuous and effective, if outrageous, arrows of the onslaught of the unprincipled thrust of Opposition argument as perk by perk, benefit by benefit is salami-sliced away. We all receive those benefits in one way or another.
The latter approach is difficult, expensive and radical, but it has one virtue—it is right, rational and feasible and it will make it politically possible and acceptable to remove child benefit from the well-off and to give it to the hard-up. To that extent I welcome the Green Paper, but only as a first step on a long path, not as a final settlement.
8.58 pm
Mr. John Hume: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, as I believe that my constituency has a higher rate of dependence on social security than any other represented in this House. There is 40 per cent. unemployment in Strabane and 30 per cent. in Derry, and 21,000 of the 60,000 people on the electoral register in my constituency are supplementary benefit claimants, so I can perhaps claim more direct experience than right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches of the effects of social security arrangements.
Many of the people who come to my office are trapped between monetarism and terrorism. The Government's

249
neutron bomb economics has left workplaces standing but taken the people out of them. The terror bomb tactics of the IRA have destroyed the workplaces and left the people standing — on the dole queue. One closes down workplaces as uneconomic targets while the other blows them up as economic targets. One uses unemployment as a tool of economic strategy while the other uses it as a tool of political strategy, and we all know who pays the price —the people who end up on social security.
Government and Opposition seem to be agreed on only one claim—that the proposals in the Green Paper will have far-reaching effects. No matter how far-reaching the effects on Great Britain, the effects in Northern Ireland will be especially pronounced because social security payments represent about 26 per cent. of household income in Northern Ireland compared with about 13 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. If the Green Paper is implemented, it will have a profound effect on the lives and living standards of many people in the north of Ireland, not just the unemployed and the elderly but many people at work, because social security payments account for one quarter of the spending power in the Northern Ireland economy.
Few would dispute that our social security structures, methods and levels of payment need reform, but the primary aim of any attempt at simplification must be to ease access and attainment for those entitled to benefit rather than to ease administration and accounting for management. The review has correctly identified many problems in the present system but, unfortunately, it has failed to identify many answers correctly. That is hardly surprising given that, by announcing a nil cost review, the Secretary of State had already more or less decided what the score would be before the exercise began.
The nil cost criterion was presumably the reason why some of the most obvious questions were not asked. For instance, what level of benefit is necessary to protect people from poverty? That is surely a fundamental question. What effect will means testing have on the take-up rate and to what extent will those just above the arbitrary means test limit be penalised? Those questions are fundamental to any serious consideration of whether a scheme would actually insure against poverty and provide for need, but those questions have been ignored. Means testing is to be extended on the basis that it ensures that help goes to those who really need it, but no study was undertaken to see whether that would be the effect and whether there would be side effects. I contend that means testing does as much to deny help to people who really need it because those people have their dignity as it does to ensure that help is given to those who are technically entitled to it.
The nil cost criterion also means that, at best, money will be taken from the poor and given to the poor in a redistribution of poverty. Given that savings of at least £1 billion — the lowest figure yet conceded by the Government—are expected to flow from the proposals, it is clear that in fact money is to be taken from the poor and given to the wealthy in future tax cuts. The Government's economic statement includes much talk about incentives to the wealthy in terms of tax cuts, higher profits and ownership of former public enterprises, but the incentives to the less well-off are low wages and restricted social security benefits. The recent Budget was mainly a
250
strategy to bring about a low-wage economy and the Green Paper is the other side of that coin—the residualisation of the welfare state.
The Opposition have referred to it as the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, while the Government talk of concentrating resources on those in greatest need. In fact, it is a residual scheme of assistance for people who will feel stigmatised as a social and economic residue. That is a retreat from Beveridge and a return to the values of the Victorian poor law. It is attacking the poor instead of attacking poverty. The family credit scheme as proposed in the Green Paper is surely a licence for low wages and is obviously in keeping with proposals in the recent Budget. Rather than helping overcome the problem of low wages, this scheme will help sustain low wages. Rather than providing assistance to employees, it will provide wage relief to employers, a hidden grant to encourage low wages. Will the Secretary of State tell me what the difference is between the family credit scheme and the Speenhamland system?
The Government are trying to tell us with their low-wage strategy that poverty is the answer to unemployment. Northern Ireland already has lower income levels and higher unemployment than Great Britain and we are being told that if we have higher unemployment and lower wage levels that will be the spur that will make people get on their bicycles and go to get work. We already have a pilot area in which we have the highest unemployment and the lowest wages imaginable, and the result is community strife and instability. That is the direction in which that sort of Victorian thinking leads.
With regard to the proposed changes to supplementary benefit, in my constituency, with 60,000 people on the electoral roll, there are 21,000 claiming supplementary benefit. The income support proposal which is to replace it can be given a full analysis only when we know what levels of benefit we are talking about, and we do not. It is not clear either on what criteria or indices the Government will determine the levels of payment under the income support scheme, except that it must be lower than a low wage. This gives ground for suspicion and I am particularly worried about that portion of support which is meant to help with heating costs. For example, some parts of the United Kingdom have much higher heating costs than others and a greater incidence of fuel poverty. If the Government's intention is to help those in most need, what is their method of linking support payments to such particular social and regional factors?
Single payments are to be replaced by grants from the social fund. This is probably one of the most pernicious aspects of this Green Paper. Again, there is the example of my constituency. In the life of this Government, from 1978 to 1984, these are the statistics. In Derry city, in 1978, 2,789 single payments were made; in 1984, 12,959 were made. In Strabane, the figures were 1,200 in 1978, and 10,000 in 1984. The figures have been multiplied by six in the lifetime of this Government.
Those figures demonstrate the growing need among people in poverty under the policies of this Government, yet their answer is to give them loans. The people I am talking about are people with dignity. The net result of asking those people to be means-tested for loans is that they will end up with loan sharks and moneylenders—another opportunity for private enterprise.
Secondly, there is this business of assistance with budget management. There is no greater arrogance or

251
insult to the poor people of our country and society than to suggest that what they need is assistance in managing their budget rather than a rise in their income level. Could any hon. Member manage his family budget on supplementary benefit and feed his family as well as those people do? The best managers of budgets in this country are the women who feed and rear families on the pittances they receive on supplementary benefit. It is a damned insult to the integrity of those people to suggest that what they need is advice on how to manage their budgets.
The philosophy that appears to underlie this effort is based on the notion that a high percentage of social security payments in relation to GDP is bad for economic growth. Why, then, is it that the United Kingdom has a lower percentage of GDP going on social security than many other member states of the European Community? Why is it much lower than in West Germany, which is consistently held up to us as a model economy?
All this has effects on society. I have some experience of deprivation, poverty and alienation. I give a warning from a man with great experience of what deprivation and enforced poverty did to human beings—Martin Luther King. He said:
"When an individual is no longer a true participant, when he no longer feels a sense of responsibility to his society, the content of democracy is empty. When the social system does not build security but induces peril, inexorably, the individual is compelled to pull away from a soulless society. This produces alienation, perhaps the most pervasive and insidious development in contemporary society."
I warn the Government that they are not building security but inducing peril. Inexorably, the individual in this soulless society that they are creating will be driven away.
9.11 pm
Mr. Timothy Wood: Despite the passionate opposition from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I give a strong welcome to the proposals in the Green Paper. Over the years, it has amazed me that the Labour party, with all its protestations about the need to help the poor, has been prepared to support a social security system which is incredibly complex and often most unfair.
Although some Labour Back Benchers made constructive points of criticism about the Green Paper, from the Front Bench we heard only blanket opposition, without any detailed consideration of the merits of some of the proposals. In particular, the family credit system is a major step forward from the family income supplement. Its assessment of those in need is based on net income. Secondly, there is an obvious need to simplify the housing benefit system. Although one can argue in due course about numbers, the case for that simplification is overwhelming and I am delighted that at last we are beginning to approach such a simplification.
For years some people in work have been worse off than those out of work. For years, an increase in wage for a family with children could make a family worse off. For years there has been a multitude of benefits which the needy have not understood and which many have not claimed. That is not a satisfactory welfare state.
I can give an example. At my surgery last Saturday, a married man with two children came to see me. His wage meant that his family income was just above that giving an entitlement to family income supplement, but he was entitled to housing benefit. About six months ago, finding
252
himself short of money, he started to work overtime. Three months later he received a notice from his council saying that it was terribly sorry, but his increased income meant that he lost £120 housing benefit. He worked more overtime, and another three months later he was told that another £98 was owing. There is a case for modifying such absurdities.
The assessment of family credit and housing benefit on the basis of net income is immediately a major step forward. It will mean that the combination of loss of benefits and the incidence of tax will have a marginal rate on the increase of income where the marginal rate of tax and loss of benefit will be about 85 per cent. rather than, as at present, rising to 110 per cent., or even higher percentages. It is obviously desirable that we make those changes. I should like to see the Opposition at least welcoming that sort of change, even if they are discontented about some other aspects.
The Opposition have complained about a lack of figures. In reality, it is possible to develop a variety of sets of figures on the basis of the structures that have been put forward. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Plymouth Devonport (Dr. Owen) did precisely that in his contribution. Even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has put forward some figures, although I must admit that they are so bizarre that he has been either scaremongering or incompetent.
I believe that there is every likelihood that the family credit slope will be about 50 per cent., as it is now, and that, the housing benefit slope will be something similar. As a consequence, an increase in income will be subject to a total rate of about 85 per cent. If we go along that path, I believe that we will achieve a considerable step forward in the alleviation of the poverty trap and the unemployment trap. I support the proposals.
9.15 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State made two new points in opening the debate, and I think only two, in an otherwise fairly predictable speech. The first was to announce that the widow's allowance of £1,000 will be tax-free — what a concession that is. What he did not add was that most widows on £50 a week or so pay hardly any tax now. In any case, the widow's allowance is all too likely to be taken into account in the calculation of entitlement to the death grant if it is applied for.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would give no commitment that the social fund would be topped up if it ran out. This means that, after doubling poverty since 1979, the Government are now cash-limiting the relief of poverty. That is an extraordinarily harsh decision. I notice that even his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is no Tory softie, could not stomach it. It says something about the nature of the Green Paper exercise, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) aptly described as similar to having an X-ray without a barium meal, that even the Thatcherite wing of the Tory party finds it difficult to stomach parts of it.
The Green Paper is surely unique in at least two respects. Its declared aims are almost wholly belied by its own evidence. Not only does it blank out all the relevant conclusions; it conceals the fact that, on all the main

253
issues, the Government countermanded the conclusions of their own review committee, in every case to the marked detriment of claimants.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear—he did so again today, and it is stated in the Government motion—that the four major themes of the Green Paper are targeting of the needy, simplification, improving work incentives and a new partnership between state and individual. It is truly astonishing that the Government should have chosen to justify in the Green Paper four themes which are manifestly and explicitly contradicted by the contents of their own Green Paper.
Targeting is, of course, the current Tory buzz word for more means testing and more cuts. But SERPS is not being targeted better; it is being abolished. Housing benefit is not being targeted better; it is being cut. Unemployed families, where some of the worst poverty in Britain today exists, are not being targeted with increased aid; they have been victimised with further cuts. If targeting were really the aim, why are the poorest being required for the first time ever to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their general rates out of an already meagre and inadequate basic benefit? If targeting were the real aim of the exercise, why are 1·8 million families being excluded altogether from housing benefit, of whom the great majority are owner-occupier pensioners, especially widows with small occupational pensions? Is targeting now to be the reward for a lifetime of thrift?
I commend the brave speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) because he had the courage to point out how punitive the new rules on the tapers are. I hope that his right hon. Friend took note of those honest comments.
The only targeting in which the Government are interested is targeting on the rich, and they have certainly concentrated on them. According to an answer from the Treasury on 4 April, no less than an extra £2,000 million in real terms has been targeted since 1979 on the richest 2 per cent. of the population—those earning more than £30,000 a year. Had that money been targeted on pensioners, every pensioner in Britain would receive a Christmas bonus of £200 this year.
The Secretary of State justifies his proposals on grounds of simplification, but the Green Paper shows that the opposite is the case. The proposals will involve greater complexity. Instead of a single set of supplementary benefit rates, there will be four tiers of the new income support scheme, and a proliferation of at least seven premiums to the basic rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) spoke eloquently on that point. There will be two premiums for the elderly, two for the unemployed and others for single-parent families, the disabled and families in general. That is not simplification. It is swapping one complicated system—I agree that the present system is highly bureaucratic—for another, which I predict will be just as confusing to claimants as its predecessor, supplementary benefit. The Government's two main alleged objectives—targeting and simplification—not only do not coincide, but are incompatible.
"Targeting" is Fowlerspeak for more means testing. As the Secretary of State wrote to the Child Poverty Action Group a year ago:
254
"By their nature, means-tested benefits are complicated to legislate for, administer and understand."
He was entirely accurate. He should not try to fool us that this is an exercise in simplification.
Moreover, the new social fund will not simplify; it will do the reverse. It will replace unambiguous rights with vague discretion. Local social security officers will be put in a highly invidious position, to which no civil servant should be subjected, of deciding who is helped in an emergency and who is not. In the Prime Minister's brave new Victorian world, they will be like the guardians of the Victorian poor law. There will be no independent appeal against their decisions, however idiosyncratic. This is not simplifying, it is maximising bureaucratic discretion and arbitrary power.
Perhaps when the Secretary of State mentioned simplification, he meant the housing benefit scheme, to which the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) referred. If so, all I can say is that it is a bit rum to make a virtue of simplifying a scheme that he created—warts, complexities and all. A little more humility and contrition would not come amiss from the right hon. Gentleman for wishing on us what The Times, which is not given to Left-wing rhetoric, recently described as
"the biggest administrative fiasco in the history of the welfare state."
Another rationale used by the Secretary of State for the Green Paper is that it improves work incentives. Apart from the fact that that is a Tory euphemism for penalising the unemployed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, the Secretary of State is refuted by his own document. If, as is stated, the withdrawal rate on housing benefit is 70 per cent., and that on family credit is 60 per cent., as the leaks have said — the leaks have proved to be accurate so far —taxpayers claiming family credit and housing benefit will lose about — [Interruption.] The Secretary of State obviously has a distaste for figures. Although he is not prepared to give them to the House, perhaps I can give one or two. Such a family would lose 93p on every extra pound that it earns. That is no great incentive to work harder.
What matters even more is that the Green Paper shows that there will be an increase in the number of poor people who pay marginal tax rates well above the 60 per cent. tax rate incurred by millionaires. One wonders how many Tory MPs would view with equimimity being subjected to a tax rate at that level in the interest of improving work incentives.
The Government's fourth justification for their proposals is the so-called twin pillar approach—the joint partnership between state and individual. It is mind-boggling that the Secretary of State has the brass neck to proclaim as a guiding principle an objective which even a moment's reflection shows is blatantly contradicted by what is by far the most important proposal in the Green Paper—the abolition of SERPS. I can only presume that it is based on the notion that if one tells a big enough whopper, and tells it often enough, no one will notice it.
So much for the Government's stated objectives, none of which stands up to close examination. Therefore, it is obvious that the Government's real motives, unstated, are different. They are perhaps best indicated by one key piece of evidence—the decisions taken by the Secretary of State himself, which overrule the recommendations that his own reviewing team made to him. They are extremely revealing.

255
First and foremost, the Secretary of State overruled the view of the committee reviewing pensions, which he himself chaired, so as to insist on the abolition of SERPS. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we now know that all three—which must be unparalleled—of the independent specialist advisers on his own inquiry team wholly opposed this move.
The Secretary of State overruled his housing benefit review committee to insist that the poorest families should be required to meet a minimum 20 per cent. of their rates bill. In the debate today even some of his Back Benchers have been jibbing at that. That is his decision. In its letter to the Secretary of State, the review committee said:
"We have concluded that for those on supplementary benefit or equivalent net income, it would be unrealistic to suppose that even a small proportion of housing costs could be met at the expense of other personal requirements. We believe that 100 per cent. help with housing costs for those on the lowest incomes is the only fair way of meeting their needs within the present vagaries of the housing market."
That was uncompromising advice, but it was deliberately repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman.
The committee made it clear that it disagreed with the Government's argument that making low income families pay a proportion of rates would help control the level of rates. The committee could find no evidence—and the right hon. Gentleman has given us no evidence—that such families have any control over the level of rates set.
The right hon. Gentleman overruled the committees even though their members were all personally handpicked Conservatives. The housing benefit review committee argued:
"clearly there would have to be some flat-rate addition to current supplementary benefit scale rates to cover the contribution towards housing costs".
Again, the Secretary of State overruled the committee. There is no mention of any such compensation in the Green Paper.
The housing benefit review committee recommended that, to make up for the loss to owner-occupiers from changes in the rates taper, an element of mortgage interest should be covered by housing benefit. The Secretary of State not only overruled the committee but has gone to the other extreme by seeking to restrict mortgage interest payments to those on supplementary benefit for the first six months, even though, when the rate of repossession is already known to be rising, that decision is bound to lead to increased homelessness and to many unemployed families being thrown out on the street.
There is one connecting theme running through all these examples. At every point where the Secretary of State has intervened directly and personally to overrule his own review committees, it is to insert major cuts in benefit. The work of the review committees may have been about restructuring, but the Secretary of State's contribution has been very different.
The damaging parts of the package which will hit people hardest were not recommended—they were often directly opposed — by the review committees. The Secretary of State is responsible for them. He is the guilty man. That is why we are suspicious about his and the Prime Minister's constant excuses and prevarications about the one glaring omission from the Green Paper which has still not been cleared up in the debate—the publication of the figures.
I make no apology for returning to that subject, because it is crucial. We have had plenty of promises and
256
assurances, but how many times does one trust a tainted source? First, the Secretary of State promised that he would not abolish SERPS. On 23 November, 1983 he said:
"My aim in setting up an inquiry is not to call into question the fundamental pensions structure that was established in the 1970s with all-party agreement, and to which I was a party." —[Official Report, 23 November, 1983; Vol. 49, c. 360.]
The Secretary of State's commitment was so unequivocal that that matter was not debated by the pensions inquiry. That promise has now been calculatedly broken.
On 3 June 1984, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking and said:
"it is impossible to provide a detailed analysis, because clearly it depends on the benefits rates set in April 1987."—[Official Report, 3 June, 1985; Vol. 80, c. 42.]
That excuse has now been exposed for the charade it always was by the revelation that the Secretary of State suppressed the details of gainers and losers at the last moment when the report was at Bemrose Security Printing at Derby. If that is not the case, we shall be glad to know about it.
When will we get the figures? Ministers say that they cannot provide them because they cannot predict the benefit rates of April 1987. If they cannot estimate what the benefit rates will be in less than two years, how can they estimate the cost of SERPS in 50 years time with such precision that they already know that it is unviable? [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State would like to assist us and show how his mind works on any of those matters I should be happy to give way. Does the Secretary of State want to speak?
Stalling until 1987 is a cover-up. Why do they not give the figures of gainers and losers that apply now? They are much the same as those shown to the Cabinet. Under pressure of questioning from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has been forced to bring forward the publication of the figures from April 1987 to November 1985. What will be known in November this year that is not already known?
One telling piece of internal evidence makes it clear that the figures exist and are available. If the saving from housing benefit changes is known to be £500 million, as the Government have repeatedly stated, the new income support scheme levels must be known or that figure could not be calculated. If the figures are available, why can we not have them now?
For the Secretary of State, after the most extensive review of the welfare state since Beveridge—as he likes to call it—to produce a Green Paper without figures is the biggest con since Horatio Bottomley. It comes from a Government who are always talking about closer financial control but who cannot even tell us the aggregate cost of their proposals. I wonder what Conservative Members would think at the company meetings which they no doubt attend if the company chairman presented an annual report but said that the profit and loss account was not yet available.
The Secretary of State has once again declared himself not guilty; nothing could be further from his mind than that he might refuse to publish the figures to conceal the details of benefit cuts.
The Government stand convicted too often of grievous bodily harm to the low paid and the poor. Innocence is not a very plausible posture from a Government who, according to the independent estimates of statisticians in the House, have already robbed the poor of £8·2 billion

257
since 1979 — enough to give every pensioner in the country an extra £16 a week for every week this year. It is even less plausible when one considers the malice aforethought being committed against SERPS. The Government's able defence of that act of ideological vandalism is that there will be too many pensioners in the third and fourth decades of the next century for the scheme to be affordable.
I will repeat that quotation. Given that it is now Government policy to uprate pensions in line with prices rather than earnings,
"it would be difficult to argue that we are unloading an intolerable burden on future generations."
That is not a quotation of a Labour spokesman or even Mr. Stewart Lyon, from whom the truth is now finally being forced out, but from the Secretary of State on 13 October 1983. He was a defender of SERPS then. He still saw its merits, through relatively independent and objective eyes.
Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meacher: No. I have undertaken to finish in five minutes.
According to the Secretary of State, just one thing has changed since then. The worker-pensioner ratio has been revealed to worsen in 2035, and so it does. There is only one thing wrong with that argument—the Government Actuary's projections as used in the Green Paper also forecast that the worker-pensioner ratio will substantially improve again by 2050. There is no mention of that in the Green Paper, although such information will certainly have been known to the Secretary of State and to his committee.
Several other important questions about SERFS are conveniently unanswered in the Green Paper. I hope that we shall get an answer from the Minister. If a universal state earnings-related scheme cannot be afforded, how can a universal scheme of private pensions be afforded any better when both are paid for out of the same current production of the working population? How can it be justified to force people to make higher contributions to receive a lesser pension?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) for what they said about the disabled. How will invalidity benefits fit into a regime of compulsory private pensions when the disabled are such bad risks in the private insurance market? How can it be justified in terms of administrative efficiency, which is so dear to Conservative Members, to abolish SERI'S for which administrative costs work out at 1·5 per cent. and to replace it with private pensions for which administrative costs average 18 per cent.?
What effect will it have on the alleged savings to the Exchequer if large numbers of companies decide to contract their schemes back into SERPS, as many of them will because it is in their interests to do so? Above all, how can it be justified to consign millions of low-paid workers—women, long-term sick and disabled and those who care for them—to poverty in retirement, as will be the inevitable result of abolishing SERFS, when the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee had this to say about the future of SERFS:
258
"At this distance in time we do not think there can be solid grounds for altering the scheme now for fear of all the worst outcomes occurring steadily for 40 years."?
In trying to give a veneer of respectability to this operation candle-end, intermingled with some really damaging cuts, the Secretary of State has tried to wrap himself in the mantle of Beveridge. A more bizarre garb for him it is difficult to imagine. To compare Beveridge with Fowler is to confuse the Samaritan with the thieves he fell among. There is no political mandate for these proposals. Not a word was whispered about them in the last Tory manifesto. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) pointed out, there has been no consultation with Opposition Members, and the consultation period is far too short. The polls show that most of the proposals are repudiated by the electorate, in some cases by large majorities.
The proposals carry no moral or political legitimacy. They have none of the social vision of the real Beveridge. The general election will consign them to the dustbin of history. It will be left to a Labour Government, whom the British people know genuinely believe in the welfare state, to produce a new and better vision of security, with dignity and without a means test, which was always the ideal of the Beveridge revolution.
9.40 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I must first ask whether the proposals which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) brought before the House about two months ago are already in the dustbin of history. Not surprisingly we have not heard them repeated tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the debate."] I shall answer the debate. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the Minister a chance. He has hardly been speaking for a minute.
Mr. Newton: I could not refrain from commenting on what appears to be the fastest movement from printing to dustbin in history.
This has been a genuinely important debate for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out in a wry fashion, the Government are seeking to consult widely and fully on the Green Paper. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is appropriate that the House should have this early major opportunity to express its views on the Government's proposals. Secondly — this cannot be disguised, despite all the rhetoric from Opposition Members—the debate has been encouraging in that no one has seriously questioned the need for reform or that the Government have taken a proper initiative in looking at a system which no one believes is doing the job that we want it to do, and in seeking to focus attention on those problems and a solution.
It would be idle to pretend that the degree of consensus about the background to the problems in social security has been reflected in the debate by the views expressed by Opposition Members on some of the proposals. But even there, on an important question, which is basic to the whole of our welfare state, there is a degree of unanimity, which I welcome. It is the determination of both sides of the House —I emphasise this as being central to the Government's proposals — to maintain and protect the basic state national insurance retirement pension as the

259
foundation of our provision for people in their old age. That has been demonstrated again in practice today by the uprating that the Government have announced, and restated firmly in the Green Paper as the basis of our policy.
The difference between us comes in our view of how that basic state provision should be topped up or added to in providing additional pensions for people's retirement. The Labour party's position, as defined in the debate, is to defend a position that no one else, either in the House or, as far as I can judge, in the country, believes is tenable—
Mr. Corbett: Rubbish. It is only the hon. Gentleman's advisers who are saying that.
Mr. Newton: I shall take up that point. It is inaccurate to say—
Mr. Corbett: That is not true.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his first question before even dodging the reply. It is simply untrue that all the advisers on the Government inquiry into retirement take the view that has been attributed to them. That is clear to anybody who knows them. The Labour party takes the position of defending the existing SERFS structure. The alliance, as I understand it—is not entirely clear whether its policy reflects an agreement between both parts of the alliance, but it was represented by what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said—is in favour, to put it bluntly, of a policy of cutting the benefits and putting nothing in their place.
The Government's policy on SERFS is to develop the partnership between the state and the individual, a partnership that was central to the Beveridge report in a new and fruitful way. My right hon. Friend gave the figures in his speech, which have led us to the conclusion that the new development in place of the present arrangement for SERF'S in the longer run is required. I shall not attempt to repeat them now.
Neither the Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech nor the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in his closing speech appeared to dispute the figures that my right hon. Friend gave. Indeed, they did not seriously discuss them. My right hon. Friend gave the figures of the projections that have been made by the Government Actuary's department of the prospective cost of SERFS on various assumptions at various periods until the first third of the next century. Those figures were not seriously disputed by the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend. Indeed, as I said, they were not seriously discussed. The Leader of the Opposition simply sought to deluge them with words.
The Leader of the Opposition gave estimates for the contribution levels that would be required to pay for SERFS around the year 2033. He suggested that about a 2 per cent. contribution increase might accommodate the bills that would be building up. His estimates are farfetched compared with the estimates that he can read in the Government Actuary's report published for the pensions inquiry, showing what the case might be on the most difficult assumptions, when there might be up to a 10 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister misses the extremely serious point that is at
260
issue. If, 10 years ago, the Government Actuary and all the parties in the House agreed a scheme that was tenable for the next 50 years, what confidence will the British public have in any scheme that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put forward in the future?
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his speech, the factor that has forced itself on the Government's intention is that the estimates and assumptions on which the decisions about SERFS were based—
Mr. Corbett: That was not said 18 months ago.
Mr. Newton: Because 18 months ago the data from the 1981 census were not available. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members disputing the fact that the estimates on which the decisions about SERFS were based in 1975 reflected an estimate of the number of pensioners in the early part of the next century 1 million less than — [Interruption.] If they were all alive, and if the Labour Government knew what would happen, why did they not publish the figures at the time? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is becoming disorderly. As far as I know, those addressing the Minister from a sedentary position did not take part in the debate.
Mr. Newton: We now know that there will be 1 million more pensioners in the early part of the next century than was known, let alone said, in 1975. By about the middle of the next century—2033 to be precise—there will be 4 million pensioners more than we have to provide for now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh made clear, the projections that relate to the ratio of contributors to pensioners, reflecting the absence of any improvement in the birth rate in the intervening period, suggests a steady decline to that point in time of the number of contributors in relation to the number of pensioners. The Labour party may wish to ignore those figures. I accept that the alliance recognises that there is a real problem.
The Government believe that it would be wrong to ignore the new evidence which has come to light during the course of the analysis of the inquiry. There are three reasons for that—first, knowingly to place on the next generation a burden that we cannot be sure they can afford is not an act of responsible government. Secondly, and perhaps more important, unless we can be sure that the promises we are making to pensioners can be fulfilled, it is wrong to let people go on for 30 or 40 years building up expectations that may not be fulfilled when the time comes.
Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that it is only possible to make provision by extending the private sector and diminishing SERFS, can he tell us how the private sector will meet all those new obligations, especially as the most obvious place for investment is in index-linked gilts introduced by the Secretary of State, which is precisely where the Government could be investing any surpluses that they collect from SERFS?
Mr. Newton: But the Government do not collect surpluses, and that is the point—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House wishes to hear the answer to the right hon. Gentleman important question.
Mr. Newton: If, as we now know, the Leader of the Opposition does not even realise that the present state pension scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme, it is no wonder that the Labour party is in a mess. The right hon. Gentleman has committed a masterpiece of building a monumental brick without straw and then dropping it on his own feet. The Government are not prepared to seek to maintain a system—
Mr. Kinnock: Come on, answer the question.
Mr. Newton: I have answered the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I can wait for Opposition Members to listen. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's question is that it shows that he does not know what he is talking about. And if he does not know what he is talking about, no wonder the pensioners of the future cannot rely on his promises.
What the Government are proposing faces up to the realities of the projections that we have for the number of pensioners and the ratio of contributors; recognises that it would be irresponsible to continue to make promises that we cannot guarantee that our children will be able to fulfil; and puts in place a structure that we believe can sustain pensioners in the future, with a promise on which they can really rely.
The Leader of the Opposition has recognised the mistake he has made in what he said. We now want him to recognise that the policy that he is proposing is unsustainable and that it is time that the Labour Government — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — the Labour party—
Mr. David Winnick: It will be the Labour Government in two or three years from now.
Mr. Newton: It is time that the Labour party faced up to its responsibilities.
The question put by the Leader of the Opposition revealed more clearly than ever what has come through in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West in this debate, that they have absolutely nothing constructive to say about the policy that is required to sustain the social security system in Britain today. Not a constructive word have we heard throughout the debate from them. We have had torrents of rhetoric from the right hon. Gentleman and one extravagant adjective after another from the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
What has been the contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Oldham, West? It has been to complain that the Government have not done everything that their advisers advised. But the Opposition do not even do what their spokesman on social security advises — [Interruption.]—and when we ask Labour Members what they would do and what their view is of our proposals we get no answer. When we ask them what their proposals are, we get no answer. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked on the radio recently to give his figures, he replied, "I will not give figures that will not be known for two or three years."
Mr. Kinnock: What about the Government's figures?
Mr. Newton: Let us have the figures for the Labour alternative.
Mr. Kinnock: Now answer the question: what are the Government's figures?
Mr. Newton: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the answer. When we have settled the structure that we propose, we will give the figures to illustrate the consequences. When we give our figures, perhaps we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's figures and, for the first time, a serious contribution to the debate from the Labour party.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 335.

Division No. 241]

[10.00pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Anderson, Donald

Foster, Derek

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foulkes, George

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, W. E.

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

George, Bruce

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Godman, Dr Norman

Barnett, Guy

Golding, John

Barron, Kevin

Gould, Bryan

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Gourlay, Harry

Bell, Stuart

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Benn, Tony

Hardy, Peter

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bermingham, Gerald

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Blair, Anthony

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Heffer, Eric S.

Boyes, Roland

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hoyle, Douglas

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hume, John

Buchan, Norman

Janner, Hon Greville

Caborn, Richard

John, Brynmor

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Campbell, lan

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Lambie, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lamond, James

Clarke, Thomas

Leadbitter, Ted

Clay, Robert

Leighton, Ronald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Cohen, Harry

Litherland, Robert

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

McCartney, Hugh

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Corbett, Robin

McGuire, Michael

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cowans, Harry

McKelvey, William

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Craigen, J. M.

McNamara, Kevin

Crowther, Stan

McTaggart, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McWilliam, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Madden, Max

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Martin, Michael

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Maxton, John

Deakins, Eric

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dewar, Donald

Meacher, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Michie, William

Dormand, Jack

Mikardo, lan

Douglas, Dick

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Duffy, A. E. P.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ellis, Raymond

Nellist, David

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ewing, Harry

O'Brien, William

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Faulds, Andrew

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Park, George

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Parry, Robert

Fisher, Mark

Patchett, Terry

263

Pavitt, Laurie

Snape, Peter

Pendry. Tom

Soley, Clive

Pike, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Prescott, John

Stott, Roger

Radice, Giles

Strang, Gavin

Randall, Stuart

Straw, Jack

Redmond, M.

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Tinn, James

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Welsh, Michael

Rowlands, Ted

White, James

Ryman, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Sheerman, Barry

Wilson, Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Winnick, David

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Woodall, Alec

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, C.(Isrton S & F'bury)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Smith, At Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Mr. Don Dixon.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, W. S.

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Amess, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Ancram, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Arnold, Tom

Cockeram, Eric

Ashby, David

Colvin, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Cope, John

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Cormack, Patrick

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Couchman, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Cranborne, Viscount

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Critchley, Julian

Baldry, Tony

Crouch, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Batiste, Spencer

Dickens, Geoffrey

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dicks, Terry

Bellingham, Henry

Dorrell, Stephen

Bendall, Vivian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Benyon, William

Dover, Den

Best, Keith

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Robert

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Durant, Tony

Blackburn, John

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Richard

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Evennett, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fallon, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Farr, Sir John

Bright, Graham

Favell, Anthony

Brinton, Tim

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fletcher, Alexander

Brown, M. (Brigg & CI'thpes)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Browne, John

Forman, Nigel

Bruinvels, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Forth, Eric

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Buck, Sir Antony

Fox, Marcus

Budgen, Nick

Franks, Cecil

Burt, Alistair

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Butcher, John

Freeman, Roger

Butler, Hon Adam

Fry, Peter

Butterfill, John

Gale, Roger

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Galley, Roy

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Cash, William

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Glyn, Dr Alan

264

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodlad, Alastair

MacGregor, John

Gorst, John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gow, Ian

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maclean, David John

Grant, Sir Anthony

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

Gregory, Conal

Madel, David

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Major, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Malins, Humfrey

Grist, Ian

Malone, Gerald

Ground, Patrick

Maples, John

Grylls, Michael

Marland, Paul

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marlow, Antony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mates, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Harris, David

Mellor, David

Harvey, Robert

Merchant, Piers

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hawksley, Warren

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heddle, John

Moore, John

Henderson, Barry

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hickmet, Richard

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hicks, Robert

Moynihan, Hon C.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Neale, Gerrard

Hind, Kenneth

Needham, Richard

Hirst, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neubert, Michael

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Newton, Tony

Holt, Richard

Nicholls, Patrick

Hordern, Sir Peter

Normanton, Tom

Howard, Michael

Norris, Steven

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Onslow, Cranley

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Osborn, Sir John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Jackson, Robert

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jessel, Toby

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Parris, Matthew

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Key, Robert

Pollock, Alexander

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Porter, Barry

King, Rt Hon Tom

Portillo, Michael

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Knowles, Michael

Powley, John

Knox, David

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lamont, Norman

Price, Sir David

Lang, Ian

Prior, Rt Hon James

Latham, Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lawler, Geoffrey

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Lawrence, Ivan

Rathbone, Tim

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Renton, Tim

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rhodes James, Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lilley, Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lord, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Luce, Richard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lyell, Nicholas

Rost, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Ryder, Richard

265

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Thurnham, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tracey, Richard

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Silvester, Fred

Viggers, Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Waddington, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Walden, George

Speed, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Speller, Tony

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Spencer, Derek

Walters, Dennis

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Ward, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Squire, Robin

Warren, Kenneth

Stanbrook, Ivor

Watson, John

Stanley, John

Watts, John

Steen, Anthony

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Stern, Michael

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wheeler, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Whitfield, John

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Whitney, Raymond

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stokes, John

Wilkinson, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wolfson, Mark

Sumberg, David

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Woodcock, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Mr. Carol Mather

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question Put:—
The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 196.

Division No. 242]

10.13 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brooke, Hon Peter

Aitken, Jonathan

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Alexander, Richard

Browne, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Ancram, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Arnold, Tom

Budgen, Nick

Ashby, David

Burt, Alistair

Aspinwall, Jack

Butcher, John

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Butler, Hon Adam

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Butterfill, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cash, William

Batiste, Spencer

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bellingham, Henry

Chope, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Churchill, W. S.

Benyon, William

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

Best, Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blackburn, John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Body, Richard

Cockeram, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Cope, John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cormack, Patrick

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Couchman, James

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Cranborne, Viscount

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Crouch, David

Bright, Graham

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Brinton, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Dicks, Terry

266

Dorrell, Stephen

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dover, Den

Jackson, Robert

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Jessel, Toby

Dunn, Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Durant, Tony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eggar, Tim

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Emery, Sir Peter

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Evennett, David

Key, Robert

Eyre, Sir Reginald

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Fallon, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Farr, Sir John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Favell, Anthony

Knowles, Michael

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Knox, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Fletcher, Alexander

Lang, Ian

Fookes, Miss Janet

Latham, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Lawler, Geoffrey

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawrence, Ivan

Forth, Eric

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fox, Marcus

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Franks, Cecil

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Freeman, Roger

Lightbown, David

Fry, Peter

Lilley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Galley, Roy

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lord, Michael

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Luce, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lyell, Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McCrindle, Robert

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodlad, Alastair

MacGregor, John

Gorst, John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gow, Ian

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maclean, David John

Grant, Sir Anthony

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

Gregory, Conal

Madel, David

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Major, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Malins, Humfrey

Grist, Ian

Malone, Gerald

Ground, Patrick

Maples, John

Grylls, Michael

Marland, Paul

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marlow, Antony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mates, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Harris. David

Mellor, David

Harvey, Robert

Merchant, Piers

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hawksley, Warren

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heddle, John

Moore, John

Henderson, Barry

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hickmet, Richard

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hicks, Robert

Moynihan, Hon C.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Neale, Gerrard

Hind, Kenneth

Needham, Richard

Hirst, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neubert, Michael

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Newton, Tony

Holt, Richard

Nicholls, Patrick

Hordern, Sir Peter

Normanton, Tom

Howard, Michael

Norris, Steven

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Onslow, Cranley

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Osborn, Sir John

267

Ottaway, Richard

Stanley, John

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Steen, Anthony

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Stern, Michael

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Pawsey, James

Stokes, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Stradling Thomas, J.

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Sumberg, David

Pollock, Alexander

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Porter, Barry

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Portillo, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Powley, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Price, Sir David

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thurnham, Peter

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rathbone, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Tracey, Richard

Renton, Tim

Trippier, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Trotter, Neville

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Viggers, Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

Waddington, David

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Walden, George

Roe, Mrs Marion

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rost, Peter

Walters, Dennis

Rowe, Andrew

Ward, John

Ryder, Richard

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Warren, Kenneth

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Watson, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Watts, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wheeler, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitfield, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Whitney, Raymond

Silvester, Fred

Wiggin, Jerry

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wolfson, Mark

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Speed, Keith

Woodcock, Michael

Speller, Tony

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Spencer, Derek

Younger, Rt Hon George

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Squire, Robin

Mr. Carol Mather and

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Alton, David

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bruce, Malcolm

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Buchan, Norman

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Campbell, Ian

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Barnett, Guy

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Barron, Kevin

Cartwright, John

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beith, A. J.

Clarke, Thomas

Bell, Stuart

Clay, Robert

Benn, Tony

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Bidwell, Sydney

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Blair, Anthony

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Boyes, Roland

Corbett, Robin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Cowans, Harry

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

268

Craigen, J. M.

Martin, Michael

Crowther, Stan

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Maxton, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Meacher, Michael

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Michie, William

Deakins, Eric

Mikardo, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dixon, Donald

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dobson, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dormand, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Douglas, Dick

Nellist, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

Oakes, Rt. Hon Gordon

Eastham, Ken

O'Brien, William

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

O'Neill, Martin

Ellis, Raymond

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Ewing, Harry

Park, George

Faulds, Andrew

Parry, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Patchett, Terry

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Pavitt, Laurie

Fisher, Mark

Pendry, Tom

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Penhaligon, David

Foster, Derek

Pike, Peter

Foulkes, George

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Prescott, John

Freud, Clement

Radice, Giles

Garrett, W. E.

Randall, Stuart

George, Bruce

Redmond, M.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Godman, Dr Norman

Richardson, Ms Jo

Golding, John

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Gould, Bryan

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Gourlay, Harry

Robertson, George

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Rooker, J. W.

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Hardy, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

Harman, Ms Harriet

Ryman, John

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Sedgemore, Brian

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Sheerman, Barry

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Heffer, Eric S.

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt n NE)

Home Robertson, John

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Skinner, Dennis

Hoyle, Douglas

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Snape, Peter

Hume, John

Soley, Clive

Janner, Hon Greville

Spearing, Nigel

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

John, Brynmor

Stott, Roger

Kennedy, Charles

Strang, Gavin

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Straw, Jack

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Lambie, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Lamond, James

Tinn, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Wainwright, R.

Leighton, Ronald

Wallace, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Wareing, Robert

Litherland, Robert

Welsh, Michael

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

White, James

McCartney, Hugh

Wigley, Dafydd

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Williams, Rt Hon A.

McGuire, Michael

Wilson, Gordon

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Winnick, David

McKelvey, William

Woodall, Alec

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McNamara, Kevin

McTaggart, Robert

Tellers for the Noes

McWilliam, John

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Madden, Max

Mr. Derek Fatchett

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's Green Paper, Reform of Social Security, Cmnd. 9517–9; and endorses the Government's aims of achieving a better social security system which would direct help to the people who need it most, make the benefit system simpler to understand and run, base pensions on a partnership between the state and individuals, and put social security on a sound basis which the country can afford.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Bryan Gould be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Roland Boyes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Smith Houses (West Bromwich)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
10.27 pm
Miss Betty Boothroyd: I want to begin this evening by congratulating the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who I believe is to respond to my Adjournment debate. I understand that this is his 110th Adjournment debate since he first became a Minister. I have to say to him that, unless his Department is more conciliatory in amending the Housing Defects Act 1984, it will probably be his 510th Adjournment debate by the end of this parliamentary Session.
Late last week I met about 250 constituents in West Bromwich. All of them are owners of Smith houses. All of them bought their houses in good faith. Some of those families bought their houses many years ago under local schemes; others bought more recently under the Government's right to buy.
The one feeling all Smith owners have in common is the deep sense of injustice at the Government's refusal to put Smith-built properties in the Housing Defects Act, and they expressed to me, as they have done over very many months, their worries and their concerns about their future and the life savings which have gone into investing in home ownership.
Housing problems are not new to those of us in West Bromwich. The council has been crippled by savage reductions in its housing investment programme over the years. At a time when there are some 6,000 families waiting to be housed or rehoused, the authority is not even allowed to spend its own income from the sale of houses to make provision for these families. The last thing that we need in West Bromwich is to exacerbate an already poor situation, yet that is what the Minister has done.
In West Bromwich, West, my constituency, 189 families own Smith houses. Some 650 are left in council ownership. In the borough of Sandwell as a whole, there are 1,086 Smith properties, of which 273 are privately owned.
In referring to defective housing, the Minister for Housing and Construction spoke of the findings of the Building Research Establishment and the difficult position in which owners would find themselves. In November 1983, he said:
"The Government have decided to introduce early legislation to provide a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to be defective or potentially defective."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 420–1.]
That statement gave a ray of hope. It was especially reassuring a month later when the report concluded that Smith houses suffer from some defects. The Minister for Housing and Construction confirmed that conclusion to me by letter only last month.
Let me make it clear that I am not referring to the shale-filled houses in Birmingham. There are no shale-filled properties in Sandwell. I am speaking of constituents who own Smith houses, some of which exhibit defects because of cracking between wall units, which is due to changes in temperature and humidity, or some which may be found to be potentially defective.
But the hope that the Minister inspired faded when owners found that their homes were not to be included in the legislation and they were not to receive equal treatment

271
with others in the same position. Tonight, I wish to direct the Minister's attention to his legislation and to show where I believe that, under two criteria to be met under section 1 of the Act, he is failing in his duty. Subsection (a) gives the Secretary of State powers to designate if
"buildings … are defective by reason of their design or construction."
That language is plain enough. The Building Research Establishment's findings conclude that Smith houses suffer from some defects, and the Minister confirmed that. Yet, despite all that, the Minister consistently refuses to enact his own legislation and include those buildings in the national scheme.
The second criterion to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention lies in subsection (b). That empowers him to designate when defects,
"having become generally known, the value of some"—
the word "some" is the operative word—
"or all of the dwellings concerned has been substantially reduced."
I am delighted that not all properties have been substantially reduced in value, but some have. Therefore, the criterion that some of them have been affected is met. It is implicit in the BRE report and the Minister's acknowledgement, and it is now for him to operate the Act in favour of Smith homes.
May I put to the Minister the position in relation to building societies. To be consistently denied the assistance of the national scheme has caused some building societies, as I am sure the Minister is aware, to refuse lending facilities. The attitude of some major lending institutions —indeed, the attitude of the West Bromwich building society itself—is blighting by reputation the value of even reasonably adequate property, and it is causing great distress to those owners. Real human problems exist because of the refusal of mortgage loans.
The Minister for Housing and Construction was not at all helpful when he wrote to me only a few weeks ago, saying that lending is a matter in which he cannot intervene. I remind him that he has had discussions with the Building Societies Association on other occasions about such matters, and I remind him that a Minister for Housing in a previous Labour Government intervened firmly with the building societies at one stage. If it could be done on earlier occasions, he can do so now. It is not a matter from which he can remain aloof. He must seek the co-operation of the building societies now, and he must restore lost confidence through an approved national scheme.
Why does the Minister insist that this is a local issue to be left to local councils to deal with? It is not a local issue. The Minister's answers to my questions, and to questions from some of my hon. Friends, show that Smith houses exist in a dozen areas of the country. We know that the BRE report showed that approximately 4,500 such houses have been built. The families who have bought those houses cannot be dealt with by a different, fragmented approach whereby each local authority is left to determine its response to reinstatement grants. It is a national problem, and it is incumbent on the Minister to acknowledge the scale of the problem and not to abnegate responsibility, which I believe he is doing.
Where is the answer that I give to my constituents for whom reinstatement grants are insufficient to meet their need and who require the council to repurchase the property? As the Minister knows, repurchase of the
272
property would have to be done without recompense. What practical help do I offer to a young couple, encouraged by the Government under the right to buy, who did buy? Subsequently the husband lost his job. He followed another Minister's advice, got on his bike and found a job—he was one of the lucky ones—100 miles away. His wife told me last week that their marriage is on the rocks because of the long separation caused because she cannot sell the house and join her husband, who is in lodgings earning a living elsewhere.
What am Ito tell solicitors wo are dealing with delicate family matters where Smith property has to be disposed of and there are no buyers? How does the Minister suggest I respond to elderly couples who bought their homes some 20 years ago in good faith, with the dream of spending their retirement in greener surroundings, and who want to move from the industrialised area in which they have lived all their lives? They are heartbroken because they cannot sell their homes and move, as they had always planned.
None of these people can sell their adequately sound property because that property has become clouded by reputation. It is for the Government to lift that cloud. Sandwell council cannot do it. It cannot repurchase under the present provisions with no recompense. Even if it tried to do so, it would cost something like £3 million and would swallow nearly a quarter of my council's housing investment allocation.
It is for the Minister to understand the human problems that this is causing. The Minister for Housing and Construction may have found on his desk this morning representations from me asking him to meet some of those constituents—not all 250 of them, of course—that I met only last week. I have asked him to meet a deputation of them. I hope that he will respond positively and see them within the next few weeks.
Let me just remind the Minister that even in the days of full employment in my area of the Black Country it was never an area of high wages. People did not have money to throw about. Those who managed to save put those savings into home ownership. Today there are wards in my constituency of West Bromwich where Smith houses exist and have been bought by people, and where now 22 per cent. of the working population is out of a job. Many of those people who have been made redundant put their redundancy money into investment in their homes. Why should they now be denied the advantages offered to others under the Act?
All I am asking is that the Minister should deal with them even-handedly and that the national scheme be made available to those who own Smith properties, because the same position obtains. Surely the Minister must accept that natural justice demands to be done, and I want no less for those people I represent.
10.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) has spoken movingly about the problems facing a number of her constituents who bought Smith houses from the local authority. They now face a range of problems because they find that they cannot sell them because the purchaser cannot obtain a mortgage.
One cannot feel anything but sympathy for the case that the hon. Lady mentioned of the husband who has found a job elsewhere and whose family cannot join him because

273
of difficulty in selling the family home. I hope that some of the things that I say about the role of the building societies will be of help to that couple. The hon. Lady also asked whether I would meet a deputation of tenants. I wonder whether she meant tenants, because during most of her remarks she was speaking about owner-occupiers.
Miss Boothroyd indicated assent.
Sir George Young: I understand that the hon. Lady meant the owner-occupiers. I have not seen the letter that she mentioned, but I hope to respond positively.
I wish to put the problem into a broad perspective. Until the Government introduced the Housing Defects Act 1984, there was no protection for anyone who had bought a house from a local authority or a public body and who found, through no fault of his or hers, that its value had depreciated. I believe that the hon. Lady commends what we did in that Act. Her complaint is that we have not extended the provisions of clause 1 to the owners of Smith houses, who are mainly in the west Midlands but also in south Wales. The Government of course understand the problems and we should like to do what we can to to help.
On 25 May last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction visited Birmingham where most of the publicly and privately owned Smith houses are located. He saw at first hand the problems facing all Smith house owners and discussed them with the owners. He also met hon. Members representing Birmingham constituencies, and city officials.
We are well aware of the problems facing Smith house owners in other areas, including Sandwell, and we are grateful to those hon. Members who have kept us closely informed on the subject of Smith houses in their areas. My Department's regional office is in regular contact with officers from Sandwell borough council and has visited a number of the council's estates, including one with Smith houses on which the authority is undertaking a programme of repairs. However, it is fair to say that the houses in Birmingham, as the hon. Lady admitted, have special problems happily not replicated in Sandwell, which I shall try to explain in the course of the debate.
I shall begin by trying to clear up one or two misunderstandings about Smith houses. I should like to take the opportunity to repeat that the problems which have arisen in Smith houses are not the same as those identified in prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed before 1960, which are, as far as we are aware, the only houses known to meet the criteria for designation under section 1 of the Housing Defects Act 1984.
About 4,500 Smith houses were built in England and Wales, and they can be found not just in the hon. Lady's constituency at Sandwell, and in Birmingham but also in other areas of the west and east Midlands, and in south Wales.
The Smith house presents the appearance of a conventional brick house but is in fact built of large concrete blocks. Although some steel was placed in the blocks for handling purposes, that is structurally redundant. The construction is therefore different from those prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings designed before 1960 and designated under section 1 of the Housing Defects Act 1984.
Following reports of cracking in the walls and floors in some houses, the Building Research Establishment was
274
asked to investigate Smith houses. As part of its investigation it inspected in detail three houses in the city of Birmingham, and one house each in Cardiff, Erewash and Amber Valley, and examined a further 25 houses in those areas.
The BRE's report on the structural condition of Smith houses was published in December 1983, and it concluded that they suffer from some defects. Since construction, the large concrete blocks will have been subject to continuous movement with changes in temperature and humidity, and most Smith houses show some cracking at the junctions between the blocks and between external and partition walls. Although that may be unsightly, it should present no risk to the stability of the house if repairs which may from time to time be necessary are carried out properly.
So far as my Department knows, those movements have not led to any failure. Corrosion of the steel placed in the blocks for handling purposes could cause local cracking in the blocks, but again there is no evidence to suggest that that will lead to serious structural damage.
The BRE also found that some, but not all, Smith houses in the city of Birmingham are seriously defective because of the use of shale fill in their foundations. As far as is known, shale fill was used in Smith houses only in Birmingham, and the consequent defects are not inherent in Smith houses in Sandwell or in any other areas, as the hon. Lady said.
Designation entitles owners of the houses concerned to seek financial assistance by way of a grant towards the repair of the houses or, in certain cases, by repurchase. Under the Housing Defects Act 1984, dwellings may be designated for assistance only if, as a class, they are defective by reason of their design or construction and, by reason of the defects becoming generally known, they have suffered a substantial loss in value. Under section 1, a designation by the Secretary of State must include all houses of the type concerned in the country.
The second condition is the source of difficulty. Although some Smith houses in the city of Birmingham have suffered a substantial fall in value, my Department has no evidence that this is true of Smith houses in the country generally. If the hon. Lady is able to collect any evidence, which she can make available to my Department, that section 1(1)(b) is also true—that the value of some or all of the dwellings concerned has been substantially reduced — we shall consider the matter afresh. At the moment we do not have that evidence, which is why we maintain that my right hon. Friend should not designate Smith houses under section 1. The problem is different in Birmingham, where there is a serious problem resulting from shale fill. A local estate agent or residents association might be able to collect the evidence.
As for local designation, under section 12 it is open to local authorities to designate dwellings in their area, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, if they are satisfied that they meet the criteria which I have mentioned. This will help when there are local problems such as those experienced in Birmingham. If a local authority decides to designate Smith houses in its area, owners who are eligible will be entitled to assistance in the same way as they would be when a designation is made by the Secretary of State. It was not quite clear from what the hon. Lady said whether the local authority intends to apply for designation under section 12. Perhaps she wants to pursue that matter with the local authority.

275
Mortgageability is at the heart of the problem. Having listened to the hon. Lady, I understand the problems that owners of Smith houses are having. I understand that some building societies in the west midlands are prepared to lend on Smith houses, subject to a satisfactory structural report. I hope that that will ease some of the problems being faced by the hon. Lady's constituents, not least the couple she mentioned. I hope that, subject to a structural survey and, if necessary, some part of the advance being retained until any necessary repairs had been done, societies would be prepared to treat Smith houses like any other property offered as security for a mortgage loan.
I regret that other societies are not prepared to lend at all on this type of house. Although lending is a matter for the societies concerned and not one in which the Government intervene directly, I must say that I was disappointed to learn of the attitude which some building societies have adopted in respect of dwellings of non-traditional design. If the hon. Lady is able to let me see letters from building societies which have been contacted by her constituents and which flatly turn down any advance on Smith houses, I shall look at them and see if any pressure might be brought to bear discreetly on building societies to reconsider.
I am anxious that the problems associated with the pre-1960 PRC types which I have mentioned may have blighted other types of construction. It is important to re-emphasise that the types are distinct. The problems found in Smith houses in Birmingham should not lead building societies to cease lending on Smith houses generally.
The hon. Lady mentioned resources available to local authorities and said that Sandwell does not have the financial resources necessary to help owners of properties already designated under the Housing Defects Act or any future designation of Smith houses. She is aware of the system of Exchequer contributions to local authority expenditure under the Housing Defects Act.
In respect of the reinstatement grants, whether in pursuance of a designation made nationally or locally, the contribution is 90 per cent. of the annual loan charges on the amount of the grant. In respect of repurchase in pursuance of a designation made nationally by the Secretary of State, the contribution will generally be 75 per cent. of the price paid by the authority for the acquisition of the dwelling, plus any amount reimbursed
276
to the owner for legal costs. Where the property was previously sold by another public authority and not the local authority which is repurchasing it, the percentage contribution will be increased to 100 per cent. However, there are no contributions towards expenditure on repurchasing dwellings in pursuance of a local designation by a local authority.
Regarding the allocation of resources, we took into account local authorities' expenditure under the Act when we made the housing investment programme allocations for 1985–86. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 13 March that he was prepared to consider sympathetically applications from local authorities which would have particular difficulty in meeting their obligations under the Housing Defects Act.
In general, authorities are expected, as usual, to order their priorities so as to discharge their commitments within the limits on their prescribed expenditure. But some authorities have argued that, because of other commitments, they cannot meet their obligations under the 1984 Act in 1985–86 within their total power to spend. In such cases, additional allocations will be considered to cover some of the costs involved in repurchase or making reinstatement grants during 1985–86. My Department has received more than 100 applications. Sandwell is one of the authorities which has submitted a bid for an additional allocation, and we shall give that careful consideration. We hope to come to a conclusion next month on how the applications will be processed. I can confirm that, on future expenditure, local authorities' expenditure under the Act will be fully taken into account in the HIP allocations.
The hon. Lady requested a meeting. When I have seen her letter, I hope to respond sympathetically, but before that meeting she may like to assemble some of the information that I have outlined, such as information on valuations on the properties and on the lending practices of building societies. If she comes armed with that, I shall see what I can do to help the constituents for whore she has spoken.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Costa Rica and Nicaragua
  Costa Rica and Nicaragua
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Trial Delays
  Trial Delays
  Cartmel and Furness Local Plan
  Cartmel and Furness Local Plan
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nuclear Installations (North-West)
  Nuclear Installations (North-West)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Veterinary Advisory and Research Facilities
  Veterinary Advisory and Research Facilities
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions (Rota)
  Parliamentary Questions (Rota)
WALES
  Bi-lingual Nursery Education
  Bi-lingual Nursery Education
  Chief Nursing Officers
  Chief Nursing Officers
  "All Wales Strategy for Elderly People"
  "All Wales Strategy for Elderly People"
  Dysentery
  Dysentery
  Pre-school Education
  Pre-school Education
  Jobs and Factory Closures
  Jobs and Factory Closures
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Systime plc (Exports)
  Systime plc (Exports)
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Japan
  Japan
  Viscose (Imports from India)
  Viscose (Imports from India)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Books and Periodicals
  Books and Periodicals
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  School Books and Equipment
  School Books and Equipment
  Professional Association of Teachers
  Professional Association of Teachers
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Research
  Research
  Financial Management Initiative
  Financial Management Initiative
  High Energy Particle Physics (Report)
  High Energy Particle Physics (Report)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Installations
  Nuclear Installations
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance
  Enterprise Allowance
  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Farm Safety Inspectors
  Farm Safety Inspectors
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
ENVIRONMENT
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Water Supplies (Nitrates)
  Water Supplies (Nitrates)
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Heysel Stadium, Brussels
  Heysel Stadium, Brussels
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government (Grant Penalties)
  Local Government (Grant Penalties)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Steel-framed Houses
  Steel-framed Houses
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  NHBC Repair Scheme
  NHBC Repair Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Thorp Arch Remand Centre
  Thorp Arch Remand Centre
  Greenham Common (Detained Persons)
  Greenham Common (Detained Persons)
  Prisoners (Payment Rates)
  Prisoners (Payment Rates)
  Cartmel and Furness Local Plan
  Cartmel and Furness Local Plan
  European Cup Final (Offences)
  European Cup Final (Offences)
  Football Violence
  Football Violence
  Children (Offences)
  Children (Offences)
  Prisoners (Suicides and Injuries)
  Prisoners (Suicides and Injuries)
PRIME MINISTER
  Rural Poverty and Deprivation
  Rural Poverty and Deprivation
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  European Community Expenditure
  European Community Expenditure
  Public Trustee
  Public Trustee
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Sharelga (Sinking)
  Sharelga (Sinking)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Legal Minimum Wage
  Legal Minimum Wage
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Northern Ireland (Civil Servants)
  Northern Ireland (Civil Servants)
  Sinclair Research
  Sinclair Research
  EC Economic and Finance Council
  EC Economic and Finance Council
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  European Community (Legislation)
  European Community (Legislation)
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Cup Final
  European Cup Final
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Entry Visas
  Entry Visas
  Scottish Highlands and Islands
  Scottish Highlands and Islands
SCOTLAND
  Workers' Co-operatives
  Workers' Co-operatives
  Redundancies (Dundee)
  Redundancies (Dundee)
  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Prisoners (Suicide)
TRANSPORT
  A1 (Roadworks)
  A1 (Roadworks)
  M2 (Road Widening)
  M2 (Road Widening)
  M1 (Telephones)
  M1 (Telephones)
  Fishermen (Fatalities)
  Fishermen (Fatalities)
  British Rail (Bicycles)
  British Rail (Bicycles)
  Railway Accident (Nuclear Waste)
  Railway Accident (Nuclear Waste)
  Fishing Vessels (Casualties)
  Fishing Vessels (Casualties)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Kinsale Gas
  Kinsale Gas
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Lear Fan Company
  Lear Fan Company
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Attenborough Report
  Attenborough Report
  Surplus Hospital Land
  Surplus Hospital Land
  Southwark
  Southwark
  Estate Management
  Estate Management
  Drug Prescribing
  Drug Prescribing
  Pharmaceutical Service Negotiating Committee(Contract)
  Pharmaceutical Service Negotiating Committee(Contract)
  Home Help Service
  Home Help Service
  Homeless Families (Accommodation)
  Homeless Families (Accommodation)
  Child Care Law
  Child Care Law
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Nursing and Midwifery Staff (Pay)
  Nursing and Midwifery Staff (Pay)
  Supplementary Benefit and Residential Care (Report)
  Supplementary Benefit and Residential Care (Report)
  Social Security Management Board
  Social Security Management Board
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Portable Pensions
  Portable Pensions
  Carers (Criminal Records)
  Carers (Criminal Records)
  Integrated Tax Credit Scheme
  Integrated Tax Credit Scheme
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Soho Hospital for Women
  Soho Hospital for Women
  Chief Nursing Officers
  Chief Nursing Officers
  Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  NHS (Ancillary Staff)
  NHS (Ancillary Staff)
  NHS (Radiographers)
  NHS (Radiographers)
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Lipoflavonoid (Limited List Equivalent)
  Lipoflavonoid (Limited List Equivalent)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Mucodyne (Limited List Equivalent)
  Mucodyne (Limited List Equivalent)
  Drugs and Alcohol (Health Campaigns)
  Drugs and Alcohol (Health Campaigns)
DEFENCE
  HMS Conqueror (Log Book)
  HMS Conqueror (Log Book)
  Trident
  Trident
  COCOM (Paris)
  COCOM (Paris)
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Training Land
  Training Land
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  Laboratories (Research Budgets)
  RAF Alconbury
  RAF Alconbury

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

Baroness Turner of Camden
Muriel Winifred Turner, wife of Reginald Thomas Frederick Turner, Esquire, having been created Baroness Turner of Camden, of Camden in Greater London, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Jenkins of Putney and the Lord Ennals, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Medicines: Review of Selected List
2.48 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been or will be made to review the limited list of medicinal products in certain categories available on the National Health Service so as to add new products and delete others, and at what intervals will reviews take place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, we hope to make an announcement shortly on the setting up of a committee to keep the selected list under regular review and ensure that it continues to meet all clinical needs at the lowest possible cost to the National Health Service.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that very welcome and reassuring information. However, may I ask her whether she will impress upon her ministerial colleagues the urgency of the whole matter? Is she aware that the apparent absence of any clear and easy route for new drugs on to the list is perhaps a disincentive to the manufacturers to provide any new drugs, and that that could have an adverse effect on investment? Perhaps I may also ask the noble Baroness if she will make the information that she has just given to the House as clear as possible to all those concerned, so that there can be no longer any misunderstandings. Will she let us know at the earliest possible stage the composition of this committee of review, which is surely very important indeed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes, yes, yes.
Lord Molson: My Lords, in view of the hopes which the Government have aroused, which many of us believe to be entirely well-founded, that it is possible that as a result of these lists of allowed and disallowed drugs great economy is to be made, will they
130
undertake periodically to issue statistics in an intelligible form so that we know what economies have in fact been effected?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really cannot answer that question because it would be a matter for my right honourable friend to decide this. However, it is envisaged that £75 million will be saved.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness how short is "shortly"? Is it true that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had no contact with the ABPI, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, since the limited list was introduced? Is she aware that very grave damage has been done to the relationship both with the British Medical Association and the ABPI? Can she somehow Or other—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the noble Baroness somehow or other call upon her right honourable friend to re-establish a proper relationship? The present relationship is doing great damage both to the economy and innovation in the industry.
A noble Lord: Answer one!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is envisaged that the committee would meet once a month at the beginning and less frequently as needs declined.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, while it is a little early yet for a decision to have been made, may I ask the noble Baroness, or her department, to come to a decision fairly soon about the appeals machinery? That is because there are a number of people who are allergic to medicines on the permitted list, particularly the one nasal decongestant, and there is no means of their appealing or of their doctors appealing against the list.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Countess, the annual conference of local medical committees has rejected the concept of a local appeal mechanism, as has the British Medical Association. Clearly doctors do not think such a mechanism essential for the wellbeing of their patients, which would be the only justification for introducing an appeal mechanism.

Merchant Fleet: Reduction
2.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I beg lea 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 intend to take steps to reverse the run-down of the merchant fleet, in view of the concern of the Council of British Shipping about the continued reduction in the number of ships carrying the United Kingdom flag and the existence of some 40,000 seafarers needing employment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, most of the factors that have led to the recent reduction in the United Kingdom merchant fleet are outside the control of either the industry or the Government. Nevertheless, we are doing a great deal to create conditions internationally which will ensure opportunities for our merchant fleet and thus favour the retention of vessels by United Kingdom shipowners, preferably under the United Kingdom flag. The key element is the implementation of an EC shipping policy which will enable our owners to compete on equal terms with companies inside and outside the Community.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that hopeful reply. There is no party political point in this because our shipping problem is of concern to all of us. In the 1984 Budget the Government said that they would rectify some of the burdens on the shipping industry and on seafarers at the next Budget. The word they used was "rectify". Will that be done? The centre of gravity of the shipbuilding industry today is in the Far East. For instance, I have seen it in Korea. However, our seafarers and the shipping industry need some consideration from our Government.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the Budget this year we did extend the depreciation of writing-down allowances on new ships to that of second-hand ships. It was extended this year.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there has been an increase in the amount of new tonnage ordered, sailing under the British flag? Can he also say when the committee which the Government, I understand, have set up to investigate the effects of the decline of our shipping is likely to report?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, refers is probably the sea group study, to which I referred in answer to his question in February. It was to look particularly into the defence needs of our shipping. Those reports have been received by the department and are being carefully considered at the moment in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence. We are looking at them most carefully.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are now confronted really with a national tragedy in this matter? It affects our defence, and our influence throughout the world. Will he urge his right honourable friends to approach this with real anxiety?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are obviously concerned. It is, however, important to say that it is not the same situation across the whole sector of the fleet. The sharpest decline of all has been in oil tankers which account for nearly 60 per cent. of the fall in tonnage. The reasons are fairly obvious to us in this country. The second sharpest fall has occurred, I believe, in dry bulk cargo ships. Again, it is a very competitive world market. As far as passenger liners, container ships and ferries are concerned, those sectors are doing really quite well at the moment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the Government will pay very serious attention to the considerable questions raised by flags of convenience which are proving a considerable disability not only to those British shipowners still proud enough to fly the British flag but also to seafarers themselves?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, indeed we are aware of United Kingdom owners "flagging out". We want to see ships operating profitably under the British flag. But we cannot force our operators to operate at a loss. I would also point out to the noble Lord that some 40 per cent. of our own tonnage is ultimately beneficially owned abroad and therefore "flagged in".
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that I asked a similar question some 10 days ago? Today I received a written answer from the noble Lord, for which I thank him. Does he realise that the answer he has given me shows an appalling degree of complacency on the part of the Government? It misses out many essential points including, for instance, the ageing of ships in the British mercantile marine. In view of the fact that when I asked the question there was wide-ranging concern on all sides of the House for what is a tremendous economic loss as well as a loss in pride to this country, will he reconsider the phrase that he used in his letter to me that the Government see no need for further investigation? Will he press for a full all-party investigation either by a Select Committee or by a Royal Commission on what is, as I repeat from the words of my previous question, an appalling national disaster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, as he has received my letter, that preceding the remark that we see no need for further investigation is the fact that we are only too well aware of the decline and the reasons for it. I have tried to explain to your Lordships some of the reasons why there has been a decline not only in our shipping but in shipping throughout the whole of the Western world.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Merchant Navy was very hard put to supply the capacity and to provide the logistics for the limited campaign in the Falkland Islands? What would be the situation, God forbid, if we were called upon to supply the logistics for a bigger conflagration than that? Would we have the capacity within our Merchant Navy to carry out that function? Most people, I believe, take the view that we have not.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the role that the fleet plays in support of defence forces in civil supply in times of emergency is well recognised. It is subject to continuous planning and review. In addition, as a member of NATO, we are pledged to pool our resources in the event of a war affecting the alliance. The main defence requirement is not for a fleet of a given size but for specific types of vessels. If necessary, we can deal with shortages by particular, not direct, action. I would say to the noble Lord that this is the subject of the studies that we have been undertaking.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that although there has been little comment from this side of the House, this is a subject that causes great concern all over the House irrespective of party? Would he not agree that it is the kind of subject on which this House is eminently suited to set up a Select Committee, as it has done on other subjects of general interest? Will he ask his colleagues in Government to have another serious look at this and perhaps discuss it with his noble friend the Leader of the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take careful note of what my noble friend says.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there any country in Europe other than our own that does not subsidise its Merchant Navy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to find out the answer to that and write to the noble Lord.

Falkland Islands: Fish Conservation
3 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made in the multilateral discussions on Falkland Islands fish conservation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we continue to work actively and urgently for the establishment of a multilaterally-based fisheries conservation and management regime around the Falkland Islands.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I make no apologies for raising this matter yet again so shortly after it was last raised, because we have seen nothing but articles and television programmes underlining the depredation of the fisheries regimes in the South Atlantic, around both South Georgia and the Falkland Islands? Can my noble friend tell us, first, with whom and how often they are discussing this question? Secondly, what happens when inevitably nothing happens and the fish stocks are exhausted? Thirdly, can my noble friend comment on the reported fact that the squid have left the Falkland Islands' fisheries six weeks early, and could this be due to extra squid-jigging?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are actively pursuing the matter of a mutilateral approach, but it would not be helpful to go into detail while contacts are taking place. On my noble friend's second supplementary question about squid, we are aware of reports that squid have disappeared from Falkland waters earlier than usual. However, information which we have received very recently from the Falkland Islands Government's fishery observer indicates that fishing for the species of squid found in Falklands' waters is continuing.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness herself return to the Falkland Islands, where she is a popular figure, and, as some of us have done recently, fly out and look at the enormous number of ships in those waters? Some of them sail into Falklands' waters and fly the flag of convenience—the Union Jack—whether they are Russian or any other nationality, thus recognising our right to be there. The whole House would support the noble Baroness in her efforts to open any sensible talks with the Argentine, which they have persistently spurned. Will the noble Baroness recognise that there is a limit to the time that we should spend attempting what may never be achieved and, therefore, will she consider going ahead unilaterally, and declaring the failure of other countries to back us in this matter?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has taken such a very great interest in this matter. I should like to assure him that our aim is the establishment of a really effective conservation and management regime in the South-West Atlantic, for all the reasons that he has given. That means working for the widest possible measure of international acceptance and participation.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recognise that all the experts who have looked at this matter say that, by the time the Government have got round to reaching a multilateral agreement, if such agreement is possible at all, there will be no fish stocks left to conserve or economically manage? Do not the Government have to take immediate unilateral action to prevent what is currently a major ecological disaster and a major economic disaster for this country and the Falkland islanders?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the first point which the noble Lord makes is of course hypothetical. However, as regards a unilateral declaration of such a limit we must be realistic and face the fact that there is a dispute about sovereignty in the area.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is one which the Government accept; namely, that in the regrettable absence of a multilateral agreement, Her Majesty's Government do not rule out acting unilaterally?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend will be the first to appreciate, we are still negotiating about a multilateral regime. I think that it would be quite improper for me to comment on what is still a hypothetical situation.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a certain heavy irony in the fact that, while as a House we are so deeply and rightly concerned to set up a proper ecological policy in relation to the Falklands, our own indigenous fishing industry has been destroyed by our failure to do so in relation to neighbouring European countries?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would agree that in fact that is another Question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in speaking about multilateral discussions my noble friend has used two geographical expressions: "around the Falklands" and "in the South-West Atlantic". Will my noble friend give your Lordships an undertaking that in using each of those expressions she means the widest possible area for the protection of the fishery interests not only of this country but also of the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in using those expressions I have been talking about what is generally accepted as a 200-mile fishing limit around the Falkland Islands. However, the term "the South-West Atlantic" can also be used to cover South Georgia, where the fishing is already covered by the 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, will my noble friend consider telling the various parties that a time limit must be set for these negotiations? If we wish, we can make it a reasonable one, but there must be a time limit on all those concerned.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note the point that my noble friend makes on this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is in some difficulty here, because the talks are proceeding. However, can she tell the House whether in her view the talks are proceeding satisfactorily? Secondly, as to the conservation and management regime, can the noble Baroness tell the House what area of sea is involved here? Does it include the waters around the Falklands alone, or does it extend beyond to South Georgia? Thirdly, is the noble Baroness confident that Her Majesty's Government and any other governments involved will be able to enforce the rules that are inherent in the creation of a regime of this kind?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not want to go into the details of this sensitive matter of the discussions on a multilateral regime, except to reiterate the importance and the urgency which the Government attach to this measure. In fact, we are talking about the waters around the Falkland Islands, to which on an earlier occasion your Lordships have addressed many questions, particularly relating to the number of ships already fishing there. On the last point that the noble Lord raised, I would refer him to the Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in December 1984, which makes the point that enforcement and policing of a unilaterally declared EFL would raise practical and political problems.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is it not wrong to equate South Georgia with the Falklands, calling it a dependency? As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has often pointed out, our title with South Georgia is totally different?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that my noble friend would accept that that is a somewhat wider question. I referred to South Georgia only in relation to fishing matters.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when my noble friend's department continues the multilateral negotiations will it be possible to emphasise to the negotiators the fact that your Lordships' House and another place feel very strongly indeed that something should be done to protect both the economies and the ecology of the South Atlantic?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, my right honourable and learned friend will of course study what has been said in your Lordships' House, which I am quite sure will be read with great interest by those in the Falkland Islands. I hope that they will appreciate the urgency and importance that we attach to achieving a resolution of this matter.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, while I accept the sincerity and activity of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I must say that she referred to South Georgia. Any question of fishing limits in that part of the world must also include the South Sandwich Islands and the Shag Rocks.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says.

Palace of Westminster: Hygiene Standards
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 when they will invite the appropriate public health authority to examine the standards of hygiene for Members of both Houses and staff in the Palace of Westminster and its associated buildings.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, as a result of the unfortunate incident in the Norman Shaw building on 4th June, an inspector of the Health and Safety Executive has already visited the Parliamentary Works Office. She did so on 6th June and approved the action which that office had taken, and was proposing to take.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he assure the House that the standards which are now to be applied, hopefully, in the Norman Shaw building will also be applied throughout the Palace of Westminster?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the health of Members of both Houses of Parliament and their staff, officials, and servants will always be a matter of the highest priority.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, under what authority would a person have a right of legal action if he or she was poisoned by the water supply in the Palace of Westminster?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this would be a matter to be decided under the Crown immunities provisions, which are at present under review.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he saw in The Times today that in New Zealand's Parliament Buildings legionella bacteria had been found? May I ask the noble Lord whether the Palace of Westminster has been checked for legionnaires' disease, especially in the air conditioning system?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have had a cutting from the Daily Telegraph brought to my attention. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security set up an inquiry into the recent outbreak of this disease in Staffordshire. Your Lordships will also know that they have located the source of the infection, which started in the outpatients' department of the hospital in Staffordshire. It is highly unlikely that any similar outbreak could occur, but naturally we must see that all necessary precautions are taken. I will draw the concern of the noble Baroness to the attention of the House authorities.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in view of the apparent structural ambiguity contained in the Question, would the noble Lord make it clear that the anxiety is not about the standards of hygiene of the Members of the two Houses but of the fabric of the building and of the facilities, and that it is those things which are important in relation to very real hazards such as legionnaires' disease?
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships might be concerned with both, but I confirm that the latter was the subject of my Answer.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as a matter of comfort to noble Lords present, in another place there is an insurance which covers accidents or incidents similar to that which happened at the Norman Shaw building. I believe that the same applies to noble Lords, too.
A noble Lord: "Does the noble Lord know?".
Lord Elton: My Lords, now he does.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, is the Minister aware that the disabled persons' loo was happily very well equipped with a tap labelled "Drinking Water", but that the label has been removed in the last few days?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the label is in the process of being reprinted.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord gave a somewhat ambivalent reply to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Bottomley when he said that he now knows that there is an insurance cover. Did he know before this? Is he confirming that he knew before, or that he has just learned it? Or is he sufficiently trusting of my noble friend that he accepts what he says?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I now understand that there is such a scheme but I did not understand so before. Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to give me the terms under which I can join it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that reply is really not good enough. The noble Lord says that he now understands it. Is he saying to the House that there is insurance cover for the sort of illness or accident that might happen to a Member of this House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, no I did not know. I thought that the noble Lord was tempting me to say that I did not give credence to what his noble friend had said, and that is why I answered in the terms I did to his question. I was not aware of such a scheme, and I shall certainly inquire about it to inform myself. If the noble Lord feels that I ought to inquire in a particular way, or make information available in a particular way, I shall be interested to hear from him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we ale all grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will make those inquiries, but is he aware that every noble Lord present would be grateful if he were to let the House know the result of his inquiries?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall put the answer to my inquiries in your Lordships' Library.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, could my noble friend tell the House whether these dangers include possible injury at the Box?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope they do.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tonypandy was chairman of a commission in the House of Commons of which I was a member. It was agreed then that there should be insurance cover, and I believe that the Lords followed that practice.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if that was a question, I am grateful for the answer it contained.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I bring the noble Lord back to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? In his reply the noble Lord seemed to infer that Norman Shaw Court is now deemed part of the Palace of Westminster. When was that decided, and how?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it has been a part of the Crown estates since before my cognition, so I cannot say when it started.

Social Security Benefits: Uprating
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that a Statement which is to be made in another place on the social security benefits uprating should, by leave of the House, be printed in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"The improvements we are making, which have been allowed for within the Government's public expenditure plans, will increase the Government's

139
social security budget by over £2,000 million in a full year.
"As the House will know, the retail price index published last Friday showed a rise of 7 per cent. between May 1984 and May 1985. The Government are pledged to increase pensions and other linked long-term benefits in line with this rise in prices. Accordingly, the retirement pension for a single person will rise from £35.80 to £38.30, an increase of £2.50 a week, while, the pension for a married couple will rise from £57.30 to £61.30, an increase of £4.00 a week.
"This will mean that between November 1978 and November 1985 pensions will have gone up by over 96 per cent., some 10 percentage points more than the expected rise in prices over the same period. Thus we have more than fulfilled our pledge to protect the retirement pension against rising prices.
"Public service pensions will similarly be increased by 7 per cent. We shall also further ease the earnings rule; that is, the amount which a pensioner can earn without a reduction of his pension. This will be increased from £70 to £75 a week.
"The basic rate of unemployment benefit will be increased by 7 per cent. from £28.45 to £30.45 for a single person and from £46 to £49.25 for a couple.
"Supplementary benefit is increased in line with the retail price index excluding housing costs. This is because people on supplementary benefit have their housing costs met separately through housing benefit. All the main supplementary benefit rates will therefore be increased by 5.1 per cent. The longterm scale rate for a couple will go up by £2.90 to £60 a week. The ordinary scale rate for a couple will go up by £2.30 to £47.85 a week. The scale rates for children will go up to £18.20 for a child aged 16 to 17, £15.10 for a child of 11 to 15 and £10.10 for a child under 11.
"The extra weekly payments to cover items such as heating and special diets will be increased in the usual way. Heating additions will be increased by 4.4 per cent. in line with the rise in fuel prices, while the additions for special diets will go up by 3 per cent. in line with the rise in food prices.
"I also intend to make a change to the additions which are given to supplementary benefit households with central heating sytems. These special additional payments were introduced in the early 1960s because at the time central heating was more expensive. That is no longer generally true. In the meantime there has been an extensive development of additional help with heating costs for those such as pensioners and the disabled. Claimants already receiving central heating additions will continue to receive them while they remain on benefit. However, I propose that no further awards of such additions should be made to people claiming on or after 5th August. But the range of automatic heating additions for the special needs of particular groups will be extended so that from November the lower standard rate of heating addition, which will then be £2.20 a week, will be
140
paid automatically to sick and disabled householders on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit.
"Turning to housing benefit, the needs allowances, which are increased according to a formula which takes account of increases in average local authority rents and rates as well as the supplementary benefit rates, will be increased by the full 5.8 per cent. to £47.70 for a single person and £70.20 for a married couple.
"The uprating of the housing benefit needs allowances will further increase spending on a benefit which is already paid to well over 7 million households. Expenditure will increase to £4½ billion in a full year. The Government believe it is right to restrain further growth in housing benefit expenditure. We therefore propose to increase the rates taper above the needs allowance from its current level of 9 per cent. to 13 per cent.
"No one on supplementary benefit or with income within £10 of the scale rates will be affected by the change. Indeed, a pensioner couple would need to have an income nearly £13 a week above the retirement pension level before their overall benefit increase was reduced by even 10p a week as a result of this change.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government believe it right to maintain child benefit for all children, irrespective of the income of their parents. Nevertheless, we have to consider its level both in relation to overall priorities within social security and, in particular, with the aim to do more for families with children on low income.
"The Government have concluded that child benefit should be increased in November to £7 a week. However, one-parent benefit will be increased by the full 7 per cent. from £4.25 to £4.55 per week; and families on supplementary benefit will not be affected and will benefit from the increases in the scale rates for children. At the same time, we propose to take two important steps to give additional help to less-well-off families with children.
"First, the prescribed amounts in family income supplement will be increased by more than 7 per cent. to give all FIS families extra help. In addition, we shall introduce new higher prescribed amounts for families with older children. This will mean, for example, that the prescribed amount for a child aged 11 to 15 will be increased by an extra £2 and for a child aged 16 and over by an extra £3 a week ahead of prices.
"Secondly, we shall increase the child's needs allowance in housing benefit to £14.50 per week—£1 a week more than the normal uprating would have required.
"Taken together with the reduction in national insurance contributions for lower-paid workers announced in the Budget, these two measures are further steps towards reducing the unemployment trap and directing help more effectively to the families most in need.
"Benefits for disabled people, war pensioners and war widows will all be increased by 7 per cent. This will mean that the pension for a war widow will go

141
up to £49.80, the higher rate of attendance allowance will increase to £30.60 a week and mobility allowance will go up to £21.40.
"For invalidity benefit, the Government propose to make a total increase of 12 per cent. This will restore the 5 per cent. abatement as well as giving the full 7 per cent. uprating. It will mean that invalidity benefit will increase from £34.25 to £38.30 for a single person and from £54.80 to £61.30 for a married couple. This will bring it in line with retirement pension once more and give an increase of £4.05 a week for a single person and £6.50 for a married couple.
"I should also take this opportunity to tell the House that it is our intention to take powers to increase the £10,000 vaccine damage payment which has remained at that level since 1979 to £20,000.
"Mr. Speaker, the measures announced in this statement will add over £2 billion to the social security budget. The result is that the budget will now stand at over £42 billion a year, almost a third of all Government spending. I shall he laying a schedule giving the increases in the main benefit rates before the House.
"As I have already told the House, this will be the last time that benefits are uprated in November. Next year an uprating will take place in July before the new annual cycle based on April begins in 1987. The Government will be introducing an amendment to the Social Security Bill in another place to enable this change.
"Mr. Speaker, had we continued with the unreliable forecast method of uprating introduced by the last Labour Government, the uprating of benefits that I am announcing today would be substantially less. As it is, this uprating will protect those people in greatest need, give extra help to many disabled people and fulfil our pledges to the pensioners of this country".

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill will be taken.

Ports (Finance) Bill
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 48 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No 80B:
Page 30, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships' House and my noble friend the Minister I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 80B and 80C. I should say that Amendments Nos. 80E, 80F and 80G are consequential.
Amendment No. 80C: Page 30, line 12, leave out ("or a") and insert ("and for each").
Amendment No. 80E: Page 31, line 3, leave our from ("made") to end of subsection (6).
Amendment No. 80F: Page 31, line 8, at end insert ("save that in the event of no council consenting to be designated within three months of a scheme being made under this section the Secretary of State shall himself carry out all the functions of the designated council under the scheme until one of the constituent councils consents to become the designated council.").
Amendment No. 80G: Page 31, leave out lines 11 to 15.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London makes his apologies, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. We are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for speaking in this debate.
The purpose behind Amendments Nos. 808 and 80C is to ensure that, after abolition, schemes shall be made to deal with the needs of specialised groups which are best met by voluntary organisations which serve more than one borough or district council and are therefore county-wide. These county-wide schemes are to be made both in the metropolitan areas, of which there are six, covering 37 districts, and in London, covering 32 boroughs.
Clause 48, as it stands in the Bill, leaves the districts or boroughs to choose whether or not they want a scheme. In short, it is permissive. Amendment 80B replaces "may" with "shall" and 80C replaces "or a" with "and for each". If the two amendments were accepted, Clause 48(1) would read:
"A scheme for the making of grants to eligible voluntary organisations shall be made for Greater London and for each metropolitan county by the constituent"
authorities. As I understand it, the district authorities in the metropolitan areas and each borough in London will assess from their own departments—for instance, housing, social services or education—what are the needs of the people in their areas which are countywide. Such needs include, for example, advice on drug addiction and alcoholism and, importantly, training schemes for volunteers.
The constituent districts and bouough authorities will, with the voluntary organisations concerned, consult together. The voluntary organisations will, through the lead authority, apply to the constituent body of district and borough councils for a grant to

143
carry out the scheme. It is to be expected that the constituent bodies will endorse the county-wide work of existing valuable organisations, such as the citizens' advice bureaux.
Throughout the passage of this Bill there has tended to be more concentration on the abolition of the GLC and less on the abolition of the metropolitan counties. In consideration of the voluntary organisations the London-wide position is different from that of the metropolitan counties. Already a lead authority, Richmond, has been appointed in London. Money has been doubled for local schemes and a trust fund for London to receive contributions from the Secretary of State has been set up. But this is no comfort to the metropolitan areas for county-wide schemes.
Let us look at the differences between London and the metropolitan areas. In London for some time there has been a statutory structure for co-operation through the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Boroughs. The position in the metropolitan areas is different. There has been no tradition and certainly no structure for co-operation. In London the boroughs are more or less of equal size. In the metropolitan areas there are what may be called the whales, such as Liverpool, Sheffield, Bradford, Birmingham, Newcastle and Leeds, the minnows being the small districts. The smaller districts look on the big cities with some distrust. There is what has been called tunnel vision; that is, each district considering its own needs and not the county-wide needs which are served by the county voluntary organisations. Their perspectives and priorities are in many cases not attuned to county-wide schemes which were carried out by the metropolitan counties.
When I was investigating charities, which in the end led to the Charities Act in your Lordships' House, I visited the North on several occasions and was deeply impressed by the loyalty of local communities and the deep feeling for their own small areas, their towns. I found, however, that they did not have a sense of deep responsibility for the areas outside those in which they lived.
There are political differences. In Merseyside there are said to be two militant districts, two Right-wing districts and one middle-of-the-road district. But even different districts of the same political persuasion can differ radically over support for voluntary organisations. I am informed that Manchester and Salford, both Labour authorities, are like chalk and cheese, the former being supportive of voluntary organisations and the latter preferring to municipalise its services. I am told that Trafford and the Wirral, both Conservative authorities, vary in their views on the work of voluntary organisations.
With all these difficulties it is not outside the bounds of possibility that some districts will not agree to make the necessary arrangements—that is, the formulation of a scheme whereby voluntary organisations can apply for grants—and that would affect organisations which are new or old which are county-wide.
The mandatory duty is to formulate schemes which will encourage the district authorities to consider their mutual needs. Furthermore, and most important, it will provide voluntary organisations with a basis for
144
discussion with the consultative body on the subjects of both grants and needs. At an earlier stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House my noble friend the Minister spoke about cricket. If a scheme is not formulated, there will be somebody bowling but there will be no bat and no wickets at the other end to receive and therefore the voluntary organisations will have nothing to take forward and apply for.
In this connection it must be appreciated that most metropolitan districts are on rate support grant penalty and are not looking for any further financial responsibility. The Government are offering no financial incentives to county-wide voluntary work. The amendment provides that if no district consents to be designated as a lead authority within three months of a scheme being made, the Secretary of State will perform the functions of a designated district until a lead authority comes forward, thus preventing the collapse of voluntary services for want of an operable grant scheme.
This amendment is within the spirit and intention of the Bill. It is consistent with the oft-repeated assurance of Her Majesty's Government that there is no intention that worthwhile voluntary services should suffer as a result of abolition. Furthermore, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, the work of the voluntary organisations, with their many volunteers, is both cost effective and an enrichment of our society. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness has spoken to these amendments in such a persuasive way and has created such a consensus climate that it will be almost impossible for the Minister to resist these amendments on voluntary organisations and other subsequent amendments to Clause 48. The absence of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who originated this proposal in Committee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is sad. I should also like to apologise for the absence from these Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who very much wished to be here and to be associated with what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said. He has given me a brief note of some of the matters he proposed to raise.
At the outset I should like to record that in his view this set of amendments is simply a safety net in case ill-chance or human perversity prevents or frustrates the execution of the Government's own intention. I shall revert to that later. If the noble Lord had been here, he would have continued in rather more passionate terms to beg the Minister and the Government to reflect on these proposals, because they would give some measure of reassurance both to those who are the receivers and those who are the givers of voluntary effort at a time of disarray and dismay among the voluntary sector. So, merely for the removal of doubt, the acceptance of these amendments would do a disproportionate amount of good.
3.30 p.m.
For those reasons alone, I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister is in a giving vein today, because I regard this series of amendments as the crucial set of amendments to Clause 48 for the

145
voluntary organisations; that is to say, to make it a duty for the London boroughs and the Common Council and for the district councils in the metropolitan counties to make schemes, to make grants, on a London-wide and a county-wide basis.
The imposition of this duty will improve the prospects—and I will not say anything more than that—of the survival of the county-wide voluntary organisations. It will not ensure it because there will still be a possibility, although I very much hope not, that such schemes would lead to a nil result when there is not a two-thirds majority of the constituent councils in London and—as I very much hope will be the case after I have moved a separate amendment (No. 80CB)—a three-fifths majority of the constituent councils in a metropolitan county. It is entirely at the discretion of the councillors once a scheme has been made what, if anything, they wish to spend; whether or not they choose to support county-wide services, and, if so, to what extent, subject only to any limits which may be set by the Secretary of State under subsection (5).
This proposal should be welcome to the Government because it follows, as the noble Baroness has said, the lead borough principle to which the Government attach so much importance. Again, as she said, these amendments provide—and I should like to use this expression—a reserve or default power where the Secretary,' of State may perform the functions of a designated borough or district until such time as a lead borough or district comes forward.
There is nothing new about this; there is nothing novel. Default powers are commonplace in local government legislation, and in this case the default power is crucial. Without it, I fear, schemes under Clause 48 may not be made at all or may be made far too late, in which case county-wide voluntary work would meantime collapse or diminish sadly, due to lack of funding. So it is the duty plus the default power which provides for the certainty—not merely the possibility or the probability but the certainty—of schemes under Clause 48 which county-wide and London-wide voluntary services can at least apply to for support.
I do not call that asking for very much. So far I have not distinguished between Greater London and the metropolitan counties partly because I believe that this clause and these amendments should apply across the board to them all. Here I should like to quote Sir George Young's own words in Standing Committee in another place on 26th February, when he said:
"It will clearly be important to establish a grants unit which can take a view across the area and provide advice on which councils collectively can base their assessment of need and priorities",
especially, I should add, in such vulnerable cases as the single homeless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts or mentally-ill people to which some local authorities—and I name no names—may accord relatively low priorities. The same may also be true of ethnic minority interests or child-care provision.
These amendments do no more than secure the purposes which have been so clearly set out by Sir George Young as long ago as February of this year. I do not think that I shall go into detail (because the noble Baroness did so in introducing this amendment)
146
as to why this is more necessary for the metropolitan counties than for the Greater London area. I think that that was very cogently said. Perhaps the main reason is that for so long there has been a tradition of London-wide voluntary service in London, it is a comparatively recent event in the metropolitan counties and there is an important discrepancy of size between the great districts such as Manchester, Newcastle and so on and the smaller districts in the metropolitan counties; and that does not apply in London.
What we have to do is to ensure that the £14 million (and it is no less than that) that is already funded in the metropolitan counties for the county-wide voluntary services is continued, is not disrupted or in any way interfered with.
I should like the Government to agree to -lese amendments. There is absolutely no party interest in this. There is cross-party support, and I think that the noble Baroness did her very best to demonstrate this by the way in which she moved this series of amendments. I think that various things have been given to the relief of voluntary bodies and we ought to pay due thanks to the Minister, especially for the transitional finance which has been doubled. That is really most welcome. I do not wish to say anything other than how welcome it is, but I should stress that it is intended exclusively for local and not for countywide projects. That is important. Then I think that the metropolitan counties have no trust such as, for instance, that proposed for London. There appears to be no similar development for the metropolitan counties. If there is to be such a development, then I should like to hear from the Minister.
I conclude by saying that these amendments are necessary for all councils but especially for the metropolitan counties. Perhaps this is not the place to mention it, but the Minister has an amendment, No. 81. I do not know whether he proposes to mention this now. I would welcome that and would be grateful for small mercies. But there will be very small proceeds, I believe, from the county properties when they are sold off, especially in the metropolitan areas. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us as to what sums will be at the disposal of the metropolitan areas when land is sold, and so on. They do not seem to me to be big enough to solve these problems of the voluntary bodies. Meantime, I very strongly support the amendments which have been moved so ably by the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to me it is unthinkable that the Government or any Member of your Lordships' House would be opposed to the spirit of these amendments, but I must say that I think that they cannot be accepted in quite their present form. I am worried about the result from the drafting point of view of accepting them, and especially Amendments Nos. 80B and 80C. The point which arises, if I can express it as briefly and simply as possible (although I do not claim to be able to do so, but I shall try), is this. If these amendments are made, then all or any eligible voluntary organisations could claim that they were entitled to be included in a scheme.
If that were to be the result, it would be an absurd result—and I should hope to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thinking that it is an

147
absurd result—because it would then be claimed that nearly all of the 200 bodies mentioned in that extraordinary press statement several months ago would be entitled to be included in one of these schemes. I say that because the definition of "eligible voluntary organisation" in subsection (10) of Clause 48 is a very wide one indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, very properly referred to the need for those making the schemes to have a discretion as to which eligible voluntary organisations were to be included in each scheme: Indeed, if they did not have a discretion, and if all, or nearly all, of the 200 bodies mentioned in this extraordinary piece of publicity by the GLC were to be included, I would fear that the more genuine and generally supported bodies like MENCAP and GLAD (if I may dare to mention two in which my wife and myself are interested) would suffer a dilution of funds because of the inclusion of so many other eligible voluntary schemes which could be technically included and which those arguing for their inclusion might sometimes successfully argue had to be included. I cannot believe that that would be a result which any of your Lordships would expect or wish.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness for the excellent way in which she moved this series of amendments. As has been said by the noble Lord, there are no party politics in this whatsoever. I am quite convinced that all of us in this House, on whichever side we sit, because of our involvement with voluntary organisations wish to see the same thing. The Minister himself has said that. We all want to see a scheme.
I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. I have made my own criticisms of the GLC's advertisement, which was intensely misleading. We also want to ensure that what the Minister has written in the Bill is in fact carried out. I should like to say to the Minister that at present there is a very considerable degree of concern by the voluntary organisations. I am thinking of the National Council For Voluntary Organisations, representing so many of precisely the sort of organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been referring. It would be an intolerable situation if a very small number of authorities in the metropolitan area—and in some cases it would require only one or two—acted in a sense on "bloody minded" political principles, or lack of principles. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to examples which showed the way in which people can behave in different political parties. We have to ensure that there is a scheme. There may be aspects of the wording which could be improved. At Committee stage the noble Lord said that he assumed there would be schemes. I am not seeking to quote him exactly, but the gist was that he could not imagine a situation in which the authorities would not all agree. Very properly the noble Baroness pointed out the sort of ludicrous circumstances in which there might not be adequate agreement or in which there might not be a lead authority prepared to fulfil its role.
3.45 p.m.
I think that is why we are here: to ensure that what has been put before us is carried through. I do not like
148
this legislation, but that is not the issue. We are concerned to ensure that essential voluntary organisations are able to fulfil their task under the scheme that has been outlined by the Government.
As has been said, this is a fall-back position. If London boroughs and metropolitan districts come along and say, "Yes, we are all in favour of this", and if there are lead authorities, all is well. It is a fall-back position in case all does not go well. If all does not go well then the people who suffer are the reputable voluntary organizations—Citizens Advice Bureaux and others looking after particular groups—for whom we all have a very great deal of concern.
If the Minister has an argument such as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggesting that there is some drafting error about this, then I have little doubt that those who have put their names to this amendment—and I should have liked to put my name if there had been enough room—would be glad if amendments to correct the drafting were put forward at the next stage. With respect, I think that the task of your Lordships' House is to ensure that there is a scheme, that voluntary organisations do not suffer, and that they can feel at the end of our debates that we have put their interests in proper perspective and have enabled them to do the jobs that they can often do so much better than the statutory authority.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I can well understand the voluntary organisations being apprehensive, with all the propaganda that has been thrown about, about the awful things that will happen to them if this Bill goes through. I can understand their being apprehensive and worried. But this amendment, and particularly the speech of the noble Baroness, reflected once again that they have no confidence that the smaller district authorities—particularly outside London—are capable of voluntarily and willingly getting together and working out a scheme. My noble friend Lady Faithfull obviously feels that from the words she used and the examples she gave when she made her trip north. I have lived in the Midlands the whole of my life, and I do not accept that. I am convinced that whatever political differences there may be in various parts, in the interests of their areas, the smaller district authorities are capable of getting together and will do so. In the past, before we had the metropolitan counties or the Greater London Council they got together on many things. I do not believe, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister ought to undermine the general confidence in the whole of the Bill by this one section giving the impression that it has to be mandatory; that the confidence in their doing what is right is so weak that it has to be written down in the form of a statute. I believe it would undermine the whole spirit of acceptance of this Bill as a whole, and not only with the voluntary bodies that we are talking about in this particular amendment. I believe that we must be consistent if we want this Bill, when it becomes a statute, to become effective and helpful to the whole of the country.
I do not know about London, but the noble Baroness seemed to indicate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that they did not think the problem arising from their doubt existed in London, but that it existed outside London. I do not think we ought to

149
send a message—as this would—giving the impression that we do not think the district authorities are capable of getting together. In any case, it is rather a nonsense because even if these vital differences of view in the various districts exist to the point that my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, they would be able to slow it up and injure and spoil it whether or not it was mandatory if the feeling was as deep as that. But I do not believe that the feeling will be anything like that because their concern will be to look after the best interests of their area.
Then we come to what I have said so often. I truly believe and am certain that the voluntary principle behind this Bill of the districts getting together will work. I am quite certain that if any "separateness" existed before the county boroughs were appointed they have had their lesson and they can now see that it is vital to get together voluntarily. I am certain that they will. If my confidence is not properly based, and if the fears expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, prove to be true when this becomes a statute, then in this Bill the Minister has the power to use his influence to guide them on this point. I think it is a very wise Bill from that point of view.
We have confidence that it will work, but if for reasons which I suppose may arise, it does not—one cannot rule this out—there is the power of the Minister to see that it does. I suggest to my noble friend that if he accepted this group of amendments, he would, in terms of the main purpose behind this Bill, for the first time introduce his doubts as to whether they can voluntarily get together. That would weaken the whole structure for the future. Therefore I hope he will resist the amendments, but of course I accept the genuineness of the views expressed from the other side. I have greater faith than they have in the districts outside London. I believe that my faith is the kind that the Bill depends upon and we ought not to weaken it at this stage.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Hunt moved an earlier version of this amendment and he has asked me to say how much he regrets not being able to be here this afternoon. On the earlier occasion he made out a very powerful case and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his reply concentrated on the problem of trying to combine a mandatory scheme with a voluntary lead borough arrangement. So long as a lead borough or district could be designated only with its consent, there was no way of ensuring an effective scheme, and if no lead borough was willing to be designated, one could do nothing about it. That problem, it seems to me, has now been dealt with in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, by providing that if no lead borough comes forward to be designated, the Secretary of State shall himself perform the functions of a lead district until such a time as a borough is encouraged to come forward. Therefore the mandatory "shall" in the amendment can be made to apply.
As regards the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, there is nothing in this amendment which places an obligation on the constituent councils regarding any special scheme or grant or any amount
150
of money. All those decisions remain entirely and democratically in their hands. It seems to me that having up to now concentrated on the technical defects in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and on some technical doubts which have been cast on it, we must strive to address the real problems confronting the voluntary bodies in these areas.
I must say I thought that the word "propaganda" used by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, went slightly over the top, because there is here a real problem which is recognised on all sides of the House. Some serious problems were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, regarding drugs, alcoholism, ethnic minorities and other difficulties which at the moment are being handled by county-wide voluntary bodies. We are left, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, with the clear recognition by Sir George Young in a Standing Committee of another place when he said:
"It will clearly be important to establish a grants unit"
I think that we should set aside the technical difficulties. They are largely overcome in this version, though no doubt there could be further improvement. I hope that the Government will now address themselves to the real difficulties confronting voluntary bodies in connection with these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is a certain irony, is there not, in that the voluntary bodies, which pride themselves on being voluntary bodies, should be thought to want, from the point of view of the local authorities, an involuntary scheme? Does not that paradox illustrate the difficulty which this amendment, however well intentioned, as it obviously is, will give rise to? The whole hope of dealing with this issue under this Bill is that the boroughs in London and the districts in the metropolitan counties will take up their responsibilities, and in particular the responsibilities in respect of the voluntary bodies which have been discharged previously by the top-tier authorities. But if they are to be compelled to do so and if a compulsory scheme is to be imposed upon them, surely anyone who has had any experience, as I have, of local authorities will know that that would get the whole thing off to a bad start. It will appear to them to be something which is being imposed on them by Parliament and not a proper challenge to them for voluntary effort.
It goes even a little further than that. If the words of my noble friend were put into the Bill, it would make it compulsory on the lower-tier authorities to have a scheme, though it is not very clear from the amendment who would be responsible for drafting it or, indeed, what it would contain. However, it would not, as I read the amendments, extract an additional penny from the subordinate authorities. There would have to be a scheme; yet a scheme without the money being provided by the authorities would be not only a waste of time, but also a sad imposition on the credulity of bodies which thought they were being helped. Therefore if we are to go along this road of compulsion—and I would suggest to your Lordships that we should not—I would say to my noble friend, "You have to go a great deal further and say that the lower-tier authorities, the boroughs and so on, are to

151
be bound to put up substantial funds, because a scheme without those funds is simply a nullity and a waste of time."
Like all your Lordships, I recognise the excellent good faith which has been acknowledged and widely supported on all sides of the House and I share to the full the desire that worthy voluntary bodies should not suffer from the changes which this Bill will effect. However, I suggest that we are going up the wrong road. Like my noble friend Lord
Harmar-Nicholls, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will point this out when he comes to reply, as I have no doubt he shortly will.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken said that he had a great deal of experience of voluntary bodies. As someone who for 25 years has worked in various voluntary organisations, many of which were promoted in response to need, it seems to me that the noble Lord does not understand the necessity for a basic grant. You can raise funds—indeed, you have to raise them—but if you are spending your time fund raising, you are not doing the job for which the organisation was brought into being—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I absolutely agree with what she has just said; but does she appreciate that this amendment does not provide that basic grant?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, we are at Report stage and so I shall continue. The noble Baroness has introduced the amendment, with which I am in full support. However, had we not had from her side of the House a Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties, I wonder whether there would have been need for an amendment of this kind. There is a certain irony about this, but I would say it is absolutely vital for there to be some security of support. That is the point. If you are acting in a voluntary body, you know you must have that baseline.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that he did not know very much about London, and I think that was very clear. I speak as a Londoner with a good historical knowledge. Prior to the Greater London Council—and we must emphasise this over and over again—we had the London County Council, which was abolished by a Conservative Government, as was Middlesex County Council. They were taken over and turned into the Greater London Council. So for years the voluntary bodies have had support from a main base which was their absolute breadline; and that is essential if they are going to carry out the very remarkable work which no statutory authority ever could.
Let us face it, my Lords: government and local government follow the voluntary movements. You first establish that there is a need and then, rather belatedly, government and local government come in and take over. But they will never first establish the response to very many needs, and these will still continue. I think it very unfair to quote the rather way-out groups which have been listed, rather
152
foolishly, I think, by a certain county. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the needs of the handicapped, the mentally handicapped, the homeless, the young and the elderly—so many people who, we all know, are in desperate need of help from the voluntary bodies. That is what this amendment is all about.
4 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like very briefly to support these amendments because I feel that it is essential to ensure that grant-making schemes are set up, particularly in the metropolitan counties, and a duty must be written into the Bill to ensure that those voluntary organisations whose activities are county-wide or which extend beyond the areas of any particular constituent council continue to be funded. You really could have serious problems. Greater Manchester has 50 voluntary schemes, and of these only four are confined to single districts, which means that 46 schemes will be in jeopardy if there is no grant-making scheme. It is perfectly possible, though I know the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, feels differently, that there will be no scheme if there is no duty to establish one. I hesitate to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, over his interpretation of Amendment No. 80C, but I think that in fact the words "and each" refer to the metropolitan counties. They merely ensure that each metropolitan county has the scheme and not that every—I see the noble Lord—
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned me. If she is kind enough to give way, may I say that she has misunderstood me or that I have not made myself plain. Certainly each metropolitan borough, each scheme-making body, will have to operate, if this is done, but owing to the lack of qualification in the expression "eligible voluntary organisations" and the wide definition of those in subsection (10), there is a very great danger that all or any eligible voluntary organisation might apply for funds to each of the scheme-making bodies and that will go far to defeat the scheme-making.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I think that they would not be able to apply for funds outside the area in which they were, which is defined in one of the subsections, but surely they will be entitled to apply for funds. That does not necessarily mean, as I had understood the noble Lord to say, that they would actually get the funds. The series of amendments of the noble Baroness and Amendment No. 80D, which is in my name, complement each other, but both can perfectly well stand on their own. I will say nothing more about mine now. I just wanted to support most heartily the series of amendments of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when I first saw Amendment No. 80B, I was immediately attracted to it and thought it made sense, but the more I have gone into it the more I find that it is not very practical. At the moment Clause 48 is permissive. Under this amendment it would become compulsive.

153
Last night I had the opportunity to discuss this in detail with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and a number of people from umbrella organisations of voluntary organisations—councils for voluntary organisations—and the point that emerged was that they considered that this was necessary to protect the Labour boroughs from one another, because all the areas that they were talking about, these areas of great concern, were areas which are presently districts which are Labour-controlled. They say that some are a little bit Left and others are very far Left, and they are worried that the very far Left will be opposed to the voluntary organisations.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am just quoting what was said to me last night in this House.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way. I said in my speech that it was not only where there were differences of parties, but in fact where there were differences within a group of Labour Party authorities and within a group of Conservative parties.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, exactly so; and that is exactly what was said to me, not by the noble Baroness but by the other representatives who were there. They said that a great many of these new-style Labour district councils believe that there is no place whatsoever for voluntary organisations and that it should be done totally by the local boroughs themselves.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what about the Conservatives?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I think this is an understandable point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asks what are the Conservative views. Certainly I will tell your Lordships what my views were when I was a chairman of social services. My views were that you supported those voluntary organisations which were doing a good job, which were cost-effective and which were doing something better, more cheaply or with a wider involvement than you could do it yourself in your local authority social services through your own department.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall be most grateful to the noble Baroness, if she is able either to find a particular type of Labour authority which took that view and was therefore obstructive in relation to the generality, or to find the case that has been referred to by the noble Baroness of a Conservative authority which was prepared to be obstructive in relation to others. It is precisely that situation towards which the amendment of the noble Baroness is directed. Surely the noble Baroness is not now suggesting that particular authorities, because they hold a way-out view, as she refers to it, should be able to obstruct a scheme on behalf of the authorities as a whole. That is the purpose of the amendment which is now before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to finish my speech, he will perhaps follow the point I am about to make. The point I am about to make is that every area that we are talking about, which is an area of concern, is outside London. I am told that we are not concerned about London, because in London there is a fair balance of authorities of all parties. I am told the concern is it the metropolitan authorities, about which I know little, but I believe that each metropolitan authority that is being abolished is Labour controlled. If it is Labour controlled, it certainly means that there is a majority of Labour authorities there. I am really paying a compliment to the Labour Party when I say that I believe they would not allow voluntary organisations to vanish. Why, therefore, is there such grave doubt about these Labour controlled areas? Why are they the areas that it is suggested that an amendment like this should protect and cover?
It may be that the noble Lords on the other side believe what was said, and that there are some labour boroughs that are violently against all voluntary organisations. I do not believe it. I believe that there is no one in this country who is totally against all voluntary organisations; indeed, there is enormous sympathy for voluntary organisations, and for that reason these schemes will be produced. It is only by a simple majority that you have to prepare such a scheme, and I believe the simple majority will exist.
Noble Lords: Not a simple majority—two-thirds.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like someone to clarify that point. I understood that to decide to set up a scheme at all required just a simple majority of the boroughs. To decide then to give a grant required 66 per cent. These are the two essential points, and those who are saying to me that it is rot by a simple majority have not, I believe, studied the Bill carefully. I think it is a simple majority. Is that point agreed, or would the noble Lord who is shaking his head like to come back on that point?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to subsection (3) of Clause 48 which says:
"with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, that is the decision whether or not to give money to a particular scheme. That is not the decision whether to have a body that will consider whether or not grants should be given. Is the House clear on this point? I think it is most essential that we should be.
Noble Lords: That is right. Yes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, returning to the original argument, it was said, for example that all this vast giving over the whole of London is so desirable and so impressive, but it should be appreciated that many London boroughs give directly themselves and they like to give directly for that part of a particular voluntary organisation which operates within their borough. The Citizens' Advice Bureau was quoted. I know very well that local boroughs give

155
to their local Citizens' Advice Bureau. Indeed in that same advertisement that was quoted of 200 organisations all over London, right at the top of the list was Age Concern—I suppose it was top of the list because it is alphabetically high on the list—which is funded directly by almost every borough in the whole of London. Mr. Brian Rix wrote complaining that the amount of funding that they were getting was nothing compared with the funds they were raising, and yet they were listed in that list that would be at risk.
There has been a great deal of alarm created about voluntary organisations which might lose out, and I think there are two points here. I must draw attention to the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips that of course the LCC had done all this in the past. It should be appreciated that the LCC covered only the former inner London area and it has certainly never covered the whole of London which is the considerably enlarged area of Greater London. The LCC also in its day was a social services authority, but the Greater London Council is not.
That leads me on to another point—that if the amendment were passed the person on whom the responsibility for all this would fall is the Secretary of State, not of the Department of Health and Social Security, who might be appropriate to a social services subject, but of the Department of the Environment. I do not consider that he is a suitable or appropriate person. Likewise, I do not think it appropriate that he would do that until a lead borough appeared. That might be forever. There is no time limit on how long it would take before a lead borough appeared.
So I think that, although the Secretary of State for the Environment has had a responsibility under urban aid for ethnic minority schemes—and I believe that that work has been carried out very well and the ethnic minorities have been helped through those schemes—those schemes will continue. There is not to be any change and the local boroughs will apply directly for those schemes.
In the time that I served on the London Boroughs Social Services Committee, we found that on an overall London basis there were only the drug treatment scheme and alcohol scheme that were widespread, rather than particularised to the boroughs, and it is true that most boroughs prefer to fund directly the operations in their own areas, rather than just have a piece of a big scheme. But of course when there is a need for something big everyone joins together and agrees to fund it on a larger scale. I do not think it is necessarily good that everything is done on a county-wide basis and, during this debate, though not in the terms of the amendment itself, we have had a lot of emphasis on creating everything on a countywide basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that the voluntary organisations are cost-effective and I, too, consider that they are. I think that they are cost-effective and splendid in what they do, but I do not think that this amendment is the way to deal with the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, introduced a slight red herring by suggesting that child care provision should be on an overall basis, and of course child care provision has always been very much a local issue and a local social services responsibility.
156
But it should be appreciated that the GLC funding that has been given to schemes, particularly in the last few years, has been precepted from the boroughs at such a heavy rate that it has taken away quite a lot of money which the boroughs might otherwise have been able to give themselves. I am hoping that after this Bill goes through they will have more funds again and be able to do something.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, remarked on how hard it is for an organisation to believe that it is about to be helped. I have certainly seen that directly myself at County Hall, where voluntary organisations have been told that they will be getting a high priority and are likely to get the money. Then the whole assessment process has taken so long and in the end, some six months or a year later, they have been told that they will get nothing. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made the point that, if you think you are going to get money, you believe it is there and you base everything on that. If you are then told that the money is not there, it is very hard indeed. I have seen cases like that at the Greater London Council.
I should like to see some way of ensuring that these boroughs get together to form a scheme, but I do not think the answer is to have it fall back on the Secretary of State. I am opposed to centralising this whole social services and voluntary organisation matter, which I think will happen. It will take away the autonomous control that voluntary organisations have now over their own affairs. So I think that, although this amendment looks attractive, it is not practical. I shall not support it.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have listened to the exchange very carefully and I am somewhat puzzled because, basically, one has great sympathy with the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that if the amendment was passed every voluntary organisation had to have some part of it. I do not find that in the amendment.
As I read Clause 48, subsection (3) is very important. If a scheme is put forward which the majority of the councils do not like, then it does not qualify and no money is needed. So it is a non sequitur to say that this makes it necessary for every scheme to get something. I do not think it does. The advantage of subsection (3) is that it makes it clear that something must be done if a majority of the constituent councils want it to go forward. So I am not worried about that.
The real question that arises is: do we trust entirely the goodwill of one and all, or do we want to insist that these various schemes at least come forward for consideration? The noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, say, "Trust". I am afraid I think that the alternative is a better line; namely, that the schemes have to be put forward but they do not necessarily have to happen. For that reason, if I have understood it aright, I support this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I briefly intervene and support what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has just said? I am making a suggestion, hoping that the Minister will find it of assistance following that very interesting and helpful speech. I think it is fair to

157
say that, in spite of their great experience in political matters at national and local level, the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have gone much too far in their criticisms of Amendment No. 80B. I should just like for a moment to bring your Lordships' attention back to the amendment in the context of the Bill.
The amendment is to substitute the word "shall" for "may" and therefore to make Clause 48 mandatory. All that Clause 48 will be doing with the word "shall" substituted for "may", making that clause mandatory, is to impose a duty for a scheme to be drawn up. What for, my Lords? It is for the making of grants to eligible voluntary organisations. That seems to be the fundamental point. Should it be a duty to draw up a scheme instead of leaving it, as it were, in the air?
I do not think that the question of trust arises. It is not a question of trusting these boroughs and these individual parts of what was Greater London. It is not a question of doubting the Government's view about the purpose of this Bill and it is not, in any way, diminishing that view. It merely makes it a duty of somebody, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked who that somebody was. If he is making a complaint in that direction, he is against Clause 48 as it stands, but I may have misunderstood him. However, there will be a duty to have a scheme to make grants for eligible voluntary organisations.
The eligible voluntary organisations are defined in subsection (10) and the fact that there is that definition will, I am sure, help the noble Lord, Lord Renton—in the difficulty in which he finds himself—to understand that it does not follow that, if a duty is imposed to have a scheme of this kind, all those 250 people will get something out of it, and therefore the amounts of money that will be paid to those organisations in which he declared an interest will be diluted. This is because "eligible voluntary organisations" are defined as follows:
"means, in relation to Greater London or a metropolitan county, a voluntary organisation whose activities will directly or indirectly benefit"—
what shall these organisations benefit?—
"either the whole of Greater London or that county or any part of it extending beyond the area of any particular constituent council".
There have been exchanges across the Floor of the House, and I am not going to be drawn into any acrid atmosphere of party controversy. I am merely asking your Lordships to look at the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, "Make it a duty under Clause 48 for a scheme to be drawn up". For whom—for voluntary organisations which are eligible. The clause defines the eligibility of those voluntary organisations. They can decide later on what amounts of money, if any are available, should be paid to the organisations.
Therefore, I should like to support not only what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, but also the submissions of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Perhaps I may express the hope that the inadequate words which I have uttered will enable the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, with all her great experience on the Greater London Council, who confessed when she first read this amendment that she was in favour of it, to swing back and support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who sits behind her in this House.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister replies, can he answer the question about the two-thirds? I have been trying to work out what Clause 48(3) means. It says:
"The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils".
That is how I read it. It may be that I have read it incorrectly. Will the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, clarify that issue?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if anybody else wishes to speak then perhaps, during their speech, the noble Baroness will look at subsection (7).
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister mean that there are two different interpretations, which will cause a difficulty?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it does not look as though there is anybody else, and so the noble Baroness will lose very little if she does not listen to my speech. But I shall now relieve her of the need to read that passage anyway. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes very ably explained, there are two duties and two stages. The first stage is setting up the scheme. If the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, will look at page 31, line 5, she will find subsection (7) of Clause 48, which says:
"A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them".
That is the starting point.
It is confusing because of the legislative convention that it does not come at the beginning of the clause; but the beginning of the clause describes the scheme and the subsection the noble Baroness quoted from page 30 describes what happens when the scheme is up and running and members of the scheme are discussing what to spend their money on. If a majority of the councils in an area—a plain and straightforward majority—decide that there shall be a scheme, there will be a scheme; and, what is more, the scheme will be binding on those constituent councils of the area which are in the minority. So there is a scheme and it is up and running. They have decided, and it has the force of law.
They then meet and they say, "How much are we going to give to water sports? What do we think we ought to give as a priority to the ethnic minorities? What about anything else that they want?" They debate that. Eventually, they have to come to a decision. If the decision is not arrived at naturally by consensus, then there is a vote. That vote is decided not on a simple majority but on the weighted or at least the two-thirds majority specified in subsection (3).
I hope I have made this clear to the noble Baroness and to her noble friend on the Front Bench in front of her, because it is crucial to our understanding of how the provision works. There must be a scheme if more authorities than half want there to be a scheme. The minority will be unwilling constituents of that scheme; but being unwilling constituents of it they ought to be protected in some way from having their money filched from them compulsorily for causes of which

159
they do not approve and spent without their approval. There is the added protection at that stage of a larger majority. We are going to debate the extent of that larger majority on a later amendment, so I shall not dilate on it now. All that is a parenthetical introduction.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend carries on to another point, can he explain the last part of subsection (7), which says:
"but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent"?
Does that mean it can opt out before it starts?
Lord Elton: Not opt out, my Lords, but opt out of being the lead council. This is a very crucial point which I shall be addressing shortly if my noble friend will bear with me.
I had intended to start, and I shall now start, as it were, again, by saying that I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Renton as to the sentiments behind the amendment. The spirit of the amendment is something of which I entirely approve. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has so cogently said in his speech. We do all want to see the same thing, and that same thing is a healthy and well-funded voluntary sector. I hope I do not again have to establish Her Majesty's Government's credentials in this. They lie in part, I should say—I should say it to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—in Amendment No. 81, to which he referred and to which I shall come later. I should tell him that that is the amendment which makes it possible to set up the trust for London, which is a little more than the peripheral function which he suggested it might be; but it also meets the noble Lord's concern that the opportunity should be placed in the Bill for similar trusts to be set up in the metropolitan areas.
I would now say—and this is where we have to start working through what the Bill says and what my noble friend would like it to say—that I have spent many happy hours (and some, I regret, less happy hours) in this Chamber debating the question of whether the word "may" or the word "shall" should be in a statute, and quite a number of them in the agreeable company of my noble friend behind me. I am sorry that I cannot address her and the House simultaneously; I suppose I ought to be discourteous to the minority. There is a difference between the words, and on this occasion we are all clear what it is.
Clause 48 provides an opportunity for setting up a joint co-operative scheme for the London boroughs to give grants to voluntary bodies and for the districts to do the same. By proposing in Amendment No. 80B to change the wording of the clause, my noble friend wishes to convert a possibility into a certainty. I am still with her and I am still with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and with everybody else in your Lordships' House. But not for long, because my noble friend's Amendment No. 80C, I should add, by an equally small piece of surgery, seeks to ensure that that certainty extends to every place affected by the Bill and is in effect consequential upon it.
Let us look at the first amendment on its own and study its effect. First, let us be quite clear that what my noble friend wants to happen is not just the formation
160
of a co-operative group but the formation of the group as described in the rest of the clause as drafted. It will be made up, as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), of the constituent councils of the area in question—boroughs in London and districts elsewhere. There is no problem in that. In subsection (2) we come to the way the co-operation is to be organised. The essential features of this are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). In paragraph (a) we see that the actual paying of the grants is to be,
"by one of the constituent councils designated for that purpose by the scheme".
This is the function in discharge of the decision by the two-thirds majority of which we spoke.
Under paragraph (b) we find that it is to collect the contributions of the other members of the scheme on the authority of that two-thirds majority and at a rate in proportion to their respective populations. The designated council for the scheme is what in ordinary conversation we call the lead council, and it is to the appointment of that council rather than to its work that I ask your Lordships to pay close attention. Clearly, without a lead or designated council no scheme can work. Equally clearly, there can be no question of designating a council against its will; that would not work, either.
4.30 p.m.
I come to the point which my noble friend Lord Plummer drew to your Lordships' attention. Both considerations must therefore be reflected in the Bill—and they are. Subsection (2), which arranges for the designation, makes that designation mandatory by using my noble friend's favourite word "shall" in line 18. Subsection (7) provides, in lines 7 and 8 on page 31 of the Bill, that,
"a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent".
I return to my noble friend's first proposal: to make the whole scheme mandatory, by changing the word "may" to the word "shall" at the head of the clause, in subsection (1), at line 12. The effect of this amendment is to create a duty; a duty accurately seen by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. He did not say that, as a duty on all the councils in the group, it is in conflict with the right given to each member of the group.
Amendment No. 80B would create a duty to create a scheme. Subsection (2) says that the scheme must have a lead council, and subsection (7) says that every council in the scheme has a right to refuse designation. Both subsections are, I believe your Lordships would agree in all honesty, essential to the clause for reasons not of convenience but of necessity. The effect of my noble friend's amendment is entirely unenforceable. That is something which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, would recognise as bad constitutional practice, because it makes a mockery of the law.
More cogently, perhaps, it fails also to have the effect which my noble friend is seeking. It would still leave it entirely open as to whether or not any abolition area would have a scheme. If a scheme made up only of reluctant members actually existed as a result of the amendment, there would be no duty on

161
them to provide sufficient money or indeed any money at all for the scheme to spend. There is no reason to suppose that if the member councils were there under compulsion and against their will, they would wish to do under compulsion what they had refused to do voluntarily; but there is no compulsion in the Bill for them to contribute.
It seems to me that the legislative objections to what is proposed in my noble friend's amendment are unanswerable. It appears that my noble friend has recognised the practical weaknesses of her amendment; and here I move on to the second leg of her argument. My noble friend has recognised that her proposal may fail, because she has provided in Amendments Nos. 80F and 80H for that failure. She said so. If the scheme, whether voluntary or mandatory, were to fail, my noble friend wants simply to insert my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the gap which it has left. That caused me to take a rather sharp intake of breath when I read it.
The practicalities of setting up all that are rather obscure because the role of the Secretary of State depends on the operation of my noble friend's first amendment and that, as we have seen, is fatally flawed. But let us assume for a moment that it is fatally flawed; where would that leave us? It would leave us with a group of councils reluctantly brought together, and none of them with the slightest intention of becoming the lead council. What must my right honourable friend then do? He must step in and collect money from the participating councils if they will contribute it, and distribute it if there is an agreed scheme.
At this point I pause to ask this question: what money from participating councils? If the councils are in the scheme against their will, only because they have to be, and if there is no duty to contribute, will they contribute at all? Charity under duress is one thing, but this is another. I believe that what my noble friend proposes would have exactly the opposite effect to what she wishes and that it would actually reduce the amount of money available for the purposes she has in mind. That is not just because the members of the scheme would be members under compulsion. It is also because what money they contributed would be going for distribution not to the officials of a neighbouring and known local authority but to officials of the Department of the Environment.
I invite your Lordships to think that through. The constituent councils would meet, perhaps quarterly or monthly, to preside over the scheme and establish a central policy. But it is surely going to be the lead council, or in this case an official of the Department of the Environment, who would have to be satisfied on detailed questions and take everyday decisions. This must be a job for local authorities to do. I sympathise with my noble friend in her dilemma, for dilemma it is. She wishes that something should be done and she wishes it to be done voluntarily; yet her wish to ensure that it happens is in contradiction to her wish that it should be voluntary. But the real point of decision, as I may have shown, is not the setting up of a scheme, but the payment into it of money.
If my noble friend wishes to be absolutely certain that the money is given, it is no use just having a
162
scheme. One has to be certain that the money is there for the scheme to administer. Otherwise, one will have a talking shop with no effect. It is that which must be compulsory. In effect, we shall find ourselves talking not about a voluntary scheme, but about taxation. The mandatory scheme my noble friend should like to see would be useless without funds, and so would be the Secretary of State if no council volunteered to take the lead. We should then have an officer of central Government distributing what money there was, collected on the instructions of central Government. That would work, but it would be the nationalisation and bureaucratisation of something that surely must lie very close to the hearts of both democracy and the voluntary movement.
I repeat that this must be a job for the local authorities—and they can and they will do it. Look at the case of London; they have started already. Look at the case of Bradford; they want to start. Look at the vast scale of local authority involvement in every aspect of public welfare already. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, caught my mention of Bradford. I should have paused there, because he asked about this. We have received a letter from Bradford saying that they should like to be the lead authority in their area, which is good news.
Lord Ennals: Very good news, my Lords.
Lord Elton: To suggest that local authorities, involved in every aspect of public welfare as they already are, should now withdraw, that funds will dry up, and that schemes will wither on the bough is not merely to be pessimistic but is to fly in the face of all our collective experience. If a nudge is needed to get this going, your Lordships will find that we have supplied it in Amendment No. 84ZB. The preparatory committees are empowered to give such a nudge.
I do not want to speak at length to yet another amendment, but I will tell your Lordships that I have tabled Amendment No. 84ZB to Clause 94, and that Clause 94 is the part of the Bill which establishes statutory joint committees to prepare for abolition. Those committees must be established by September. If your Lordships accept my amendment, it will require the districts and boroughs to consider setting up a scheme as part of the preparations for abolition. As the Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Service put it to me, that would mean that the district councils could not just sit back and do nothing. It would give the voluntary organisations in each metropolitan county council area a better chance of being able to lobby the councillors concerned. That is what I have been striving to achieve. I repeat that it is not for central Government to decide on whether or not a boys' club in Salford should have a new cricket net; that would be centralism gone mad.
I cannot see district councillors happily voting ratepayers' money for distribution by the man from Marsham Street. I ask my noble friend to think about that again most seriously if she really wants, as I know she does, to help the voluntary movement to prosper. That is something we, the Government, want just as much as do your Lordships and just as much as does my noble friend. We have proved that by means which I will not recapitulate. I have made my point. I am as

163
anxious as are your Lordships to see that this works and that it works well. But I believe that, with the very best of intentions, my noble friend has actually devised a means of seeing that it will not work.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Renton spoke about eligible voluntary organisations, but under the Bill it is perfectly possible for those voluntary organisations which are not eligible not to receive a grant. Just because somebody applies and because they had a grant before does not mean they must have a grant in the future.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who has his name to this amendment. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls speaks rather more from his personal faith than from facts. I do not think that he gave facts to support his faith, but perhaps that is what faith is all about. I am not quite sure. The right reverend Prelate may be able to help me on that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his help. I come to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I somehow think that we have lost something in the debate. All the time we have been concentrating on the local authorities but nobody has thought about the position of the voluntary organisations. The reason why a number of us asked for the amendment is not that money should be given. We are not concerned about the money at this stage. We are concerned to have a basis of discussion. If the local authorities do not have a scheme to present and discuss with one another, they have nothing to talk to anyone about. If there is no scheme, there is nothing for them to start on and to talk about. That is why I mentioned cricket. It is like having a bowler but no wicket the other end: there will be nothing for the voluntary organisations to negotiate on.
I feel strongly about the amendment. It is necessary for there to be a basis of discussion between the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. That is all the amendment is about. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for understanding. Perhaps I did not make it clear, and he had the wit perhaps to see beyond my lack of clarity. I am grateful to him.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said a number of extraordinary things which contradicted each other. At one stage she said that local authorities preferred to give money in their own areas. That is just what we are saying. They prefer to give money in their own areas and a number of them do not look countywide. I have written down what she said, and I think that she demolished her case with that statement.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I come now to the Minister. The thing about him is that he is so brilliant and absolutely marvellous at the Dispatch Box that he completely reduces me to a low IQ. He scatters so much gold dust all over the place that I feel practically lost, but I come back to what he actually said. He went on to talk about money. There is no question of the Department of the Environment, or whichever other Ministry is designated if no authority takes over and becomes the lead authority,
164
dealing with money. The amendment simply asks that there shall be a scheme.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend will correct me, but I think that her amendment says that the Secretary of State is to take on all the functions of the lead authority, and the functions of the lead authority are to take and distribute the money. It is inescapable. But it is not gold dust or anything else that I am scattering in front of my noble friend. I am explaining that her amendment will not work and will damage the voluntary organisations. It is not a political issue. We all want the same thing, but her amendment will have exactly the opposite effect to what she wants.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as I say, I had intended this to be a way to get the local authorities to come together to make a scheme so that it could be a basis for discussion. It may be that the second part of the amendment is slightly defective, as my noble friend says. I am not quite sure whether at Report stage I am allowed to say this, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to take the amendment away and reconsider it so that we can talk about the second part at Third Reading. My worry is that the voluntary organisations will not have a basis for discussion, and it is that which is so important.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, I am in a difficulty. My noble friend now says that her amendment is intended to do something which was not apparent from reading the Marshalled List. From reading the amendment on the Marshalled List I worked out what her intentions were in the way that I have recounted at some length to your Lordships. I saw what the effects of the amendment were. My noble friend wants a different amendment. All I can say at this stage is that I do not think that this amendment is acceptable to your Lordships because it will be so very damaging for the voluntary movement. I am always ready to listen to my noble friend between stages. If she has something further to add between now and Third Reading of course I shall listen to that. But I would not want to mislead your Lordships into thinking that I was in any way friendly to something which I see as fundamentally harmful to the objects which we are all trying to pursue.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, on a point of clarification, when the noble Lord says "this amendment", what amendment is he talking about? Is he talking about Amendment No. 80B or Amendment No. 80H?—because we are not talking about Amendment No. 80H at the present time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was speaking to Amendment No. 80B, as was my noble friend, and Amendment No. 80H was being discussed with it. Amendment No. 80B by itself would leave—my Lords, I must not make all these speeches. I have said enough.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I really am in some difficulty. I do not wish to be discourteous to your Lordships' House. We have had a long and interesting debate. I have not been convinced by the alternative arguments. I admit that possibly part of the

165
amendment may be defective, but the main issue, I think, stands. I should have liked to withdraw the amendment with a view to talking to the Minister before the next stage, but I think that he has made it clear that he is not prepared to debate or to alter anything. It is with regret and with some sorrow, but nevertheless with realism, that I ask your Lordships to decide on the amendment.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 150.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Heycock, L.

Alport, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Amherst, E.

Howie of Troon, L

Ardwick, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Attlee, E.

Ingleby, V.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacobson, L.

Banks, L.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein, L.

Kearton, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

McCarthy, L.

Caradon, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Chitnis, L.

Melchett, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milford, L.

Collison, L.

Milverton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mishcon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molson, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Perth, E.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Plant, L.

Ezra, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Porritt, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Raglan, L.

Fitt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Roberthall, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gray, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

166

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stone, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strauss, L.

Willis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Langside, L

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L

Thurlow, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Todd, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ingrow, L.

Allerton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Arran, E.

Kilmany, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Bauer, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kintore, E.

Bellwin, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berkeley, B.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lothian, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Coleraine, L.

Melville, V.

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cowley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Moyne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

De La Warr, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L

Denning, L.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Quinton, L.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rugby, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Glanusk, L.

Savile, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gowrie, E.

Sharples, B.

Grafton, D.

Sherfield, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Southborough, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stockton, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Terrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

167

Teynham, L.

Vickers, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Vinson, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Torphichen, L.

Westbury, L.

Townshend, M.

Windlesham, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wynford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Trumpington, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Tryon, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
[Amendment No. 80C not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 80D:
Page 30, line 26, at end insert—
("and
(c) for the constituent councils annually to review the social needs of the inhabitants of the area covered by the scheme.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple, modest but important amendment. It is modest because it is not trying to create a new authority or to impose a duty on boroughs and districts to establish a grant-making scheme. However, it is important because it seeks to ensure that where they do make such a scheme they take the London-wide or countywide social needs of the inhabitants into account and obtain an overall perception of the problems and establish a coherent policy of grant-making, which is something that is lacking under Clause 48 as it stands.
The voluntary organisations, among them very respectable and responsible bodies like the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the London Voluntary Service Council and the London Churches Group, all feel that it is essential that this duty to review social needs annually be written into the Bill. The Minister's announcements at Committee about funding were most welcome. However, they do nothing to remedy this fundamental weakness that there is no duty to set a policy written into the Bill. It is something that has worried the voluntary organisations from the very beginning. Thus it is not as though they were greedily making fresh demands after the Minister has made concessions.
Your Lordships are great experts on voluntary work and voluntary organisations. We have already discussed this subject at length, both during the Committee stage on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hayter and on the previous amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Thus I shall try not to go over too much of the same ground again. I think your Lordships will agree that the individual boroughs vary enormously and that the same is true of the districts and the metropolitan counties. They have different needs, different outlooks and a great difference in wealth. Local elected councillors inevitably see their local needs as first priority, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has made very clear. It is quite right that they should do this because that is what they were elected to look after.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], mentioned the tunnel vision effect. Experience has shown that
168
individual boroughs find it very difficult to co-operate voluntarily and take a perspective that transcends their own particular boundaries and needs. However, we must remember that this is precisely what they have to do here. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, reminded us, Clause 48 (10) clearly states that we are dealing with the voluntary organisations whose activities are either London-wide, county-wide, or extend beyond one single borough or one single district.
I am going to confine myself to a few examples mainly from the field of disablement to illustrate why it is so important that the constituent councils adopt this wider perspective. I am sure that noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment will cover various other apsects. We have often discussed London Dial-a-Ride—that transport scheme for disabled people who are too disabled to use conventional public transport. Similar schemes in the metropolitan counties face an uncertain future after abolition of the MCCs. Take Tyne and Wear. The county is responsible for funding two Dial-a-Ride schemes, one for Newcastle and Gateshead which is cross-boundary, the other just for north Tyneside. If no collective scheme is established, Dial-a-Ride's future is at risk since the individual districts are unlikely to accept responsibility for funding.
Even if such a scheme does emerge, Dial-a-Ride could have a big problem in getting the two-thirds majority approval since it only covers three out of the five districts. In fact, two-thirds of five is apparently four, I am horrified to learn. Admittedly there is a later amendment that would perhaps remedy this. It is vital to preserve this scheme that has changed the lives of so many disabled people. Some of them had literally not been out of the house for years until this scheme came into being. The amendment would ensure that a county-wide approach was adopted.
The Ring-a-Ride scheme, funded by the West Midlands County Council, is reckoned to be one of the best in the country. It has received many compliments from Ministers and civil servants. Attempts to link the Birmingham scheme with the Solihull scheme may be thwarted owing to the parochial interests of the districts, to the disadvantage of disabled travellers. Indeed the future of the whole Ring-a-Ride scheme is uncertain, since the districts are not obliged to establish a grant-giving scheme under Clause 48. This amendment would ensure that if, and only if, such a scheme was set up it would have to address itself to the social needs of the whole county area.
I have one more example from a totally different field. West Yorkshire County Council has had a policy of helping cross-district matters particularly concerned with the arts, recreation and the environment. It has worked with the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers to refurbish canals which go through at least two districts and into adjoining counties, a very valuable achievement. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that it would have been difficult for any one district to undertake such a wide-scale initiative on its own. "Social needs" is a deliberately broad term. It ensures flexibility—something that the Government are usually in favour of. What may constitute a social need in one area will not necessarily be seen as such in

169
another area. This amendment does not prejudge the issue. It is for the boroughs and districts to decide what is important, what constitutes a social need and what their priorities are.
I hope very much that the Minister will be able to agree to the amendment or, if not, that he can give me an indication that he will introduce one that has the same effect, maybe by a different means, at Third Reading. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, recognises the need to establish a policy on priorities. At Committee stage on 20th of May, at col. 21 of Hansard, he said that as the Bill stands the councils operating a scheme
"will of course be able to set the policy under which the collective grant giving is done. There can be no doubt that there must be a clear set of policy guidelines and of priorities".
If the Minister accepts this amendment the councils will not only be able to set the policy: they will be required to do so. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment actually enhances the Bill. As Clause 48 stands, the councils are required to act regionally. It seems only logical that they should also be required to think regionally. This amendment would ensure precisely that. I beg to move.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I hope that I can claim a certain amount of consistency in the passage of this Bill. To that end, I have even put down my name to an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord the Minister. I have been trying, with the help of others, to improve the organisational aspects. I have done so with little success so far. But, having put my name to an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord the Minister—I think that we may have some success there—I also have some hope that he will be sympathetic about this amendment.
It may be remembered by the House that when the Committee turned its attention to voluntary organisations I stressed, or tried to stress, that nowhere in the Bill was there any provision requiring countywide or London-wide overview of need. That is what we are talking about in this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), made the same point in the same debate. So we return to this point today, remembering two things. At least I do. One is that many of your Lordships are mixed up with charities and therefore know a lot about their workings. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said, we know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, feels that there should be a clear set of policy guidelines and priorities. So this is not, not, not political.
We do not seek any alteration in setting up the constituent councils. Of course, like the Irishman who was asked to give directions to another place and who said that he would not have started from there, that could be true of us. But we are keeping quiet about it today. All that we want to ensure is that these councils, once a year, think about the needs of their new area.
I should like to illustrate the point. For 18 years I was chairman of the King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. At regular intervals, we discussed projects that had not been put to us but which we felt should be granted money. I remember a long time ago there were
170
dreadful feeding arrangements in mental hospitals. We tackled that by redesigning the kitchens and setting up a dieticians' school. Again, when we discovered that there were few opportunities for doctors who were general practitioners to meet doctors in hospitals, we had built hospital centres. These became so obviously popular that their existence is now almost common practice in a big hospital.
Lastly, when we had, in our opinion, to celebrate the Queen's Silver Jubilee, we looked at the worst hospitals in London. We chose 10 of them. In each, we chose one ward and "spivved" it up—refurbished, I think, is the American phrase. That had two advantages. First, the nurses who worked so belovedly in these appalling places felt that they were not forgotten; secondly, we could show people that, with a little paint, a little furniture and a little imagination, they could do the same. Indeed, the recently published annual report of the fund in talking of innovative or pilot projects, says that in addition to grants to hospitals, it also chooses, at regular intervals, where, when and how it can help the vast complex of health-related activities.
So that is the background. Why, it may be asked, do we seek to enforce this principle here in the Bill? I appeal to people who are mixed up with charities. But there is a great difference. Instead of like-minded people coming together in a field of common interest—the hallmark of so many charities—these council members come from different areas, and different backgrounds and have different charitable instincts. All that is very understandable and by no means reprehensible. It is, however, the needs of these newly defined areas which are, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, paramount. I beg your Lordships to think of this amendment not as party political but as charity practical. I have much pleasure in com mending it to you.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment to which I have put my name. Although only two London boroughs come within my diocese, I know something of the diversity of London and of the great inequality of problems and of wealth within different areas of Greater London. As other noble Lords have made clear, the same is also true of the six metropolitan counties. Like London, all have areas that experience high unemployment, inner city deprivation and their related social tensions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has already suggested this afternoon, inevitably local elected councillors have as their first priority the needs of their locality. It is right that that should be so, for that is where their accountability lies. However, the work of the voluntary organisations does not always fit neatly within borough boundaries, and if the partnership of the voluntary and statutory bodies is to be maintained, as on all sides of the House we are agreed it must be, then individual boroughs will need to be helped to take a perspective which transcends their own particular boundaries and needs.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that this amendment fits in with the strategy that responsibility stays with the local tier authorities. I might even be so bold as to say that it is designed not to raise the

171
temperature on the Privy Counsellors Bench—of which there is no danger at the moment! However, it does provide for an annual review of the social needs of an area. This should enable areas of need to be identified, grant-aid to be assessed, and the whole process to be regularly monitored and adjusted as necessary.
In considering this amendment, I hope that the Minister will take account of the complexity and the variety of the voluntary sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, indicated in the debate on the last amendment, voluntary services do not develop in a vacuum. They develop within a framework that sets out coherent policies and priorities to meet needs which are known. I do not think that it will be enough simply to respond favourably to those organisations which are able to present their cases effectively or which are able to gain the support of the necessary numbers of politically-divided boroughs. In my judgment what is important is that there should be a means of providing some way of establishing the areas of greatest need. Given the shortage of financial resources, it will be essential that the funding of the voluntary sector is backed by a coherent policy and a knowledge and understanding of the real needs of a whole area. For all these reasons I support the kind of annual review which this amendment would require.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I had intended to speak in support of this amendment, but I was called away and therefore I shall now be very brief. I support the spirit of this amendment because it is wholly consistent with a single tier administration and the principles of this Bill; it can only do good and could not conceivably do any harm. There is no great problem involved which could raise the temperature of anyone on any Bench. I am not concerned with drafting. I am concerned with the spirit of this amendment, which is clearly right. I support the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the universal support which this amendment has received, perhaps additional support is a matter of surplusage. Nevertheless I should like to speak to the amendment. To my right honourable friends and my friends on this side of the House it seems that this is a valuable proposal. Without a provision of the kind suggested—that is, an annual review of the social needs of the inhabitants of the relevant area as a whole—the councillors in the separate local authorities which are concerned could well overlook something. Without some special provision of this kind, they may not be informed about the special needs of particular areas covered by the scheme. For instance, when one considers the social problems of London, that is not surprising. London has 500,000 unemployed, 200,000 registered disabled, and 500,000 houses in serious disrepair. But it is also a magnet that draws to it a disproportionate number of people, especially the young, who come in the hope of finding a job, shelter, or some kind of support.
5.15 p.m.
These problems are widely spread over the London area in its 33 local authorities. As other speakers have
172
said, it is an area of great diversity. Croydon and Bromley are different worlds from my old constituency—Newham—and Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Lambeth. They have a different scene and different problems. The sad fact is that a disproportionate number of the homeless and the unemployed tend to be found in the most impoverished areas, which will therefore need especial support from such a scheme as the Bill contemplates. The much vaunted south-east area of our country also has dark areas of great distress.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and others have said, not unnaturally elected councillors give first priority to what their own constituents want. For instance, they want to keep down the rates as much as possible. To say that they suffer from tunnel vision is not being offensive to them; it is part of human nature that they should react in that way. Nevertheless, the local scene could well limit their horizon if they do not look beyond it.
They are far more likely to do that, especially during a period when even well off boroughs and councils are under financial stress and control, if they are unaware of the distress just around the corner. The Government's strategy in this, as in other aspects of the provision of services, is to pass the buck to the local councillors and to shed overall Government responsibility.
As a result, at present there is considerable gloom and despondency among voluntary organisations, especially those helping the ethnic minorities, which are fearful that their work and the needs with which they endeavour to deal will be neglected. I would have identified a number of the organisations which are deeply concerned in this way, but all of us will have received communications about them. However, what is inevitable is that more services and expenditure will be needed in some areas than in others. We think that reviews of the needs of the whole area covered by these schemes will be sensible and invaluable if sensible and effective policies, of the kind which the noble Lord the Minister has commended as necessary, are to be developed to deal with the needs of the inhabitants of the area as a whole. An annual review would expose the needs. This is a modest and useful amendment and I trust that it will not be met with stonewall opposition.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I intervene very briefly with two queries. Like other noble Lords, I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but I very much wonder why it is necessary. From the very beginning of discussions on this Bill we have paid lip service, and we have hoped that local authorities will be able to carry out the work that we are now giving to them. In this amendment especially, I feel that it is difficult suddenly to say, "I don't think that they will be capable of finding out what other voluntary organisations need help".
Surely if we are asking them to look around and find out what other voluntary organisations need help, that will be at a time when the grant that they have already given to some voluntary organisations comes to an end. I should like to know from the Minister for how long he envisages—I do not know whether he can speak for the local authorities concerned—the grants being made.

173
Those of us who have to deal with national voluntary bodies and local bodies know that the grants vary enormously from annual to perhaps five-yearly grants. If a grant is given by a local authority for five years, then I would perhaps agree with the necessity for the amendment. But if, as I suppose, it is likely to be given annually and therefore reviewed annually, then surely the local authority members can be trusted to see that their grant is being used wisely and that their money cannot be used in a better way. The purpose of my intervention is to ask the Minister whether he can tell us for how long the grants are likely to be given.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said that this amendment was designed to cool the Privy Council Bench, and it appears to have cooled it right down to zero. It has been successful at least in that.
When I came into this Chamber with this amendment before me my mood was somewhat like that of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, in that I wondered whether it was not superfluous. One does not want to put superfluity into legislation. I was reflecting that we had always taken the view that it would be only sensible for the boroughs and districts to make decisions on grant-giving against the background of a perceived set of priorities, and we believe that that is what the councils would anyway do. It is part of good local government practice, and local government authorities provide a wide range of services. They are not required at present by the legislation under which they now operate in every case to review the need for those services. It is assumed that they will.
If the GLC is not required to take a view of London's needs each year before giving grants, why, I wondered, was it necessary for the boroughs to do so? But I have listened carefully to this debate and it begins to sway me to an opposite view. The GLC, for example, is a single authority and it is natural that its committee and departments should look at problems from the point of view of the whole of the area for which they are concerned. That will not necessarily be the case for the constituent successor authorities and it may need some sort of provision to make sure that good local authority practice continues in this way.
I am not happy with the way in which the noble Baroness has apparently, whether intentionally or not, drafted an amendment which, as I read it, means that each constituent authority will have the duty of reviewing the needs of the whole of the area. I think she will see that that is the effect. I am advised that that is so, and I do not suppose it is what she wants. The review of the area ought to be taken centrally rather than by individual boroughs and districts. I notice that she nods her head. So far we are together, I am glad to see.
I take it that what the noble Baroness wants—and it is a proper thing to want—is that in working the schemes the councils shall have regard to the needs of the whole area. The councils collectively shall be informed about, and responsive to, the social needs of the whole area. I take it that that is what she wants, and that is something in which I should be at one with her.
174
I do not think it can be achieved in precisely this way. I should want to take a view and consult with colleagues as to whether an annual review is the way to do it. If the noble Baroness will bear with me between now and Report—or, rather, I mean Third Reading; it is such a long Bill that we ought almost to say Second Reading because it is the second time around. If the noble Baroness will stay her hand until Third Reading, I shall see whether there is a mechanism by which we can get her concern recognised and written into the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment and those who put their names to it and also the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that it can only do good and cannot conceivably do any harm. I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I agree with what he said about the collective view of the constituent councils. The noble Lord has offered me something quite considerable. On the understanding that I might come back at Third Reading if the noble Lord does not manage to get around this difficulty, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 80CB:
Page 30, line 30, after ("councils") insert ("in Greater London and three-fifths in the Metropolitan Counties").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 80CB. I am delighted to see that the so-called Privy Counsellors' Bench remains at zero occupancy. Perhaps the temperature may remain low and the Minister may give a sufficiently favourable answer for me to be able to withdraw this amendment as the noble Baroness has just withdrawn her amendment. I should say at the outset that I think this amendment is defective, in that there should be a consequential amendment in subsection (12), but I do not think that that affects the validity of my submission.
This amendment is designed to have the effect of requiring approval of at least three-fifths of the constituent councils in metropolitan counties while leaving the majority of two-thirds of constituency councils in Greater London. This is a small but singnificant amendment made necessary by the huge discrepancy in size as between Greater London and the metropolitan counties. Here I should like to quote words from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on Monday, 19th June, at col. 1043:
"I accept that in London things are different from the way they are in metropolitan counties … London has more than three times as many local councils as the biggest metropolitan council, and no less than eight times as many as the smallest … I am not wholly persuaded, therefore, that we need to make the same arrangements for the metropolitan counties as those I am about to propose".
A good use of his words is to illustrate the effect of the discrepancy of size by reference to the three smallest of the metropolitan counties, or rather the three metropolitan counties with the smallest number of districts, and they are West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear.
In these three, the two-thirds majority means agreement between four out of five districts. The effect

175
is that one black ball excludes. All but one must agree. This is due to the rounding up factor. Here we have a discrepancy as between Greater London, where it is two-thirds, and the smaller of the metropolitan counties, where it is 80 per cent., or four-fifths.
I have given that example of the metropolitan counties with the smallest number of districts. Let us go to the other extreme, the metropolitan county with the largest number of districts, which I take to be Greater Manchester. There the two-thirds majority requires seven out of 10 districts. That is a 70 per cent. majority instead of two-thirds. It cannot have been the intention of this seemingly even-handed figure of two-thirds that it should in fact apply more or less directly to Greater London, where the figure is 22 out of 33 boroughs, but apply as to 70 per cent. in Greater Manchester and, worse, as to 80 per cent. in the three metropolitan counties with the smallest number of districts. Such a high majority as 80 per cent. agreement before grants are approved must be difficult to obtain where just one black ball will stop anything happening. It might stifle collective grant-giving in the metropolitan counties and so discriminate against the county-wide services provided by the voluntary organisations that we have heard so much about today. That would lead to a great loss in those counties.
5.30 p.m.
There are many reasons why such a high degree of consensus is unlikely to be obtained in some metropolitan counties, but these reasons have been rehearsed on previous amendments, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, so I shall not, because time is getting on, rehearse them. I hope I have said enough to convince the House that, on a purely arithmetical basis and for fairness, these amendments are both equitable and necessary. The result would be that the majority required to approve grants to voluntary organisations in the three metropolitan counties mentioned—that is, West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear—would be lowered to three-fifths instead of four-fifths and in Greater Manchester would be lowered also to three-fifths instead of seven-tenths. I suppose the simplest way of putting this is that, instead of being rounded up, the two-thirds figure would be rounded down to achieve a more equitable result.
I conclude by saying that this amendment in no way affects the spirit or purpose of the Bill, but it reflects and respects the circumstances in the metropolitan counties. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He explained it very carefully in some detail, so there is not much for me to say. It is purely a question of arithmetic. Because of the way it is worked out, as the noble Lord explained, the difference between the districts in the metropolitan counties and the boroughs in London means that there is an element of grave unfairness built into the system in the metropolitan counties which I cannot believe was intended by the Government. Applying the same two-thirds rule makes it impossible to make the division come out correctly because although in
176
London we have 33 London boroughs, which makes it simpler to work out, in the metropolitan counties it is quite impossible to work it out to a fraction of two-thirds. Therefore, to ensure a grant, more councils would have to agree than boroughs would have to agree in London. Such high levels of agreement before grants are approved are not a practical proposition and could prove to be a prescription for paralysis of the collective grant-making schemes.
A high degree of consensus such as this is quite untenable. This has been gone through before when it was suggested that there should be a simple majority. That was turned down, but I submit that the proposal for three-fifths might be considered to be a fairly equitable compromise.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support this sensible amendment because I was horrified to find that when discussing the Dial-a-Ride service in Tyne and Wear, which covers five districts, to learn that two-thirds of five was rounded up to four. I hope that the Minister will look as kindly on this amendment as he did on mine just now.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we discussed at some length in Committee the majority required for collective grant-giving. I remember my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour arguing persuasively for a majority of 75 per cent. and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, putting the case for 50 per cent. The amendment before us suggests a change to 60 per cent. in the metropolitan counties only.
I should like to explain briefly to the House what my thinking about this is. First, there are questions of certainty and consistency. A slender majority is no guarantee for voluntary bodies which need local authority support. At an earlier stage my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve asked for how long any grant would run—I regret that I neglected to enlighten her at the time—but that is entirely up to the majority decision (the two-thirds majority decision as it now is in the Bill) of the authorities making up the joint authority which will run this.
That kind of level of agreement that a scheme should run gives a certain built-in assurance that it will continue running. What is needed is a broad measure of consensus about county-wide needs and how to meet them. We discussed in Committee the effects which a violent see-saw of policy could have on local voluntary groups.
To make the change proposed would have an effect in another area which I am a little worried about because we are anxious, are we not?, to secure a bipartisan approach to voluntary activities. It has been the theme of the whole of our last three debates that this is not a political matter. I have constantly refrained from saying, "If your Lordships believe in the voluntary effort, vote with me!" because I feel that that is to give this a party political connotation. None the less, of course, your Lordships should!
If the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, were adopted, it would have an effect upon that. He referred to the metropolitan county of Merseyside. In Merseyside there is at present a requirement for four authorities to support a scheme. That would mean

177
that in present circumstances the support was bipartisan. But at present there are three Labour-controlled constituent councils in Merseyside and the effect of the amendment would enable a decision to be taken in Merseyside—which is the example he chose—on party political lines. That is regrettable and we have seen too much of that closer to home. Therefore on balance I regret that I am not reassured that what the noble Lord proposes would be an improvement.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister quite sure that those three district councils would agree among themselves? Is it not conceivable that one of them might agree with a district of another political persuasion?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands me. Of course at whatever level one requires a majority, it is possible for people to adhere to that decision regardless of what majority is required. Every district in Merseyside might be warmly in favour of what is proposed, but we are not concerned with that. We are concerned with how many people should not want to join a scheme before the scheme becomes a
non-runner. In this discussion I am concerned to point out that, with the arithmetic that the noble Lord suggests, it would, taking Merseyside as the illustration, mean that all the Conservative authorities could be against a scheme and, none the less, would be obliged under the Bill as drafted with that amendment to fork out the money for the authorities of a different political persuasion to spend on something of which they did not approve. That is not very far-fetched because that kind of thing has been happening all round us at the moment. It is on those grounds that I ask the noble Lord to abide by what I think was the general consensus after our debate, because, though we did not discuss this piece of arithmetic, we looked at the bracket between 50 per cent. on the one hand and 75 per cent. on the other.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I revert to Merseyside? The noble Lord has taken this as an example. Is it not possible—and I will say no more than that—that the Conservative districts and one of the Labour districts might combine and it would be that combination? You would then have two who would be having a scheme forced on them; but they will be two Labour districts and not two Conservative districts. Surely that turns his argument on its head, does it not?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the point is that they would be having it forced upon them by a bipartisan decision, because the decision to do it would be a decision of two Conservative districts and one Labour district. That is what I am trying to preserve in Merseyside: that decisions shall not be taken as they could be under the configuration that the noble Lord suggested by authorities of one political complexion only. It is very difficult to strike exactly the right point on the scale between 100 per cent. and 50 per cent. It seems to me that I have advanced the best arguments that I can for what we have, and I honestly think that we should stay with it. Therefore with some regret, particularly at disappointing the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in the hope that her dulcet tones added to
178
this amendment might have the same magic effect that they had before, I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this amendment.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he care to comment on one factor which has no political content at all in it and I think does not affect very much which way this amendment goes? Would it not be the fact, without any of these arrangements, that because the voting is on a council basis, each with an equal vote, the smaller councils could have a majority and require something to be paid and the one large council—which I think there is in nearly all these metropolitan counties—would have to pay even though it was opposed to it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, all these pieces of arithmetic are different. But the noble Lord is quite right that votes are not weighted by the size of population. As to the point where the equality of votes departs from the equality of population in any one case, I am afraid that without a lot of research I could not tell him the answer.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I must confess to some disappointment because I had hoped that the noble Lord would agree to this. I think that really he has addressed himself only to the arithmetical side and has added a little political tinge to the arithmetical side in his answer. What he has not addressed himself to is my argument as to equity. It is merely an equitable application of the two-thirds rule that you should round down instead of round up. It is in fact impossible to have two-thirds exactly without a fraction; and you cannot have a fraction in a district. All that I am asking is that there should he an equitable application of this rule in the metropolitan counties as there is exactly, as it so happens, in London where the application is 22 out of 33 boroughs. That is really not asking for very much.
What I should really like the noble Lord to do, because nobody, I think, has supported this point of view today, is perhaps to think about it. I do not really want to divide the House at this hour, as I am sure that there are more pressing matters to be getting on with. Will the noble Lord consider what has been said today and see if he could not persuade his friends to a mere rounding down instead of rounding up? That is all I am asking for, and it is not an unreasonable request. Then he could come back on Third Reading with the appropriate amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to breach the conventions of your Lordships' House and make yet another speech. If your Lordships will permit me merely an interjection, I have to say that one has to take a position and I have explained the position we have taken. The noble Lord has now asked whether there is some change of language in the Bill which would have the effect that he wants. I took the precaution of taking advice on that matter and was told that it would be exceedingly difficult to do. If the noble Lord wants to make a decision now, he should make it. I could not ask him to make it on the basis that I will come back to him with something preferable at Third Reading. I am very sorry, but I would mislead your Lordships and no doubt annoy the noble Lord much more by leaving space on the Marshalled List.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is not annoying me; he is grieving me. I think that this is unreasonable. I would ask leave to withdraw at this stage because I think there must be ways of putting this matter equitably in the Bill, if not in these very words then in some other words. So with the leave of the House I should like at this stage to withdraw the amendment without prejudice to coming back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80E, 80F, 80G and 80H not moved.]
[Amendment No. 80J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 80K:
Page 31, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall provide transitional support under the Local Government (Social Needs) Act 1969 for expenditure by London boroughs or metropolitan district councils under this section: and such support shall be provided annually for the four years after the abolition date up to an amount that the Secretary of State shall determine, having regard to the need to ensure continued funding of voluntary organisations at a level comparable with that which obtained before the abolition date.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it occurs to me that some of your Lordships may feel that the question of future funding of voluntary bodies as affected by this Bill is settled. Did not the Government scatter gold dust at Committee stage and should we not therefore fold our tents and go gratefully away? It is not quite as simple as that. When we had shaken the gold dust from our eyes after the Committee stage and had seen where most of it had settled, we saw that there were important areas of voluntary activity which would derive no benefit from the Government's apparent largesse.
The main reason is that the £40 million of transitional funding committed by the Government on a sliding scale—that is to say, £15 million in the first year after abolition, £10 million in the second and third years and £5 million in the fourth and final year—is intended for voluntary projects serving people in one district or one borough only. Not one penny of it, as I understand, is intended for the kind of services for people in more than one district or borough eligible for funding under Clause 48, which is exclusively concerned with London-wide and county-wide activities.
We have some authoritative statements that this is so. At Report stage in the other place on 27th March (at col. 539 of Hansard), Sir George Young said:
"The transitional funding is for schemes which operate within one borough but which are funded at present either by the GLC or the metropolitan councils".
I wanted to be sure that this is the way things stood, so in this House at Committee stage I sought clarification on 20th May. I am referring to col. 85 of Hansard. If I may be forgiven for quoting myself, I asked:
"Is the Government's understanding of their own scheme that transitional funding will apply to county-wide bodies as well as to local projects? If that is so, it again raises the question as to whether the proposed transitional funding, even at the higher amount, is in fact adequate".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton did not answer me directly; but a little later (in col. 91 on the same day,
180
20th May), he said, after dealing with a different matter:
"The other point is that the transitional grants are directed principally to helping individual local authorities fund the local groups".
So we appear to be left with the stark prospect that Clause 48 bodies, a type a of voluntary organisation written specifically into the Bill, are to receive no encouragement or assistance over the difficult years after the withdrawal of GLC and metropolitan counties support.
Consider the position of the London boroughs. I think that I am right in saying from memory that the London Boroughs Association subscribed something just under £1 million to London-wide projects in the year 1984–85. The GLC subscribed 20 times that amount. Therefore if the London boroughs were to pick up all of that GLC bill—and I am not saying that they should pick it all up; but if they were to pick it all up—they would be in for something like £600,000 each. Yet there is no incentive in the Bill to encourage them to undertake that commitment or indeed any part of that commitment.
The position of the metropolitan counties is even worse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has explained already. Their difficulty has been explained in previous debates, so that I shall certainly not go into them again on this one. Some of the funding that they will lose without any reasonable prospects of replacement as matters stand is the core funding which is the magnet for other grants. For example, the Greater Manchester Youth Association received core funding in 1984–85 from the Greater Manchester Council of £153,000. This attracted £42,000 from the European Social Fund—a contribution from Europe—£82,500 from the Department of the Environment, £63,000 from the English Tourist Board; and so on. If one takes away the core, the whole thing collapses.
What are these bodies which we are talking about, or perhaps pleading for? We are not talking about cultural frills. We are talking about the citizens advice bureau, the Greater Manchester Youth Association—which is the linchpin for local youth clubs in an afflicted area—the Merseyside Education and Training Drugs Unit, which trains both statutory and voluntary agencies which are battling with the horrendous drug abuse problem of Merseyside. We are talking about Dial-a-Ride, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other schemes of that nature.
I do not seriously doubt the Government's acceptance of the value of these projects. Their philosophy is sympathetic to the voluntary sector. They recognise that they need the flexibility and the commitment of the voluntary sector in preserving civilised standards, particularly in the large conurbations. They have said on a number of occasions that they do not intend worthwhile voluntary bodies to suffer as a result of the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself referred only recently in an earlier debate to the necessity of a healthy and well-funded voluntary sector.
But if that is their intention, the Government must face the facts. The bodies and projects that I have mentioned, which toil away for little or no reward in

181
the murkier corners of our society, and others like them, are all threatened with extinction unless the Government take more account of their plight. We are all thankful for the transitional support offered to local projects. We now need to deal with the unfinished business of support for voluntary services operating on a wider network.
On an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that a scheme without money was a waste of time. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself said that we did not want talking shops without teeth. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to write this amendment into Clause 48 and to come forward with some additional support which will make what the clause proposes a reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, to which I have put my name. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has put the case extremely fully. There is only one point which I should like to stress. It has been accepted by the Government that there will be transitional difficulties for organisations operating within boroughs or districts. As the noble Lord said, the Government have proved this most handsomely by promising special funding to act as a bridge to help those voluntary organisations maintain a flow in their services. Therefore, how can the Government argue that voluntary organisations operating in a slightly different way, on a trans-borough or a county-wide project, should not need that bridge? It seems to me that it would be rather difficult for the Minister to explain the logic behind what appears to be a great inconsistency.
I also want to stress something else which the noble Lord said. Why should we doubt that genuine voluntary organisations want to get on with a genuine job? There has been a great deal of talk about the GLC having put up voluntary organisations to make a fuss and so on. But my experience of dealing with voluntary organisations which have shown a very genuine concern is that they have wished that concern to be passed on. For this reason I think that this is a very important amendment. I know there is concern among those voluntary organisations which operate in a trans-borough or trans-county-wide manner. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to explain the inconsistency which there appears to be at present in the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Amendment No. 80K seeks to lay upon central Government a duty to provide sufficient taxpayers' money to ensure that voluntary groups in the abolition areas continue to get as much public cash as they did before abolition for at least four years after it. The particular voluntary organisations at which the noble Lord's amendment is directed are those covered by the provisions of Clause 48. These are defined in subsection (10) of that clause as those that directly or indirectly benefit the whole of Greater London or a metropolitan county or any part of it extending beyond the area of any particular borough or district council.
Your Lordships will, 'I am sure, appreciate that the Government have already done a great deal in the way
182
of underpinning voluntary activity during the post-abolition period. Individual borough activities are to get aid from the taxpayer amounting to no less than £40 million in over four years. Cross-boundary activities, by which I mean those covered by this amendment, are to be made eligible for grant from the boroughs or districts acting together in concert. Clause 48 provides the mechanism for this.
The concern of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness is, I am sure, that the districts will not combine in such schemes. About the boroughs they need have no fears on this score, because they already do so. Indeed, they have got well beyond the starting point. They have, as your Lordships know, appointed a lead borough, which is Richmond, to operate the scheme. They have also received an interim report from consultants on how they can best proceed. This report has yet to be considered or approved by the group, but it makes interesting and even encouraging reading. It envisages a compact staff in four service divisions and one administrative division. I noted with particular interest that one division would have specific responsibility for ethnic minority strategies and for monitoring implementation. The report further advises that there should be an all-authority committee to consider a three-year plan to set the budget for the following year.
Watching this exercise in voluntary co-operation taking shape in London makes one realise that there is no reason whatever why the same thing should not be happening in the metropolitan counties; no reason other than the misguided belief of a few influential figures in local politics that by remaining sullenly immobile they can somehow thwart the declared will of both Houses of Parliament and stop abolition happening at all. But that is not the whole picture. As I mentioned earlier, the leader of the Conservative group on Bradford City Council recently wrote to the department saying that Bradford would wish to be the lead authority in West Yorkshire. He said that the Conservative group on Bradford Council is very keen to see continued financial support for the valued work undertaken by voluntary organisations.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are therefore right to be concerned, but wrong to be pessimistic. In London, as I say, the show is on the road. Their anxiety cannot be that the machinery will not emerge. It is emerging already. They are, however, free to wonder whether the cash for it to distribute will also come to hand. The considerations here apply just as much to the metropolitan counties as they do to Greater London.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that what we are talking about is not taxpayers' money; it is ratepayers' money. That is the case whether we are talking about London or the metropolitan counties. Ratepayers' money to the tune of £663 million is at present, for instance, taken from the London boroughs by the GLC precept. Of that £663 million, £21 million is applied by the GLC to aid for voluntary bodies of the cross-boundary sort about which we are now talking. I am told that in some of the metropolitan counties, such as Greater Manchester, most county council funding in fact already goes to county-wide projects and not to the more local ones. The noble

183
Lord and the noble Baroness may find that reassuring also. But the principle remains the same.
The whole of that burden of precept will be removed from the boroughs and districts on 1st April next year. The effect upon their finances will be exactly the same as though they had access to new resources of the same amount. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect them to direct that saving towards the same objects, within reason, which generated it. I say "within reason" because we all know one or two instances that seem to most people to be entirely beyond reason. But they are relatively few and have relatively little effect on the arithmetic, so I will not make a great point of that.
6 p.m.
Also, in spite of what your Lordships may have heard from noble Lords opposite, there will be net savings overall on abolition. This means that the demand on rateable resources will be reduced even if contributions to the Clause 48 scheme remain unaltered at the level set in the GLC or MCC precept. That pressure will be further reduced by the transitional aid of which I have already spoken. That aid of £15 million in the first year will be directed specifically to expenditure on the voluntary sector within the boroughs, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, rightly adduced, and it will in fact enable the boroughs to increase their contribution to the cross-borough or Clause 48 schemes, if they wish to do so, without any increase in the rates at all.
I hope your Lordships begin to see the direction in which I am arguing. There is £40 million pounds worth of taxpayers' money which is all ready to go to the voluntary sector over the transitional period in this way, to ensure that it does not suffer from abolition—that is taxpayers' money going in support of what would normally be ratepayers' effort.
The noble Lord's amendment seeks to ensure that this amount should be increased. I do not think that it should. Indeed, the effect could be quite different from that which the noble Lord intends, and in the end it could defeat his purposes and do not a little harm. What I fear might happen if, in effect we underwrote the expenditure on the voluntary agencies in this way, publicly and in advance, is that borough and district councils everywhere would know that for four years at least it would not matter a scrap to the voluntary bodies how little they subscribed to their activities or by how much they reduced the flow of cash from the ratepayers to their funds, because by however much it fell short of the total established before abolition it would be restored out of the taxpayers' funds.
That, indeed, is the purpose of the amendment; and if there was a taper I suggest it would be a taper in the wrong direction, for it would be by far the easiest part of any authority's budget to trim, since it would be the only part in which none of their clients would suffer. It is true that the voluntary sector would be protected for the first four years, but then would come the reckoning and it might well turn out—indeed, I fear that it would—that those boroughs and districts which had grown out of the habit of supporting the voluntary sector at a viable level would not be prepared in a single year to pick up the whole of the tab that the
184
taxpayer had left for them. I therefore admire the sentiments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I think that this is a bad and a rather dangerous way of pursuing the aims which I believe will be achieved under the Bill as drafted.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity, as always, of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in presenting his arguments. Of course I accept that the Government have already done a great deal—more than they intended to do in the first place—in the shape of transitional funding for certain projects. I accept that county-wide and London-wide bodies are eligible under Clause 48. I would make no point against the Richmond lead borough arrangement, and I am very glad to hear that it is taking shape. But I am saying—and I find it difficult to go back on it—that even successful voluntarism is going to need some help to prevent a sudden slump in perfectly good projects.
The noble Lord has himself said that the GLC have been spending £21 million. I believe I myself mentioned the less than £1 million spent in the current year by the London Boroughs Association. There is a huge gap between the two figures, and I suggest that there should be some sliding mechanism to make it possible for the boroughs gradually to assume at any rate part of what the GLC was previously contributing. The argument about the removal of the borough precepts has been made on a number of occasions in a number of debates, and it seems to me that that saving is bespoken many times over, possibly in the ratepayers' interests and possibly for other purposes.
I must confess I am disappointed that the noble Lord has not really offered anything here. It seems to me there is a case for at any rate making some concession to these county-wide bodies, even though they may be expected to benefit eventually from the precept which will no longer be paid to the GLC. I should like to look closely at what the noble Lord has said. We have not voted on this during any earlier stage of the Bill, and I cannot promise him that I shall not return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80L not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Grants by residuary bodies.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible charities out of money received from the disposal of land by the residuary bodies established by Part VII of this Act.
(2) In this section "eligible charity" means, in relation to a residuary body, a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, Ming purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to enable funds to be provided for endowing the new trust for London which I announced in Committee on 20th May. It is not of itself limited to London, and it would allow similar arrangements to be made in the other metropolitan areas as well if there were sufficient surplus assets arising in those areas. I should say, however, that we do not think it likely that there will be significant surplus assets arising in these

185
areas. The authorities have been in existence for only a comparatively short time. However, it would be wrong to rule out the possibility altogether, and so the clause is drafted to allow provision to be made in the other metropolitan areas if it emerges that there is the basis for doing so.
The unallocated assets of the GLC will pass to the London Residuary Body on 1st April next year. It is from the proceeds of disposing of those assets that the endowments will be made. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make orders providing for the making of payments by the residuary body to such charitable trusts whose purpose is to benefit the area concerned. The power is deliberately drafted in these wide terms to ensure that those involved in establishing the new trust are not bound to adopt any particular predetermined arrangement.
Our proposed endowment for the new trust for London will be new money for the voluntary sector in London. In addition to this initial endowment of f 10 million coming from the GLC's surplus assets, we intend that it should be added to by corporate and other private contributions. So the funds made available to the new trust will build up over time. As we cannot at this stage determine the rate and scale at which the London Residuary Body will be able to realise the surplus assets which will be transferred to it, the clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide by order for payments to be made to the trust in the light of the proceeds arising.
This proposal was welcomed on all sides of the Chamber when I announced it in Committee. This clause will enable the Secretary of State to give effect to the intention to endow a London trust. It will also enable consideration to be given to similar arrangements in the other metropolitan areas, and I ask your Lordships to support this amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think we all remember very well the circumstances in which the Minister announced the £10 million. It managed to head off a revolt against the Government; but I must point out that if the body—that is, the body which was the subject of the amendment which was defeated after the announcement of the £10 million—had been set up, we should not have needed the amendments which have taken up a considerable time this afternoon and which have dealt with all kinds of aspects of the voluntary organisations, because those aspects would have been covered by the original amendment. However, it would be quite wrong and churlish not to appreciate that there is some money now being given to the voluntary organisations and that it will be extended to the metropolitan counties as well as to London.
There are one or two points and questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister. One which I think is rather worrying concerns the moneys which are used to endow these trusts. They arise, as I think the Minister said, from the disposal of county council assets, and therefore they have been provided by local ratepayers as well as by the taxpayers. I heard the Minister say on a previous amendment, "Ah, but this is ratepayers' money and taxpayers' money". This
186
is also ratepayers' money and taxpayers' money; and it is clear, as the Minister has said, that the size of the trust will not be sufficient to encompass all the demands made upon the disposable revenue, and that decisions will have to be taken about the fairest way of allocating the grants.
Yet these decisions will be taken by unelected individuals. We on these Benches, certainly, do not find that a very agreeable prospect. Those individuals will probably be appointed by the residuary bodies, which are themselves creatures of the Secretary of State, and they will be using public funds; but they are not accountable to any elected body. This seems incompatible with the Government's general philosophy behind the Bill that the county council's powers should, as far as practicable, be devolved upon district councils. There is no mention of this as far as these trusts are concerned, and it is questionable whether a body which may be disbursing private as well as public funds will be taking the same view of social need as might a district council in a deprived inner urban area.
Institutional private donations—I think we are all aware of this, and it is no criticism of them—tend, though by no means exclusively, to gravitate towards causes which offer inherent opportunities for not very expensive promotional activity, and personal private donations towards causes which are popular in the donation-giving sense. The proposals to establish such funds might, I think, have received a more favourable response had the Government chosen to support them with money not primarily generated by abolition and outside the context of this Bill, so that the money generated by abolition would in fact have gone hack to those constituent councils on behalf of which the Government are always pleading and telling us how wonderful they are and how much they have to do. Those councils in fact will have lots to do, but they will not have very ample resources with which to do it. This amount of money would have been very welcome and could have been very well used by them.
The definition of the prime beneficiary of this clause, the charitable trust itself, is reasonably clear. What is less clear is the nature of the role of the trust. The amendment requires only that it be established for charitable purposes
"wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established".
The definition of "voluntary body" in Clause 48 of the Bill, which we went into in great detail earlier this afternoon, does not necessarily require a beneficiary under Clause 48 to be a registered charity; nor is it clear from the amendment whether the trusts are intended actually to disburse grants, and if so to whom.
The trusts appear to be charitable enigmas. They are set up, and they are themselves charities, but they have no purpose in statute. The amendment, therefore, does not necessarily achieve what it sets out to achieve. It could do more or it could do less. It seems to me that the beast that it establishes, if I may put it that way, may well need to be shackled.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, having been much involved in industry through my late husband,

187
I beg to support my noble friend the Minister, particularly in the establishment of the charitable foundation, because I think this would give great encouragement to industrialists who might contemplate contributing in this way, confident therefore that the funds would be in competent hands.
I believe that it would be especially encouraging to donors if tax concessions could possibly be introduced, such as is the custom in America. I feel that industrialists would still consider support under the present tax laws if they felt that the money donated was in wise hands, but nevertheless I am sure that it would give very great encouragement if tax concessions could possibly be arranged.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment but there are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He told us that the assets are to go to the London residuary body. He further said that if the surplus assets allow—this was in the verbatim report of 20th May—the Government might be able to increase that amount further. How do we decide what is the amount, remembering that part of this money is ratepayers' money and part of it is Government money? How is a decision taken? Does the Secretary of State say, "Oh, well, there have been enough surplus assets now"? I have heard very large figures for London—some £250 million or more. Will we get only £10 million out of it, or, if surplus assets allow, could it be £100 million? I ask that for elucidation, not in a spirit of opposition.
My second question is this. We are told that there is to be a fund of £10 million. Is it possible that some of the capital can be used or is it only to be the income? And who is to administer the fund? I think it would be very helpful if we could have answers to those questions. It appears to be a good start to an idea. It has the merit, which I have favoured at an earlier time, of itself choosing which voluntary organisation should or should not benefit, which is a good principle. At an earlier time I talked about something rather like the Arts Council in relation to charity, and in a way this has a little of that flavour. But how do you decide what are surplus assets, and who decides how that surplus is to be distributed? Is the fact that a certain proportion of it is ratepayers' money taken into account?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. Whatever else the GLC and the metropolitan councils might have been, I do not believe they have been very efficient distributors of public money to charities. I do not refer to the quantum, because that has been substantial and much of it has, of course, gone to very good concerns, but much of that good work has been eroded by some of the rather peculiar distributions which have been made. It is possible, and I believe it is right and would prove very much better, to get a greater participation from the private sector. I believe that it would be possible for this new body, to which my noble friend has referred, to act as a catalyst in achieving this.
I would stress—I agree here with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—that it must be as local as possible. I believe it is essential that such a body must be able to identify with the local community. I hope to see a
188
much greater emphasis on voluntary contributions in terms of both cash and people. I think that the target which many of us set ourselves, and which I hope can be followed, is for private sector industry and commerce to devote 1 per cent. of their pre-tax profits to social and community work. I say that with a clear conscience, because the bank of which I happen to be chairman distributes each year—last year it distributed £6 million—to social and community projects, and provides 100 people seconded to help in such work. I say that not so as to aspire to any halo, since I make it clear that it is not my money, or even the bank's money, but the shareholders' money which is distributed in this way, but because I am quite confident that no shareholder would complain about that method of distribution.
One can give many examples of how this has been achieved. Even last week, there was opened in Brixton Road, Lambeth, a centre for the handicapped into which we put £½ million. We put that in, bringing together all the voluntary organisations, assisted by Lambeth Accord and Lambeth Council and with some community money. It is a project in which the principal donors were very closely associated and in which they watched and helped with the planning and the work. They will watch with fascination and, I hope, with enthusiasm how that develops.
It is an illustration of what the private sector can do and I believe that, with encouragement and with the sort of instruments to which my noble friend referred, we shall go a long way. Though not much more can be done in the private sector, I believe that by these means we can get much better value for the money that is contributed, and much greater and more personal value for the recipients of those moneys than is possible through the, inevitably, somewhat remote mechanism that is operated throughout the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Perhaps I may follow the point on tax relief made by my noble friend Lady Airey. One of the problems, which we find in the social and community aid that we try to give, is that there are a great many bodies which I believe most of your Lordships would look upon as charities, but which are not classified as charities for tax purposes. It is a very great discouragement to companies to find that giving money, which all of us in this House would consider to be charitable, is disallowed for tax relief. I believe that we should take a further look at the far more liberal tax regime which operates in the United States of America, as a result of which the contributions from the private sector to these funds are at some 20 times the level in this country.
One further point which I should like to make is that there are a lot of causes which are genuinely charitable and which could register as charities, but which are inhibited from doing so because registering as a charity prevents them from being able to conduct any political lobbying. I am sure that most of your Lordships, having been subjected to quite a lot of that in the last few months, would probably endorse some change in that attitude. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this amendment and also, as a member of Barnado's, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady

189
Airey, and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, have said about tax relief. But may I ask a question which I myself could not possibly answer? Is the Minister not worried that there will be money available for London but not for the metropolitan counties, because there are very few assets there, and yet there are terrible problems of unemployment in the north and in the north-east?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I may start at the end of that debate—and I am glad that your Lordships are, even with certain reservations in some instances, disposed to welcome this amendment—my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the metropolitan districts and whether I am worried about them. As I explained in introducing the amendment, we have provided for similar arrangements in the metropolitan areas should the resources become available. So we are not preventing ourselves from taking the opportunity should it later arise. But, as I said, the resources available from this source are very much more limited in the metropolitan counties than they are in Greater London—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can clarify the position a little. In relation to the metropolitan areas, he said that such a trust might be established as, or if, the money became available. Surely, in order to establish one that will apply to London, efforts will be made to secure that funds are available, as he said, by the sale of land and certain other things. Does he mean that the same procedure will be followed in the other places, or will there be no positive effort to raise the funds to establish the trust?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that interruption. The intention is that the money shall in each case, if it is public money, be raised by the liquidation of surplus capital property of the abolished bodies. The difference between the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council is that the latter has been in existence for very much longer than the former and indeed has inherited a well-established inheritance. So the resources in London are very considerable. I could not endorse the exact figure that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, gave but it is very considerable.
That is not the case with the metropolitan authorities, which have scarcely been in existence for half-a-dozen years. So I would not encourage the noble Lord to expect the yield of the abolition there, in terms of the liquidation of public capital resources surplus to requirements, to be very large. But I would tell the noble Lord—and I do not think I have made this clear before—that it would be possible to set up a trust of this sort simply with the private funds which we hope will, in any case, be added to the public funds in Greater London. Therefore, I can reassure both him and my noble friend Lady Faithfull that we have the metropolitan county areas very much in mind.
I can also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the residuary bodies will have no role whatever in appointing the trustees or in appointing the trust. The Bill requires the body which is to receive the money to be a charitable trust, and it will be appointed by the
190
Secretary of State. It is intended to draw new deeds, but to have the deeds administered by the trustees of an existing charitable trust. The deeds will be limited in their extent by the terms of the amendment, which your Lordships will see determines what is an eligible charity and directs it to the benefit of the people of the abolition area in question.
Being a charity, it will attract such tax concessions as are now available to charitable institutions under existing tax law. I am not empowered to say anything further than that, but I shall, of course, convey, the interests of my noble friends to the appropriate ears, though I do not encourage them to expect a result of one sort or another. I do not think it is possible to be more guarded than that.
I think that I have replied to all the questions which your Lordships asked. The noble Baroness made some remarks about the fact that we are paying over ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. It is a fairly small proportion of the accumulated amount, as I think has been made clear by our exchanges with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the clause provides that the funds will go only towards a charity which is directed at the people concerned. So they are not being defrauded of anything. What is happening is that this is being directed into the voluntary sector and, as I spent some time this afternoon resisting attempts to direct money by law into the voluntary sector, to the noble Baroness's displeasure, I hope she will find a mite of pleasure in what I now ask your Lordships to agree to.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I asked a question to which I do not think I heard the answer. It was: who decides what is the amount of the surplus assets? After all, £10 million is not a very large figure when you think of what we are talking about for Greater London.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Earl for reminding me of that omission and I apologise for the unintended discourtesy. The decision is, under the Bill, given in the later, as in the first, instance to the Secretary of State. I must make it clear that the intention is that this should be a pump-priming exercise. I am not saying that all, the vast proportion or the majority of these surplus assets will go to the trust—very far from it. We have suggested at least £10 million in the first instance, but we wish to review this in due course when we know what is the scale of the available assets, because that is a matter of some speculation at the moment and I think one should be cautious at the outset of a scheme such as this.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 81AZA:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Housing.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date vest in the London Residuary Body—

(a) the rights and liabilities of the Greater London Council under orders made under section 23 of the London

191
Government Act 1963 (transfer of land held for housing purposes), including liabilities for the meeting of revenue deficits and for the carrying out of works of modernisation, rehabilitation and improvement of transferred property and works to such property arising from major technical causes and rights of that Council to nominate tenants to housing accommodation transferred under the said section 23 to the councils of the London boroughs; and

(b) to the extent that the Secretary of State considers necessary and expedient, such staff, property and equipment of the Greater London Council as are employed or used in the discharge and enjoyment by the Greater London Council of those liabilities and rights.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the Secretary of State may by order impose on the council of a London borough a duty the effect of the discharge of which is equivalent to the effect of the discharge of such of the liabilities mentioned in subsection (1) above as relate to works to housing accommodation owned by that council, and any such order shall provide for the extinction of those liabilities.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless the council of a London borough has so requested, and no such request shall be made before the abolition date.
(4) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council of the London borough to which the order relates intends to complete the programme of works made by the Greater London Council in discharge of such of the liabilities of the Greater London Council mentioned in subsection (1) above as apply to housing accommodation owned by the councils of that London borough.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we say goodbye to the voluntary services for the moment and we return to the issue of housing and the GLC. When we discussed housing in Committee on 23rd May, which if noble Lords remember was the last day before the Whitsun Recess and so it was not exactly a full House, there was a great deal of support from noble Lords on all sides for the proposal that the GLC's residual responsibilities should pass to the residuary body. Even those who were not too sure about that solution were concerned about what would happen with regard to the continued renovation of what had been the GLC housing once the GLC was abolished. Although these obligations are short-term, they nevertheless involve the GLC in the biggest housing programme in the country. It may come as a shock to those noble Lords who have heard only the Government's assertion that the GLC has no housing role at all to learn that it has; it is going to taper off, but it is still a considerably large one at the moment. The Government's proposal that this programme should be taken on by individual boroughs is not realistic.
The amendment transfers to the residuary body the GLC's liabilities flowing from the transfer of its council housing to the boroughs a few years ago. The liabilities are three-fold: to renovate the homes to modern standards; to pay financial deficits which may arise from those homes; and to run a housing mobility scheme. The amendment also provides for individual boroughs to assume responsibility for renovation work if they so wish. So there is no intention in this amendment to stop any boroughs which feel they are capable of carrying out the work doing so.
In some respects the amendment differs from the one that was discussed on the last day in Committee. It was through the comments made by the Minister on the original amendment that the new amendment is being aired this afternoon. The Minister complained in Committee that we were attempting to impose on
192
the residuary body permanent liabilities. For that reason we have now excluded seaside and country homes, the mutual exchange bureau and the GLC's statutory improvement areas. The Minister also queried whether it was possible in law to impose on the boroughs legal obligations towards themselves if they wished to take over some of those liabilities from the residuary body. The present amendment overcomes that difficulty simply by requiring that in such circumstances the Secretary of State should place obligations on the boroughs which have the same effect as the GLC's current liabilities; in other words, the boroughs which wanted to take over these responsibilities would be enabled to do so without falling foul of the legal tangle to which the Minister referred.
Finally, I should point out that there is now an explicit provision in the amendment for the transfer of staff to the residuary body, a point which I believe was also raised. Many of the GLC's housing functions have of course already been devolved to the borough level. However, when the GLC's 200,000 homes were transferred to the boroughs between 1980 and 1983 it was central to the agreement that the council had a duty to bring these dwellings up to standard. That programme of work is to be completed by 1992. This renovation obligation was not imposed, as the Minister implied in Committee, as a penance for the GLC's poor performance as a landlord; the GLC was no better and no worse than other authorities, particularly when it had to deal with some quite aged property. It was imposed because the boroughs themselves did not want the extra burden. In effect the boroughs were given a statutory guarantee that the GLC would bring its property up to standard. It was on this condition that they accepted the transfer. Consequently the tenants had the same assurance.
The new clause seeks to maintain that assurance by passing the GLC's liabilities to the residuary body and then by allowing boroughs to take on the work. Each borough would then have a duty to bring the property up to standard. The residuary body needs to be involved because it is simply not practical for the boroughs to pick up the short-term renovation work by next April. The GLC now carries out £100 million worth of work a year, but it has taken time to build up to this level.
The boroughs would have only eight months, including the Summer and Christmas Recesses. In that short period the boroughs would have to reproduce what the GLC does now. I really think that that is asking the impossible. They would have to decide which estates to renovate. They would have to consult the tenants, design the scheme, go out to tender, let contracts and so on. They would have to build up their capacity to do the range of work achieved by the GLC. A recent scheme in Greenwich, for example, involved structural repairs, installing entry phones, replacing windows, removing asbestos, renewing lifts and providing protection against fire. Much of this work is carried out by teams with acknowledged, and in some cases unique, expertise.
The boroughs would also have to establish the linkages between various departments which now contribute to GLC schemes—involving builders, architects, structural engineers, mechanical engineers,

193
scientific services, valuers, estate surveyors—all coordinated by a project management division. If they were forced to take this on, the result would be delay in the boroughs and disappointment to thousands of tenants who have waited years for their homes to be renovated. Housing is of course an important capital asset to be distributed to these boroughs and to let it fall into further decay is a very uneconomic as well as a very antisocial proposition.
The Minister has already gone some way towards meeting this problem. In Committee on 23rd May, in reply to a question from my noble friend Lady Denington, he said at col. 425 of the Official Report that,
"we have the provision that in order to come to the best arrangement it should be possible for the whole team to go to the residuary body while arrangements are made".
Later on in the same passage the noble Lord said that all this could be discussed when the residuary body was in office. Indeed, this is the thrust of his own amendment, Amendment No. 81 C, which we shall reach later this evening, or on another day, which provides for the retention of professional and technical staff. With respect, that is not good enough. But I am confining my comments to housing and the GLC because Amendment No. 81C has much wider implications into which I do not think it would be right to go today.
It is not good enough for the staff because they will have no idea whether they are to go to the residuary body or to a borough, or, indeed, whether they are to be made redundant, until the residuary body sorts itself out in the autumn or even in the new year, because these things take time, as the Minister must be aware. The chances are that some people will leave and that the specialist teams will be broken up. It is also not good enough for the boroughs because they will not know whether to start planning to take over the work and staff from 1st April. Above all, it is not good enough for the tenants. They will be the ultimate casualities because, as the uncertainty continues and heightens during the rest of the year, the prospect of their homes being renovated on schedule will gradually disappear over the horizon.
Today in another place a reply was given to Questions for Written Answer from two of my honourable friends, Mr. Chris Smith, the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, and Mr. John Fraser, the Member for Norwood. They tabled Questions asking the Secretary of State whether, in the event of the GLC being abolished, the London boroughs could assume responsibility for the GLC renovation programme without that programme being disrupted. The Answer which came from Sir George Young was that it will be primarily for the boroughs to ensure that the renovation programme continues without disruption.
It seems to me as though the Government are washing their hands of this important problem. The Government are always giving such assurances but these will not really help to do the job or provide the co-ordination that is necessary. We cannot afford to wait until the London residuary body is fully operational. We need to end the uncertainty now by placing the Minister's stated intention to keep this expertise together on a more formal basis in the Bill.
In his Answer to my honourable friends, the Minister in another place said that the Government,
"will be moving an amendmentx2026;to the Local Government Bill which will provide for the London residuary body to take a positive role in seeking the views of the boroughs on whether the residuary body should take on specialist teams".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/85; col. 20.]
What it does not say is when that positive role will be taken on. Apart from the specialist teams, how will the boroughs be able to undertake this responsibility so that no unfortunate gap is created in the renovation programme?
This proposal will not saddle the residuary body with a permanent liability. I must underline that point again. The GLC was to complete the programme by 1992. It should present no great difficulty to the residuary body to complete the work before it is wound up, and evidently it is the Government's intention that the residuary body shall be wound up.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the amendment embraces two other matters associated with housing transfer orders. One is that the cost of the revenue deficit payments now made by the GLC should not now be imposed on the boroughs. They should be met by the residuary body alongside other residual financial liabilities.
The Government's proposal to transfer the housing mobility scheme to the Secretary of State via the National Mobility Office is very unsatisfactory. The National Mobility Office is a tiny organisation with four-and-a-half staff. I am glad to say that one of them is not half a person but works part-time or is shared with some other office. It has no specific London interest or knowledge. This scheme also belongs with the residuary body. It does not make much sense if it does not go there, because the alternative is to create a much bigger organisation for London; and we do not need a national mobility office but a London mobility office.
If we must have this Bill—and unfortunately it appears that we are to have it—then we should at least make the transition to the new structures as painless as possible. The home relocation programme is a major element in the GLC's current activities and one that affects thousands and thousands of people. In the case of many boroughs it will be the major GLC responsibility which they have to undertake, if this provision remains in the Bill as drafted. As matters stand, the Government's proposal for this transition can only disrupt the programme. Under the proposed amendment, boroughs can if they so wish assume responsibility for this work. It is clearly preferable, however, that the short-term programmes are completed in the residuary body. I beg to move.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, since 1980 more than 160,000 dwellings have been transferred from the GLC to the London boroughs. Some 88,000 of them were accepted voluntarily by 21 boroughs in 1980. A further 53,000 were accepted by eight inner London boroughs under a compulsory order in 1982. An additional 19,000 dwellings were transferred in various "sweeping up" orders.
In the case of the eight inner London boroughs which accepted only compulsory transfers, these took place only after extensive negotiations on guarantees

195
set out in Schedule 1(19) to the 1981 No. 2 order. That order placed an obligation on the GLC to improve the transferred properties to the standard set out in Section 61(3) of the Housing Act 1974 within 10 years of 1982.
6.45 p.m.
In addition, the GLC was responsible for rectifying any major defects due to construction or design found in the transferred property within that 10-year period. It will be seen that the boroughs felt that their position was safeguarded and that they would not be faced with problems which they knew to be beyond their capacity to deal with. Central Government were heavily involved throughout all the negotiations. The legal obligations cast upon the GLC were included in several short statutory instruments made by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. It was the Secretary of State himself who imposed the obligations, which were accepted by the GLC as applying to both the voluntary bodies and those who accepted transfers only under compulsion.
In order to define the GLC's responsibilities under the transfer order, the "compulsory" boroughs went with the GLC to arbitration. The arbitrator's judgment in July 1982 gave a reasonably precise definition of the GLC's obligations. I again point out the determination of the boroughs to ensure that their position was safeguarded.
Then came the general election in June 1983, and the manifesto statement that the Government would abolish the GLC. That was followed in October 1983 by the publication of a Government consultation paper entitled Housing in London, which indicated that the liabilties of the GLC under the transfer orders would not be taken over by the Government or by any other agency and would therefore fall. The promised safeguards were simply wiped out. That is the history of the present position. It appears to me that this Government have no moral standards. They merely hold to what pleases them and discard what displeases them. The same Conservative Party and the same Prime Minister have been in power throughout and I can see no excuse for what I would call their shameful conduct.
I do not intend to pursue in any detail the financial effects of the Government's intentions on the boroughs. Ministers have been anxious to assure us that the boroughs' financial position will not be worsened; that the same HIP allocations which the GLC had will be passed to the boroughs, and that the GLC's obligatory deficit payments will be maintained and paid to the boroughs.
I understand, however, that the boroughs are not satisfied. They are unsure that their financial position will be safeguarded. I understand that they are now asking that when the Secretary of State comes to set out the next financial allocations, he will make clear how much of the split sum allocated is in respect of a borough's usual activities and how much of it is to meet what should have been the GLC's financial obligations. I know that they have sent letters along those lines to the Secretary of State. I certainly hope that he will help the boroughs by setting out the financial provisions so that they know exactly where
196
they are and that they have the money which they would have had had the Government not gone back on what they understood to be the arrangements.
But it is the effect on the people who live in these dwellings and on the councillors and officers, particularly in those inner London boroughs which the Government have coerced into taking this property, which most deeply concerns me. They are faced with problems of structural repair, modernisation (as my noble friend Lady Birk mentioned), and rehabilitation, involving system-built blocks and high rise flats and throwing up technical problems to which sometimes people still do not know the answer. The teams in the GLC are still feeling their way and investigating these things.
The existing problems of these inner London boroughs are such that they cannot deal adequately with the dwellings which they themselves built. The housing and other social problems are such that they really cannot at the present time take on these large extra responsibilities which the Government insist on thrusting upon them. The GLC's responsibilities must continue to be maintained and its team of experts kept together—we suggest in the residuary body—until the whole job is done; and if the life of the residuary body is deemed to be too short, as I think the Minister indicated, the Government must find some other home for them.
The tenants who were encouraged by the original pre-election proposals to believe that the wretched and often sordid conditions in which they now live would be remedied within a reasonable time-scale are now up in arms as they see their hopes wither. Their anger against the Government is intense. I doubt whether the Government are disturbed by that, since these are people who live in boroughs which never return a Conservative MP.
I gave the figures for the most disadvantaged boroughs when we discussed this matter in Committee. I must repeat some of them. How can Lambeth deal with the over 15,000 transferred properties which it is being forced to take; or Hackney with over 18,000; or Southwark with nearly 24,000? Worst of all is Tower Hamlets, which will have 30,000 dwellings compulsorily dumped on it this July. That borough is so overwhelmed with its social problems that according to the Government's own research note in 1982–83 it managed to spend only 55.5 per cent. of its total HIPs allocation and prescribed capital receipts, whereas the GLC spent 102.7 per cent. of its allocation in the same period. The repair bill in 1986 only for that borough to renovate the ex-GLC stock is estimated at well over £120 million.
Tower Hamlets is so hard pressed that it asked the GLC to come in to deal with some of the decaying areas that were crying out urgently for action because they were more than it could cope with. Your Lordships will remember that that was mentioned in the previous debate. Now it is suddenly to get an extra 30,000 dwellings. The situation is intolerable. It appears that the Government intend to drown that borough with the pressing necessity of dealing with an extra 30,000 problem dwellings. All its irate tenants will be up in arms. They will be knocking on the door of the town hall, of the councillors and at their surgeries. It will be bedlam.

197
I understand from Answers given in another place today that the Government are now proposing that after abolition possibly the residuary body can consult the boroughs on whether they want help from the expertise that the GLC has. That is an advance, but I do not find it satisfactory.
My noble friend Lady Birk asked a few minutes ago how long all this would take. It could take some months. Will the teams still be available? I doubt it. As soon as the Bill becomes law and people in the GLC see finally that it will be abolished, surely all the staff, and particularly the highly qualified staff, will go off to seek new jobs. They have families to maintain. They cannot hang about and wait until abolition becomes a fact and the residuary body is set up and then ask to have consultations. That is far too long. Those people just will not be there. If the residuary body can undertake consultations in a few months' time, why can the Government not start those consultations now? Why not? It is in their hands. The Government would then know, and the GLC staff and we should know, exactly where they stood and which boroughs wanted help. I cannot possibly see why that cannot be done now, and I would press for it to be done.
This amendment makes provision for those boroughs which want to take on the transferred estates to deal with them on their own, and perhaps they would welcome a little advice from the GLC experts. I think that this nation looks to this noble House to secure fair play and to preserve as far as it can standards of conduct and honour. The Government are determined, it seems to me for some nonsensical reason, to place those burdens on the boroughs, perhaps to emphasise their new enhanced status; but for some they are burdens which they simply cannot bear. What sense is there in knocking them to their knees just when they have the greatest need for new strength? To me it is misdirected madness.
In the name of those who live in these transferred dwellings and in the name of the boroughs which need help, I beg the Minister to tell us that the necessary ex-GLC staff will be made available and so avoid what could, I think, become a public scandal clue to the shameful behaviour of this Government. But should he not do so, I hope that your Lordships will give very strong support to this amendment. The boroughs, their staffs and the tenants need certainty now.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the House has heard very full speeches by two of the proposers of the amendment, and I do not propose to add another long speech to what they have rightly spelt out as being the major problems. I want to explain briefly why I put my name to the amendment. This is a subject on which we have not yet had an answer from the Government. Unlike a lot of things which we have come to at this stage, we did not fully discuss this matter in Committee. A large number of matters came up under the amendment which was discussed then, and the details which are now before your Lordships' House are very different. I think it is quite clear that Amendment No. 81C, which the Government have tabled, is an effort to meet some of the problems involved. However, without going into detail on that
198
well ahead of time, I think it is right to comment that it really does not seem to meet the full need of the case.
What we need is knowledge now of where the decisions will rest and where the responsibility will be. We want knowledge that, for as long as is necessary for the welfare of the people who live on these estates, they will stay in some central body which will have the resources and be able to deal with the very major problems which will arise. It is just not in any way adequate to say that in the time that is given to them the boroughs will be able to cope, or even to make up their minds as to how they are going to cope, with some of these tremendously bad housing estates. The suggestion that is made under Amendment No. 81C, that they should then serve notice of what they are going to do, it seems to me still does not give them sufficient time.
What we need now is this. Here I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, in what she was saying about the pledge to the people concerned. We want to see that that pledge is fulfilled and that these housing estates, which in some cases are appalling, will be looked after and that the Government can guarantee that they will be looked after by seeing that the machinery to deal with the matter actually works. I very much look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on this point.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, makes out a very attractive case. However, on analysis, I beg leave to question whether this amendment is necessary or, indeed, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said from her wealth of experience as chairman of housing, whether it is within the spirit of this Bill.
The many-headed hydra has as many tongues with which to speak against the process of devolution enshrined in this Bill. This time the housing rights and liabilities are to go to the central body, the London residuary body, so that this vestige of GLC second-tier administration shall be preserved. I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. One senses the attraction, the loyalty and the faith she has in regard to retaining the vestiges of the GLC administration—
Baroness Denington: My Lords, may I say that that is not my intention at all? I am sorry to know, though I am certain of it, that this Bill will receive Royal Assent and that the GLC will be abolished and its administration will no longer be there. As I tried to make clear, I am concerned with helping the boroughs, which will be submerged in difficulties, and the tenants.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I heard the noble Baroness and of course I accept the genuineness of everything that she has said about her intentions. I hope that equally she will accept that I listened with very great care to what she said and to the best of my ability sought to understand the broad sense and feelings behind it. Nonetheless, the impression with which she left me was none other than the impression which I sought to reflect.

199
As I was saying, this time this vestige of GLC second-tier administration is proposed to be preserved in the central body, the London residuary body. However, I question whether there really is any merit in that. After all, if the housing really is as bad as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, says it is, one wonders whether it is not the case that the sooner it is removed wholly from the clutches of the GLC, the better.
If one looks at the proposals in the Bill, one sees that the boroughs are to be the primary housing authorities. In a sense, they already are, under a process of devolution which has gone on since 1963 and which in the area of housing is not complete but is on the way to completion. The abolition of the GLC will, as I understand it, have no substantial effect upon London's housing capital resources. The GLC mortgages account will transfer, quite simply, to the London residuary body, and the terms of the mortgages will remain the same, and the old stock will be transferred to the boroughs. In this regard it is understood, though of course I am open to correction, that provisions will be made by the Government to replace the GLC role in financing revenue deficits arising on any transfer rent accounts. On this aspect, in particular, a word or two of confirmation and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister would indeed be welcome.
There is no problem with tenant mobility within London because the statutory scheme referred to in Clause 88 will replace the existing Greater London scheme. There is also to be a statutory scheme to cover the seaside and county homes. In relation to Thamesmead, the Government are committed to completion, and again I understand that they are considering setting up a trust for ownership.
This amendment is open to objection on several grounds. First, it stops dead in its tracks the process of devolution of housing responsibilities to the boroughs which has gone on and accumulated momentum since 1963. Not only does it stop dead the momentum of the process, but it also retains a rump of such functions under the control, for about five years, of a second-tier central body administration. The loading of functions on to this body is contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
Quite apart from that, even if it were not, we return to the old argument which now has been argued so often that one only just dare state it and leave it. It is that the boroughs are able, the boroughs are willing. I have received, as have all your Lordships, much information through the post. I have received information which supports the assertion that the boroughs are able, willing and anxious to discharge their functions. Indeed, they are their proper functions and assuredly they are their functions under this Bill. It is for those reasons that I oppose this amendment, and I do not wish to enter into any argument with the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, as to the moral virtues of the party to which I happen to belong.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not really like doing this, but the noble Baroness arrived about halfway or
200
three-quarters of the way through my speech when I was moving the amendment. I do not think that it is quite in order to speak on an amendment when you have not been present from the beginning. I saw her come in. I had been on my feet for some time. With great respect, I do not think that it is quite "on", or is courteous to the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I make a suggestion? I was not seeking to say anything discourteous—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with great respect, my remarks were addressed to the noble Baroness in front of the noble Lord. The noble Lord may rest peacefully.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would, of course, be guided by whatever decision the House reached on this. However, I have heard the noble Baroness speak many times on housing. I consider that as I am a district chairman of housing on the Greater London Council, it would be to the benefit of the House to hear my views in addition to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, who certainly has had great housing experience on the GLC. I would ask the House whether or not it wishes me to speak.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I must say that I have never heard the convention that is being suggested by the noble Baroness put seriously before. The amendment is on the Marshalled List. The meaning behind it is clear to those who understand the subject. To suggest, in either House, that one has to sit through the whole proceedings when there are so many demands on one's time is a convention that I hope never will be established. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will make her speech because of the great authority that she commands on this subject.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is really a matter of courtesy and taste, is it not?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, yes, on both sides.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the House for its support. I intend to speak only briefly. In particular, I should like to draw attention to one or two points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, whose speech I heard in toto. When the noble Baroness says that this great body of expertise will be lost on transfer, I presume that she includes the London Community Builders, the direct labour force at County Hall.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, as a matter of fact, I do not, because I know nothing about them. I was talking about the technical officers.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. One of the supposedly greatly advantageous things about the present way of getting work done is that the present Greater London Council employs a direct labour force called London Community Builders who are both very expensive and, I believe, not very effective. All over London now, as has been said, these dwellings that

201
were transferred some years ago are awaiting upgrading. It is also true that there has been quite selective expenditure and work done in the boroughs to which housing was transferred. There is, I believe, a little bit of playing favourites. Some boroughs have had a much better deal than others. But our concern—the concern of everyone here, I believe—is for the tenants.
The local authorities are entitled to see that finance is available to carry out the work when the GLC loses its present obligation. Listening to this debate, one would imagine that the Greater London Council was delightedly honouring all its financial obligations and carrying out this work to the benefit of tenants at a great rate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Progess is very slow and very unsatisfactory. There would be nothing to be gained by retaining this authority in the residuary body.
However, there must be some arrangements to honour and fulfil contracts that have already been let for work. I am not suggesting that some scheme that is halfway through operation should be suddenly chopped in two. That would be very unsatisfactory. There must be detailed work done to ensure that any scheme that is now in process can be completed. Then, the sooner that these things can be transferred to the boroughs, which are now the housing authorities for London, together with the necessary funding for repairs, the happier I shall be. I cannot support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the intention of the Government, of course, is that the functions of the abolition authority shall go to the successor authorities as soon as possible. I can reassure my noble friend about that. and I shall return to it. The clause proposed in the amendment is very similar to the one that your Lordships rejected during the Committee stage. I acknowledge the deletions that the noble Baroness has made since Whitsun, but much of the original material remains. Your Lordships will no doubt be relieved to know that, nonetheless, I do not intend to repeat all that I said in Committee. I shall assume that some of the points have registered.
However, I should like to remind your Lordships that the Bill as introduced into this House reflected the fundamental principle that the residuary body should have only a very limited role in winding up the affairs of the GLC and the MCCs and helping successor authorities to make satisfactory permanent arrangements. There is no need to give them any management role in housing. The boroughs, as it is, are already the primary housing authorities in London. They already have statutory responsibilities towards their own tenants. They are certainly well able to assume the additional responsibilities relating to the ex-GLC stock. They are also, of course, directly accountable to the electorate—all of which should be attractive to your Lordships.
As to the question of the residuary body being a temporary body, I would remind your Lordships that the intention expressed in the Bill is that the authorities should complete their schedule of work in a period of five years or less. They are, in fact, required
202
to submit a wind-up scheme to the Secretary of State within not less than four years, under Clause 66, to achieve this. But the scheme must, of course, include proposals for continuing tasks and liabilities. They cannot simply walk off the scene and leave chaos behind them with no one to pick up the pieces. The whole purpose of the bodies is that they shall arrange for the continuation of those things, the continuation of which cannot be suitably arranged before the abolition date on 1st April next year.
Much has been made of the GLC's existing obligations to carry out works on the transferred stock. Under the Government's proposals, responsibility for managing and maintaining the stock will pass to the boroughs. It is our firm view that they will prove themselves indeed more effective in discharging these responsibilities than has been seen under the GLC. In total, the capital works programmes that the boroughs undertake to their own stock far exceed the size of the GLC's present programme. There is therefore no question but that they will be able to manage the continuing programme. Moreover, we have repeatedly given assurances that the resources that would have been available to the GLC will be available to the boroughs after abolition.
There has, however, been an important development since we discussed this in Committee. I should like to draw it to your Lordships' attention. It relates to your Lordships' proper concern that the specialist repair and improvement teams should not be disbanded as an unlooked-for result of devolution. Similar concern has been expressed by your Lordships on a number of other counts affecting professional and technical services, and I undertook to take steps to take account of it.
Your Lordships may wish to note, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested your Lordships would, Amendment No. 81C to Schedule 12, which I have tabled for this purpose. I shall speak to it at the appropriate stage, but I can tell your Lordships now that its effect in the case we are now looking at will be to require the London residuary body to inquire of every London borough whether it sees a possible (not even a certain, but a possible) future need for these teams that cannot be provided for in time for abolition on 1st April, and to offer in that case to take them on, on a temporary basis, until the arrangements can be made.
The noble Baroness expressed concern that the transfer would be necessary on the face of the Bill to provide security for the staff. I think that what I have said takes care of that. I should add that transfer on the face of the Bill would ignore the position of boroughs altogether. It is, after all, the boroughs that will be responsible for renovating and modernising property. It must be they who decide what teams they need. Boroughs may even decide to take on part of a team working in their area without it ever going to the LRB at all, because the LRB is—and I hesitate to use a cricketing term again—a longstop. I gather from either the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, or the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that that has come in a long way from the boundary since my days, but it makes it more apt as an illustration.
As I say, in any case we shall debate Amendment No. 81C when we reach it. It is particularly important

203
not to do so now because I have already taken note of a number of views about the original amendment, No. 81C. Today I have tabled a revised version of it which I hope your Lordships will find even more acceptable than I had hoped your Lordships would find what I had originally tabled, if your Lordships can follow the construction of that sentence!
On nomination rights, which were not among the noble Baroness's holiday deletions, we have already accepted the need for the statutory framework to be maintained. We do not think that these rights should pass to the LRB, which is intended to be a transitory body tidying up after the abolition of the upper tier authority. Permanent arrangements are required, and that is why on 17th May my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote to all members of the National Mobility Steering Committee inviting them to establish a working party to report on the operations and the future developments of the Greater London Mobility Scheme within what I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is to be an enlarged National Mobility Office. So the half chair and half typewriter to which the noble Baroness spoke will have expanded by the time it takes on this burden.
This is an organisation which already looks after the successful National Mobility Scheme. The NMO, the National Mobility Office, answers to the National Mobility Steering Committee. That committee comprises representatives from all the associations of housing authorities throughout the United Kingdom. That means that the allocation of these rights will therefore continue broadly under local authority control. We intend that wherever possible the operation of the scheme shall proceed by consensus, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Association of District Councils, the London Boroughs Association and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive have all agreed to participate.
My noble friends have already pointed out how this clause would be inconsistent with the aims of the Bill. Clause 88(1) already makes full provision for my right honourable friend to transfer to the London residuary body the rights and the liabilities which are appropriate to its temporary role in housing—for example, the right to receive payments on behalf of London as a whole and the liability to make an annual payment until 1987–88 to the London borough of Tower Hamlets for housing improvements.
However, that does not mean that anything not transferred to the residuary body will simply disappear. The GLC's stock will not go away. I must emphasise that the tenants will still be able to look to their landlords to manage and maintain their homes and, where necessary, to improve them. We have given a firm commitment that the resources that the GLC would have had to carry out this task will be given to the boroughs, and the boroughs will be there long after the residuary body has disappeared.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said that there was intense anger among some housing tenants. I am not altogether surprised that there should be intense anger if they have been led to believe that matters are as the noble Baroness suggested they are. For instance, it has been suggested that the revocation
204
of the transfer order will remove the GLC's duties to the tenants of ex-GLC stock. I do not attribute each of these claims to the noble Baroness personally, but she drew upon a well of discontent, of which I recognised the flavour, and I am drawing on it to reply.
The transfer orders only provide for rights and liabilities between the GLC and the boroughs. The duties which a local authority owes to its tenants are separate and entirely unaffected by the Bill. Tower Hamlets is not being transferred compulsorily. The transfer was agreed between the GLC and Tower Hamlets. It is not the case that they will be unable, as the noble Baroness fears, to spend the HIP, or housing improvement programme, allocation because they have now set up a comprehensive housing department, and a major priority estates initiative has been mounted by the department. As I say, the resources made available will remain the same, and the absence of the GLC will not affect the level of resources which we can make available in London.
It has been suggested that abolition will deprive tenants of a right to have their dwellings repaired by 1992. Only one of the transfer orders, which has already been referred to, contains a specific commitment to carry out repairs by 1992. In practice the GLC has adopted that date for all the transferred stock, but in any case the commitment was not to the tenants; it was to the boroughs. It would make no sense to introduce a commitment for boroughs and tenants to repair their ex-GLC stock, as it would take no account of the relative needs of the boroughs on stock compared with the ex-GLC stock. I remember telling your Lordships—and I am sure that most noble Lords know this already—that in many boroughs it is not the case that the GLC stock is worse than the borough stock; it is the other way round. It varies. Therefore we cannot have a single priority across the board.
Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to transfer these functions to individual boroughs, provided that he was satisfied that the boroughs intended to complete the GLC's programme of works to the transferred stock. These provisions do not attempt to explain how the Secretary of State should exercise this function or what criteria he should take into account in determining whether or not a borough intends to complete the GLC's programme of work. I do not think that such things can be clearly defined, as the movers of this amendment would have us believe. I am not merely saying that the drafting is defective and resisting it on that basis. I am saying that I doubt whether it could be made effective in that sense. In practical terms therefore subsections (2) and (3) are not of benefit.
The new clause does not seem to me to be the right way to proceed. It would transfer housing functions to the temporary residuary body and so prevent the borough councils from getting on with the job, which is properly theirs, of looking after their housing stock. A similar clause was rejected by your Lordships in Committee, and once again I urge your Lordships to reject this unnecessary burden on the residuary body.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he answer the point which I raised? If the boroughs are to be consulted about their need to have the help of existing GLC teams, why cannot the

205
Government save a great deal of time and possibly prevent the members of those teams going in search of other jobs—because, after all, they have families to support—by writing to or having meetings with the boroughs now, and so receive an answer from individual boroughs? Some boroughs will say that they do not need any help and others will say that they do. In that way everyone will know where they stand. Why must they wait until after abolition?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that question and I apologise for the unintended discourtesy of not replying to it. The residuary body can be brought into existence as soon after enactment as is required, and it will then start those conversations. The process of consultation can therefore start very early. I recall your Lordships being a little restive when I said that we had started thinking about who should be chairmen and members of the residuary bodies. I hope that the noble Baroness will at least support the Government in their belief that we ought to go ahead with this as soon as possible, so that they can motor out into the field the minute it is legal to do so and not wait until 1st April, as she fears they otherwise would.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I want the Government to motor even faster and do the consultations before abolition and before they have set up the residuary body. Do it themselves.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is true that this is the second time round, but I stress that the amendment is rather different this time and takes into account all the objections made by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to all the letters he had had from boroughs which were quite willing and able to do these repairs themselves. There is nothing to stop them doing this. Our amendment does not stop the boroughs undertaking the renovations themselves.
Whatever the Minister has said does not alter the main point that this is a short-term exercise. It was undertaken two or three years ago. The undertaking was that the GLC would be responsible for the renovation of all the transferred properties. The undertaking was also, as has now been accepted, that this would all be done by 1992. In a Bill of this sort with the amount of work that is going to be put on the boroughs, and with the amount of organisation and administration that is going to go into setting up the residuary board, at least one would have thought that the Government would not have gone to all this trouble to oppose something which is so simple and just keeps this going, and makes sure that this housing stock which badly needs renovating continues to be renovated. In the circumstances, I must ask the House to divide.
7.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81 AZA) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 140.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bacon, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Melchett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Collison, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Walston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Heycock, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hooson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eccles, V.

Allerton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Elibank, L.

Barber, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Elton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Glanusk, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Burton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Caithness, E.

Gray, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clinton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Halsbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Cowley, E.

Hives, L.

Cox, B

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Crathorne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Davidson, V.

Ingrow, L.

207

Killearn, L.

Quinton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Renwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Rodney, L.

Kintore, E.

Romney, E.

Kitchener, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Salisbury, M.

Layton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sandford, L.

Long, V.

Shannon, E.

Lothian, M.

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Soames, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Southborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stockton, E.

Margadale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teviot, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Todd, L.

Melville, V.

Townshend, M.

Middleton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vickers, B.

Moyne, L.

Vinson, L.

Munster, E.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Orkney, E.

Wise, L.

On-Ewing, L.

Wynford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Young, B.

Poltimore, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Portland, D.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it is an appropriate moment to move to other business. Before moving the usual Motion, I should say that the House will not return to this business before twenty to nine. Therefore I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill
7.41 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Saving for necessary surgical operations]:
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("any") to the end of line 18 and insert ("non-medical factors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I reiterate what I said at Committee stage: that everybody concerned with this Bill wishes female circumcision to become illegal in this country. The question is not whether it should be made illegal, but whether this Bill will help to stamp it out. The case which I put at Committee and which I am putting again tonight with this amendment is that unless this clause, which has been declared by the Commission for Racial Equality—the Government's own official board on racial discrimination in this country—to be emotive, is altered to a neutral phrase, the Bill itself can do damage and, at the
208
very best, will become subject to argument about racial discrimination. That would retard its impact on the people for whom it is intended to be beneficial.
There would seem to be two possible objections to my amendment. The first is that it could be held to prohibit those operations being done today which the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, spoke about at Committee stage, and which he and the rest of us consider to be legitimate operations, provided that they are approved of by the relevant doctors. This objection was firmly met by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, at Committee stage when I asked him whether the phrase that I am proposing to substitute in Clause 2 would inhibit the operations now being carried out which are considered to be legitimate. These were his answers, he said first:
"The answer is that the words proposed would not constitute any barrier to the proper practice of medicine. Those words are such that they should be carefully considered as to whether they provide a clear enough substitute for 'custom and ritual'. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is asking should be done".
A little later in the Committee when challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on whether the operations would not come outside the bounds of medicine, the noble Lord, Lord Richardson answered as clearly and as directly as he had in reply to the first point. He said:
"If there is an abnormality which is a significant abnormality in the assessment of a case, it should be dealt with medically".—[Official Report, 3/6/85; cols. 593–4].
In other words, I have full authority from the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, according to his answers at Committee stage, to say that my amendment would not in any way interfere with today's legitimate operations.
There may be another objection. It may be posed that the phrase "non-medical factors" is vague and could allow female circumcision still to take place with the alibi that it was done for non-medical reasons. Lord Richardson's second answer at least partially covered that objection, but the term "mental health" is a very vague term. If anyone doubts that, he should examine the confusion caused by the Mental Health Act 1983. That Act is still subject to debate, discussion and argument as to how "mental health" can be used in prisons, for example, concerning committals to Broadmoor. Indeed only this afternoon I was told that this is a very real problem with admissions to Holloway Prison. So "mental health" itself is a vague term.
If it is argued that doctors performing female circumcision after the Bill is enacted could use as an alibi the point that they were performing the operation for "non-medical factors", surely it is just as easy and just as probable that the alibi could be used that they were performing the operation for the mental health of the patient, irrespective of ritual or custom.
I believe that the approval of this amendment would greatly strengthen the impact of the Bill on the public and would avoid that unnecessary, wasteful and indeed dangerous argument about racial discrimination. We have not heard from the Government, from the sponsor of the Bill or from anyone who has opposed our amendments any answer to the statement by the Commission for Racial Equality that the Bill as it stands is racially discriminatory. If, therefore, the

209
Bill goes out in this form, it is natural and inevitable that many people inside and outside the ethnic communities will seize upon this clause and quote in their support the opinion of the Government's own board that the clause is racially discriminatory and that therefore the Bill is racially discriminatory.
I asked at Committee stage, when withdrawing the amendment, that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should consider these alternative words and consult with the authorities—not with the DHSS, which, as we know, has dug its toes in on this—with the doctors, as to whether they would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, or not. I await the answer of the noble Baroness this evening.
I conclude this introduction of the amendment by making quite clear that at least one important organisation of black women in London, the London Black Women's Health Action Project—the people on whom we are depending to persuade their own sisters and relatives that this operation should cease, on whom we are depending to educate the young women and indeed the old women and the men in their own communities against this practice—have stated categorically that they are anxious that the practice of female circumcision be discontinued in this country. They add:
"We are doubly anxious that the issue be treated with the sensitivity it demands".
So far as the racial overtones of the Bill are concerned—and I would ask noble Lords to note it very carefully because this is from those women on whom we are depending to put this Bill into practice in such a way that there is no social disturbance, no social anguish, as a result of the Bill—they say:
"If the Bill is seen as unjust and racist then groups like ours which are trying to initiate debate and to educate people about the dangers of the practice will be seen as attacking the communities involved and it will make our task harder".
I do not believe that anyone can call up better authority than these women in supporting me when I say that, unless this clause is changed, the Bill as it stands will make the task of these women, these leading women, these women on whom we depend for education, harder. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, the meaning of this amendment is that the doctor, in assessing the mental health needs of his patient, who (as we were reminded at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson) may be of any colour, race or type, must exclude non-medical factors. I am not sure about this but I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes to read what he has just said, he may, find he got tied up in his own double negatives. I think he said that a doctor might claim (presumably in court) "Oh, it is all right. I did it for non-medical factors".. Those are what he is excluding. That is a small point and I do not want to press it because I may just as likely be wrong.
The purpose of the amendment is to find, as the noble Lord put it, a neutral formula which not even the most hypersensitive, race-conscious person could possibly find offensive. This is a commendable aim and at Committee stage I made a similar attempt, suggesting a different formula. I was very sorely tempted to put down for this stage the simplest
210
amendment of all which would simply have said: "For 'ritual' read `tradition'." Perhaps I can simultaneously explain why I have not tabled any amendment at all and why I would not be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, if he were to divide the House.
My first reason is that after deep and prolonged thought I have come to the conclusion that this semantic paper chase in which we have all been indulging, although understandable and worthy, is not in the last analysis necessary. It was at Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said this:
"If you brand the use of the words, 'custom and ritual' as racialist then it seems to me that you are branding the Bill itself".
My Lords, I suggest that that was a bit of blunt, unpalatable, irrefutable truth. I would put it this way, if you accept the Short Title of the Bill—"Prohibition of Female Circumcision"—you then have to ask yourself, "What do I mean by 'female circumcision'?" I leave your Lordships to answer that question for yourselves but I defy anyone to answer it honestly in terms which could not be objected to as racialist by people on the lookout for what they call racialism. To escape from this dilemma requires a feat of Houdini like mental gymnastics of which I certainly am not capable.
My second reason, both for not tabling any amendment myself, and for opposing this one, concerns that sinister but ineluctable item, the parliamentary timetable. We are, I like to think, within about six weeks of the Summer Recess. I have heard an ominous phrase in the corridors, "There is only one more Friday". I do not know exactly what that means but it frightens me. I want this cruel and gruesome practice outlawed for the sake of its helpless innocent victims. I want this Bill; and I am not prepared to do anything which might endanger the passage of the Bill even if it is slightly imperfect.
There is a third reason for opposing this particular amendment, and that is that the words proposed might not, I suspect, stand up in court. We would, as it were, be asking the court to define a negative. I very much doubt whether the term, "non-medical practice" is sufficiently unambiguous to find a place in an Act of Parliament.
Lord Coleraine: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I felt that this amendment was inappropriate when he moved it at Committee stage. I still feel it inappropriate because, in my view, it would have the effect of excluding all operations which are otherwise permitted by Subsection (2) except those necessary for the physical health of the person on whom the operation was performed. The illustration that I gave to your Lordships in Committee was of physical abnormality. The effects of physical abnormality on a person may be to enable someone to say that she requires the operation on mental grounds. But if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has his way, if he moves this amendment and it is passed, I shall still remain of the opinion that operations for abnormality, whether they are called for on grounds of mental health or whether they are merely demanded by the person as a matter of choice, will be totally ruled out by this amendment.
The noble Lord mentioned the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. I am sorry that the noble

211
Lord, Lord Richardson, is not with us tonight. In particular, he mentioned the noble Lords' comment when I made this point to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in Committee. He said that, if there was an abnormality which was a significant abnormality in the assessment of"the case, it should be dealt with medically. In my view the noble Lord was giving a view clinically, and I have no reason to disagree with him. But I do not think he was giving a view as to what the legal effect would be if and when this Bill becomes law. I do not think that his views can be brought in now in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in this way.
8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Lord McNair asked: what do we mean by female circumcision? It was a rhetorical question. The answer he expected to leap into our minds was, "Operations carried out on the female genitalia by black people". That, in his view, would be the honest and straightforward and frank answer.
I shall tell him what I mean by female circumcision. It is the carrying out of the procedures described in Clause 1 of the Bill for non-medical reasons. It is as simple as that. It seems to me that simple legislation is very often good legislation, and the form of words of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is perfectly good. They are procedures which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, are cruel and gruesome when they are carried out for non-medical reasons; that is to say, when they achieve no good to the health of the person but only harm to the health of the person. That is what we want to prohibit; and the phrase "'non-medical' reasons" will do it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I rise to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. If, in a serious context, I may strike a possibly light note, I would quote an act that George Robey used to put on in the music halls when he was simulating the attitude of a landlady towards a lodger who, she thought, was getting over-familiar with her daughter. She expressed it in the views of a retailer who was objecting to the fingering of goods by a customer, saying, "If you don't want the goods don't mess 'em about". If your Lordships want this Bill, don't mess it about! What the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said is absolutely true. We are getting very close to the end of the Parliamentary Session, and the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could result in us losing this Bill altogether.
Female circumcision is a disgusting racial practice imported into this country which should be stamped on completely. If racialism means the support of the ungodly, then I am against the support of the ungodly and I am a racialist, although in many ways I am not.
There are many reasons for my supporting the noble Baroness on this Bill and for opposing the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I always oppose whatever he says: I always support whatever she says. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, proceeds to divide the House I shall follow the noble Baroness into the Division Lobby.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I think I should make a small contribution here. We have been searching for words
212
in Clause (2)(2) which would serve the purposes of the Bill and not cause offence. I think that these words which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has suggested do just that. The noble Lord has also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, who says that they will not exclude any legitimate operations which are done for medical reasons. There is only one possible objection to this amendment apart from the one which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has mentioned of there being only one more Friday. That has been held over our heads as a sort of threat, but I do not think that it should in any way stop us discussing what we feel are important refinements of this Bill. Even if we do not feel that this House will pass them, they should go on record as having been said.
I think these suggested words are much better than the present ones for the reasons which we have stated: that they cause no offence to anyone, and fulfil the purposes of the Bill. I think the only possible objection to these words is that there might be a legal problem as to what "non-medical" reasons entail. If, for instance, mental health reasons are used for doing the operation, could they be called medical reasons? The mental health reasons might include the distress that the woman is having because she cannot have the operation, because, under pressure from her compatriots, she feels that she should have it. I think that this argument is one which can be looked at in a court of law. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, says, I think the Short Title of this Bill is quite specific, and that any barrister or judge looking at this, particularly in the light of the views the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed in this House about this practice, will be in no doubt that any carrying out of the practice described in this Bill would be against the law.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said. He has said it very much better than I could. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must just say how much I agree with the wise words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I can well understand the purpose of this amendment, which avoids the need to refer to "custom or ritual". But I have to say (as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, himself said would in fact be said) that it is very vague and would not be acceptable to the Government.
That vagueness would make interpretation difficult. The courts would need to decide what does or does not constitute a "medical factor". There are essentially two possibilities. They would decide that anxiety caused by a woman's belief that in some way her external genitalia were not acceptable to others was not a medical factor. In that case this phrase would catch not just female circumcision but also many of the mental health grounds for quite legitimate ethical operations. That would clearly not be acceptable to the medical profession or their patients.
Lord Rea: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to interrupt? I do not think that there is likely to be a court case brought against a legitimate

213
operation. This is the point. It is most unlikely that a surgeon who is doing a legitimate operation for mental health grounds on someone in this country will have anybody objecting to it on legal grounds.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the other hand, the courts could decide that this anxiety about the acceptability of appearance to others was a medical factor. In that case this amendment would make legal female circumcision in circumstances where it is not legal now. That, too, is not acceptable.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to make the law crystal clear. This amendment only serves to make the law so obscure that we cannot know whether or not we are making female circumcision—that pointless, harmful mutilation—in some cases legal. We must clearly distinguish in this Bill between ethical, legitimate operations performed by doctors for a patient on grounds of mental health and female circumcision. The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit all cases of female circumcision. That is achieved by the Bill as currently drafted, which should, therefore, remain unamended.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it has been said over and over again that all noble Lords who have taken part in these stages of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill are against this cruel and mutilating practice, and this has also been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, tonight. Many people are amazed that your Lordships are still discussing this horrific custom, which appalled most people in Britain when they realised it was practised here even though by a small minority of people. Some noble Lords may genuinely be trying to improve this Bill, but they could be jeopardising it by any amendment, as has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.
We are dealing here with a matter which is a tradition of some people, but it is not a tradition which we allow in Britain. Our cosmopolitan society has brought with it the need to clarify the law so that without any doubt female circumcision, for reasons other than the wellbeing of patients on medical grounds, will be against the law. As the Bill now stands, that is made clear.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has been looked at again, as I undertook at Committee stage would be done. The purpose of the Bill, as I have tried to stress, is to make the law clear beyond all doubt. Amendment No. 1 makes the Bill vague and obscure. The Bill must now allow the defence, after the deed has been done, that it was necessary to perform the mutilation because otherwise the girl or woman would have been greatly distressed. It is doubtful whether a doctor performing the mutilation now could successfully claim such a defence. This amendment might create that possibility: it could be a loophole.
Interpretation, of course, would be a matter for the courts. The amendment, if it prohibits female circumcision, might prohibit legitimate surgery. I should like to read a letter I received only last night from the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, after I had written to him and sent a copy of Hansard containing the proceedings of the Committee stage. The letter says:
214
"It is in the view of this college very important to have 'mental' and 'physical' included, as mental conditions may require surgical treatment to get rid of the mental problems. The idea that mental problems are all treated by psychiatric means is just not true. I note that Lord Hatch is keen to substitute 'non-medical factors'. This would not be acceptable as it is very unclear what 'non-medical factors' are. If, for example, a girl had a mental illness as a result of not having circumcision, would she then have a medical reason for doing it? It is very unclear.
"In my view, this could make female circumcision legal. After long reflection it seems to me that it is necessary to ban female circumcision on the grounds of custom and ritual. One has to balance the benefits of offending a few who object to the wording on racist grounds against obtaining a Bill which bans what is barbaric practice. I think a few who are offended would need to accept a wording in the interests of banning this practice."
I am myself no longer worried about the word "ritual". I have discussed this with my own bishop and he said it was a useful word in this context and he felt the Bill was clearer for it. I do not think it is helpful to anyone to make out that this Bill is racist. Whoever performs female circumcision in Britain for reasons of custom or ritual, from the Shetland Isles to Land's End, will not be able to perform female circumcision, whoever they are, when this Bill is law.
We are all used to ritual in your Lordships' House, but ours is harmless and hurts no one. I believe this Bill is what the country at large wants, and this is what has been agreed to in another place by all parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will withdraw his amendment. It confuses some well-meaning people outside your Lordships' House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not think that any of the arguments I have put forward in support of this amendment have been answered or that most of them have even been approached. So far as the approaching end of the parliamentary Session is concerned, that really is a red herring—
The Earl of Halsbury: No.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if we had sufficiently wished to pass this Bill 12 months ago it would have become law 12 months ago. It was the Government who insisted on inserting a clause—Clause 2 as it now appears in this Bill—on which the Government were then defeated by this House. The House has spoken once on this and the Government would not accept it. Any delay lies at the door of the Government, and it is a 12-months' delay. In any case, the Session does not end at the end of July. There are weeks in October which are available, when both Houses will be sitting, and therefore in my view the argument is a false one.
We have been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, not to mess it about. But who was it who messed it about? It was the Government. We had a simple, straightforward Bill. We had a very clear and forceful statement from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This amendment is not a Government amendment: it is an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am sorry, my Lords. It was a Government amendment which killed the Bill last

215
year. I am referring to the last Bill, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We had passed that Bill through this House. We passed it twice, with the interruption of the general election, and it was the Government who first of all, when they were defeated in this House, then defeated it in the other place by the simple word, "Object". This Bill could have been law 12 months ago—a Bill that carried out our intention of outlawing female circumcision.
The noble Baroness wants the Bill to make it crystal clear, but the two Bills of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were crystal clear and then the Government—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will give way, will he stop making a Second Reading speech and speak to his amendment?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am speaking exactly to my amendment and replying to the comments that have been made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has said that she wanted to make the Bill crystal clear. But as soon as the Government introduced the phrase "mental health", legal dubiety came into the Bill. What I am trying to do, having failed to remove the mental health issue, is to make sure that when "mental health" is interpreted it does not have a racially discriminatory character.
Again, I have quoted the Government's own board—I repeat, the Government's board and not our board—declaring that this clause in the Bill is racially discriminatory. It is all very well for noble Lords and noble Baronesses to say that they or their bishops do not believe that it is discriminatory. The people concerned do believe that it is discriminatory; and what I have been trying to do is to prevent this Bill being distorted and being the subject of a public argument which has nothing to do with the Bill's purpose. That is all I have been trying to do from the start: to prevent the Bill being used as a means of debate, discussion, argument and conflict on racial grounds. That, I believe, can be done through the words that I have proposed in this amendment.
I have the authority. It is no good noble Lords and noble Baronesses saying that it might interfere with present legitimate operations. The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, said categorically that it would not. Surely he knows better than any of us in the House tonight. Again, I simply beg noble Lords not to smear the Bill, not to distort the Bill, and not to send the Bill out to the public, inviting a debate on whether or not it is racially discriminatory. The debate should be led by the leaders of the ethnic communities—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I shall give way in a moment. The debate should be led by the leaders of the ethnic communities who have the terribly difficult task to perform of persuading their own people that female circumcision should be done away with in their own societies. They have said that the Bill as it reads will damage their chances. I beg noble Lords to listen to them. I will now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I was going to say to the noble Lord that surely if his amendment is accepted, it will do precisely what he does not want to do. It will make the Bill discriminatory, because it will then possibly be legal for one ethnic group to have female circumcision whereas for the rest of the country it will be illegal. The whole point of his amendment is totally against what the noble Lord has been talking about.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, frankly, I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord. My amendment will not allow female circumcision in any circumstances. What it will do is to prevent the exemptions from female circumcision being placed on a racial basis, and it is in that sense that it is moved.
8.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Falkland, V.

Melchett, L.

Hacking, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gray, L.

Attlee, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Barber, L.

Gregson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Boardman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Burton, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Inglewood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ingrow, L.

Colwyn, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Cox, B.

Kimball, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kitchener, E.

David, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Davidson, V.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Donegall, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

McNair, L.

Elton, L.

Mar, C.

Ennals, L.

Margadale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Fitt, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Molson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gowrie, E.

Moyne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Munster, E.

217

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Nicol, B.

Swinfen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinton, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Teviot, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Portland, D.

Townshend, M.

Quinton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vickers, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vinson, L.

Shannon, E.

Vivian, L.

Sharples, B.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Stockton, E.

Young, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, make regulations to require any registered medical practitioner to notify, in such terms as may be prescribed, the carrying out of operations under section 2 of this Act to the Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland.
(2) Regulations made under this section may prohibit the disclosure of the information, notified under subsection (1) except to such persons or for such purposes as may be prescribed in the regulations.
(3) A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which asks that there may be provision for the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to make regulations,
"to require any registered medical practitioner to notify, in such terms as may be prescribed, the carrying out of operations under section 2 of this Act to the Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland."
I am very concerned, as are all of your Lordships, about monitoring this Bill. It is very important if we pass this Bill, as I hope we shall, that we are able to have some follow-up and to find out what are its results. I have been in contact with the department whose statistical section, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, compiles an annual report of medical statistics under which it includes comprehensive details of all operations carried out during the year. The latest figures available are for 1982 and in that year the department reported that there were 682 operations for female circumcision.
I have put clown this amendment because I want to know whether the figures for next year and the year after will be higher. If there were 682 operations for female circumcision in 1982, we must try to monitor the impact of this Bill. Will the result of this Bill be more or fewer operations? All I ask is: why and how? The report is published by HMSO and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether it is possible to continue to monitor these operations. I am particularly asking that there should be a clear statement that the Secretary of State should, by statutory instrument, get these figures and, if not, why not? My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I support the amendment because it gives the Secretary of State power to do something which he may wish to do or may not wish to do. I cannot see that his having the power can be objectionable to anybody.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not see any point in the amendment. Any illegal operations will not be recorded or reported and those are the ones that matter. The legal ones are done for a very good reason under doctors' advice. It is the illegal ones that we want to know about. They will not be reported, because they will get the reporter and other people into trouble. The whole thing is a waste of time and absolutely pointless.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but I must ask him to think a little more about this. We are not asking for the illegal operations to be reported, because of course they will not be. What we are trying to do by this amendment is to bring this operation closer to the provision in the Act to terminate pregnancies, under which the doctor has to report that he has performed the operation. That is quite different from what the noble Lord has said. We know that illegal operations will not be reported, but unless we get a report of what is happening we shall not be able to follow up the results of this Bill.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I must say that I have to oppose my noble friend on this amendment because, owing to the way in which it is worded, there would have to be notified some 100,000 or so episiotomies and 9,000 legitimate operations which are done on female genitalia. However, I should have much more sympathy if it could be narrowed down as in subsection (2) of Clause 2, but the amendment as it stands does not do that. Perhaps my noble friend could think again about that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I feel inclined to support this amendment, but I would ask my noble friend Lady Jeger just to clarify one point. Can she tell us why she has used the word "may" rather than the word "shall"?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he has said, because, although I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is well intentioned in putting down this amendment, it would become a bureaucratic nightmare. I am told that the word "may" in a statute is not permissive; it is mandatory, and the Secretary of State would not have discretion about whether or not to make these regulations. He would be obliged to do so. Just think, my Lords, of the problems which would arise, as has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Therefore, I could not accept this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I hope that I may, with leave, come back again, because I am very worried about what the noble Baroness has said. The figures that I have from the department and from the Library show that there were 682 operations for female circumcision in the year 1982. So I am not asking for anything new or special or difficult. I am trying to

219
make it mandatory that these operations are recorded in future as they are being recorded at the present time. There is nothing extraordinary about what I am asking for. The idea that this would create a lot of bureaucratic business is not sustainable. If there have been 682 operations for female circumcision in 1982, there has been all that bureaucracy. All I am asking is that we go on—
The Earl of Halsbury: Stamp collecting.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, someone says "stamp collecting", but I think that if we are to get any sense out of Clause 2(2), we must know what is happening. That is all I have to say.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in view of the point that has been raised, can the Minister—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect, I think that the noble Baroness has in fact moved the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I wanted to ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House. The suggestion has been made that in the context of this amendment the word "may" makes the provision mandatory. I think we need some assurance about that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I think I have answered that already by saying that it did. Therefore it would become a bureaucratic nightmare, with hundreds and thousands of cases having to be notified, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 4 [Short title, commencement, and extent]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("force") to end of line 35 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, being any day in the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would empower the Secretary of State to bring the Bill into force at any time he liked during the period of 12 months after it passes. I propose the amendment because of the need for time for education. Perhaps I may give the House the evidence of this need. There are two main bodies from the immigrant communities concerned who are involved in the campaign to educate those communities on the undesirability of female circumcision. They are the London Black Women's Health Action Project and FOWARD. Both are strongly in favour of the possibility of a delay in the coming into effect of the Bill. I shall quote the words of the former group:
"Outlawing female circumcision in other countries has been partially successful but the practice continues underground where proper work has not been done to
re-educate and support families, particularly women, in opposing the practice. Legislation which does not allow a period of time in which educational work can be done will not succeed in stamping out the practice of female circumcision in the UK".
These are people who know better than we do and even better than the Department of Health, if I may say so.
They go on to say:
"We do not believe that the practice of female circumcision will disappear overnight when the Bill becomes law, and we are worried. We believe that legislation alone cannot change people's minds about circumcision. It must be accompanied by education, counselling and communication, and it is for these reasons that we urge an amendment to delay implementation".
To me the case is obvious. Let us think what might happen at the worst. The first case brought to court might involve a family who were unaware of the existence of this law. They would be prosecuted under a law of which they had not heard and which they did not understand when they did hear of it. That I submit is worth going quite a long way to avoid. The House simply ought not to want such a possibility to be written into the statute book. There has been no Government help for education or counselling for these people. I do not blame the Government. The Government became aware of the problem only rather recently. They are now aware of it. There are applications before them for financial help in this matter from several organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, told us at the Committee stage. The Government have not had time to consider them; quite right. Let them not bring the Bill into effect before they have considered them and before those organisations have had some months to speak in their own language, using their own images, to what is one of the most cloistered, sequestered immigrant communities in the country.
One of these groups has had some money from the GLC. It is only a London-wide group. There are immigrant communities concerned not only in London but also in Cardiff, in Liverpool and especially in other docklands. If the Government urge the House to reject this amendment or if they threaten to use their very easy majority by bringing in all the people who are not listening to the debate but are having dinner, I think they will have a considerable criticism to face in the event of convictions of totally ignorant people.
The amendment does not amend the Bill. The amendment does not amend the effect, or meaning or purport of the Bill. The argument that it might therefore delay its passage through the House of Commons if it were adopted is untenable. It affects only the date on which it comes into operation; it affects it only at the discretion of the Secretary of State. If the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is going to advise the House not to accept the amendment, the House must listen to her arguments and see whether they are arguments why the Secretary of State should not have the power to delay implementation if he wishes.
The House should also remember that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this Bill is probably not necessary in any case; that is to say, if there were evidence, convictions could be brought under the present law. I do not know whether or not that is true. The noble and learned Lord does; I do not. None of us here does.
The noble Baroness is looking at her watch and the Government Whip has been running around

221
threatening that we shall lose the Bill if we do not terminate our discussions within the next five minutes. In this Chamber it requires the Motion of the House to terminate a particular stage of a particular Bill at a particular time. The Government Whip wisely announced that the main business would not be resumed before twenty minutes to nine. Nobody has the power to insist that it should be resumed by that time or by any other.
If after having overridden medical opinion in this House, the opinion of their statutory advisers outside the House, and the opinions of the minority communities concerned and so on and so forth, on the substance of the Bill, the Government continue to use their majority on this minor point of procedure, giving themselves as Government greater freedom than they would otherwise have, I do not know what conclusion noble Lords will draw. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am puzzled by one thing. The Bill says:
"This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed".
In other words, there is a two months' delay written into the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would enable the Secretary of State to bring it into force the very day after it was passed if he so wished. Obviously, there is something here I do not understand and as the noble Lord had not really sat down, I wonder whether he can clear it up.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I do not think it matters. The amendment has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to bring the Bill into effect 10 months later than it would otherwise have come into effect, or two months earlier. I want the Secretary of State to be free to do what he thinks fit and I hope that when he has had time to think he will realise that there must be time for the education and counselling, as the communities say.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we fully accept that this Bill of itself will not eradicate female circumcision. It is a part, albeit a necessary part, of the wider campaign that includes education and counselling. That education is happening now. It does not await the passage of the Bill, although we all hope that it will be greatly assisted by it. We must do what we can to help this wider campaign, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I know that officials in the department are having meetings with organisations in this field of interest to see what can be done to help them. It would be of no assistance to those organisations, or to anyone else, to delay this clarification of the law. If delay encouraged anyone to perform female circumcision then it would do a great disservice.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he drafted a Bill on this subject during the last Session. Had that Bill been successful, it would now be on the statute book. Why should the noble Lord urge delay of the commencement of the Bill now before us? The noble Lord's Bill had no transition clause. Even if it had had such a clause, the Bill would probably now be
222
in operation. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. The Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would have been ineffective. The Bill now before your Lordships is a great improvement. I see no reason to delay still further this effective legislation.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, it is with some grief that I have to declare that I cannot support this amendment. If female circumcision is wrong today, it will be wrong in 12 months' time. If we were to pass this amendment, we would be suggesting to some of the people most concerned that they could continue performing female circumcisions for the next 12 months and that there would be nothing wrong with that. This amendment would mean that many women would be subject, without legal protection, to risk. It is not a good amendment. I want to see this Bill brought into law as soon as possible. Any postponement would be harmful and wrong.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I understand the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in arguing for a 12-month delay. It could be argued that such a delay could benefit some, but delay could also cause pain and suffering of a wholly needless kind to others. I am more concerned with the pain that can be prevented rather than the pain that might be prevented. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench but it seems to me that the Government are disregarding the advice they were given right at the beginning of this whole process—with the first Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Female circumcision is already illegal today. So says the primate of the judicial system of this country. Why have no prosecutions been brought? Is it because there has been no evidence? Is it because witnesses will not give evidence? How will all that change with this Bill? According to the Lord Chancellor, anyone who has performed female circumcision can be prosecuted under 19th century legislation dealing with assault on the person. We would not be putting anybody at risk by postponing the coming into force of this Bill.
Would it not be sensible, and would it not be sensitive, if the Secretary of State were given the power to bring together those upon whom we rely to educate their own people, so that they may decide when they have been sufficiently successful and have a good body of opinion behind them? The Secretary of State could then decide in turn when the moment has come to put the Bill into operation. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the whole point of this Bill is to clarify the law. The law is not very clear at the moment and that is the crux of the situation. There is no doubt that education is needed for those groups of people who have had passed down to them this cruel and misguided practice of mutilating their families. Such men and women need educating, and no one would argue with that.
The World Health Organisation and the United Nations are striving to educate at an international

223
level, as are other splendid and progressive groups throughout the world. Britain has delayed too long in making clear legislation prohibiting female circumcision. Ours is the mother country of the Commonwealth. People still look to us for leadership in legislation. We have been discussing this matter for two years. We should dither and haver no more. This amendment would serve only to delay the issue, and I see no real merit in doing that. The sooner the legislation is on the statute book the sooner real, positive education can start and people will take this matter seriously.
If this amendment had to go back to the Commons and the Bill were lost, Britain would be doing a great disservice to many people who are striving to prevent this horrible practice. For such legislation to fall for a third time would be very damaging, particularly in respect of a matter such as this. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, really want to risk this Bill? I hope that he will not press this amendment, because I cannot accept it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have already explained why the Bill would not be put at risk if this amendment were accepted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, accused me of wanting to have it both ways. She asked why the Bill which I introduced into this House three years ago did not contain a clause empowering the Secretary of State to delay the Bill's enforcement. The reason was quite simple. It was because the communities concerned had not told me that that ought to be done. At that time, and indeed two years ago, there was no discussion in the communities concerned of the desirability or undesirability of the Bill. There was no
224
discussion of the need for education. Indeed, there was no awareness of the need for education or awareness of the law. Today, there is such awareness. Relevant bodies have been formed and they have asked for time to carry out education.
I shall not waste the time of the House by putting this amendment to the vote. But I will ask the House to listen while I put certain remarks on the record. I am not putting this amendment to the vote because the Government—not Lady Masham—have already shown what they can do by bringing out the "dining room vote". They will do it again and it would waste time. Such people have not heard the discussion. There are at present seven or eight souls on the Government Benches but 119 Peers went through the Lobby to vote against just now, as your Lordships will remember, and no doubt they would do so again.
The Government are denying themselves the power to have mercy in this matter, if they should wish to reconsider it.
Baroness Trumpington: Nonsense.
Lord Kennet: I heard the noble Baroness's observation, my Lords, and I wonder whether it applies to my use of the word "mercy" or to the fact that the Government were denying themselves the power to delay. Obviously the noble Baroness was applying it to my use of the word "mercy". I can only say that I hope that I am proved to be wrong and that it turns out that the Government are right and only conscious criminals will be prosecuted under this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government Bill
8.58 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 81AZB:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Grants for Information and Advice Service.
.—(1) The Council of a London borough and of a district in metropolitan counties shall make such grants to appropriate voluntary organisations as are necessary to ensure that such organisations can provide citizens with information, advice and assistance with regard to the responsibilities and rights of those citizens.
(2) In this section "voluntary organisations" has the same meaning as in section 48(10) of this Act.
(3) The duty created by this section shall not be regarded as restricting the powers of section 48 of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, words of wisdom on the law often come from Scotland. There are one or two Scottish colleagues here who have the benefit of that compliment from a mere Welshman. The Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland, in its 1980 report, stated:
"It is pointless to say that all men are equal before the law if some cannot afford to use the law to protect their rights … We believe there is little merit in Parliament conferring rights and imposing duties on citizens (for example, by social welfare legislation) unless at the same time it provides an effective means of informing people of those rights and responsibilities".
The amendment which I propose to move seeks to oblige the councils of the London boroughs and of the districts in the metropolitan counties to:
"make such grants to appropriate voluntary organisations as are necessary to ensure that such organisations can provide citizens with information, advice and assistance with regard to the responsibilities and rights of those citizens".
Those running the relevant organisations fear—and nothing said so far during the progress of the Bill has dispelled their fears—that large numbers of information, advice and law centres will have to curtail their services seriously and some will have to close down altogether during the next four years unless changes are made in the financial provisions of the Bill. If that happens, the resulting damage to our society could well be very serious. In many ways those voluntary organisations up and down the country, and in particular in the areas with which we are concerned, are crucial in holding our society together at a time of increasing public confrontation and potential disorder.
Clause 48 of the Bill provides that a scheme may be set up—and we had an earlier argument as to whether that should be made mandatory—to enable grants to be made to voluntary organisations whose work spans more than one borough or district. Again as we learned earlier, such a scheme can be set up only if 51 per cent. of all the districts and boroughs in the area concerned agree to its introduction. Once the scheme has been set up a two-thirds majority of all the districts and boroughs in the area concerned is needed for any particular project to receive funds. The money that each borough or district will be expected to contribute towards any collective scheme will have to come from its own general funds. The Government are not giving a penny of additional money.
The Government will place a limit on the total expenditure to be incurred under the scheme, but have not yet finally decided what the limit will be. The future is bleakly uncertain. The transitional arrangements so far announced are still far from satisfactory. For all the voluntary organisations currently funded by the GLC and the metropolitan counties, the Government have offered £15 million in 1986–87 to replace the over £60 million now provided. The rest—the missing £45 million—will have to come from the boroughs and districts. Is that likely seriously to be forthcoming? As to the trust fund which was announced during the Committee stage of the Bill, in several years' time that may provide £1 million a year to be awarded to voluntary sector projects in London. That is of course welcome as supplementary funding, but it cannot constitute core funding to sustain the basic public services which are provided by the voluntary sector.
Most of the advice and information agencies or law centres are situated in areas which will be affected by abolition, rate capping, rate support grant penalties or a mixture of the three. Of the major advice and information networks which make up the Advice Services Alliance, it is estimated that over half will suffer severe financial cutbacks; yet, as the National Consumer Council has said, the demands placed upon the services of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the other advice and law centres have never been greater. It adds:
"We do not think in current and foreseeable financial circumstances that it is realistic for the Government to expect the lower tier authorities to pick up the tab for expenditure on advice services now attributable to the GLC and the metropolitan counties".
The complexity of our society is increasing, and there is a growing need for information and advice. This year the CABs will have nearly 6 million inquiries. It is unfortunate that because of duties elsewhere the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who I think is the president of the CABs, is unable to be here, as I am sure that his name would have appeared over the amendment. The law centres are under very great pressure, and because of my special interest in them I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say a little about them.
When on May 8th I asked the Government what steps were being taken to protect law centres from closure, I received a very dusty answer, despite the fact that there is now general appreciation of the great value of the 55 law centres up and down the country to our society and to the administration of justice. In its report in 1979 the Royal Commission on Legal Services said:
"The impact of law centres has been out of all proportion to their size, to the number of lawyers who work in them and to the amount of work it is possible for them to undertake. The volume of work they have attracted has shown how deep is the need they are attempting to meet".
The report continues:
"The Lord Chancellor's Legal Advisory Committee summed up informed opinion thus in its evidence. '… We think that law centres are, and should be, here to stay and that they are making a vital contribution to legal services'".
Then the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid pressed the Government, in its last

227
report, to take immediate action to unify central support for legal services and ensure the survival of services threatened by changes in local government, in particular the law centres dependent upon the urban programme. So the danger and the risk was identified by those authoritative bodies. It then went on to say that law centres in particular should be treated as an essential part of the national network of legal services and the Lord Chancellor should take on responsibility for their core funding.
Alas, the Lord Chancellor has indicated that it is within neither his power nor his authority so to do. In a letter which I had the privilege of receiving from the Lord Chancellor on 21st March this year he said:
"decisions relating to the urban programme and to the funding of individual projects within it are matters for the Secretary of State for the Environment and not for me."
So then I looked towards the Secretary of State for the Environment. Surprise, surprise, his reponse was this. He wrote:
"It is, and always has been the case that projects are given urban programme support for a limited period only … It is then for the local authority to decide on main programme funding."
In a large number of cases that urban aid has been or is being terminated. Thus the two Ministers concerned simply pass the buck, if I may put it in that way, to those least able to sustain it; namely, the local authorities.
It is in the light of these unhappy developments that I move the amendment to require the London borough councils and the metropolitan county councils to make such grants as are necessary to voluntary organisations, to ensure that they can provide citizens with information, advice and assistance with regard to the responsibilities and rights of the citizen. It is the Government, by central funding, who should undertake the financial burden in this field. It is not right to pass it on to the local authorities. However, if the Government will not take this on then the unhappy local authorities must do so.
We must not turn a blind eye to this vital aspect in the provision of our social services, particularly for those most in need of advice and defence. If we are to make a reality of equal access to justice, something has to be done over and above the miserable proposals of the Government in this Bill and in its propositions. I accordingly move the amendment in my name.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support this amendment, so ably moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Perhaps he will agree with me that, although it is certainly a much more distinguished amendment, it is a first cousin to the one I moved yesterday evening, which would ensure the continuance of the information provided by the GLC in connection with claiming benefits, and so on.
Very briefly, without repeating what I said late last night, I would say that in this country there is an enormous need for information in those spheres. I think your Lordships will agree that it is particularly apparent among the deprived sections of the
228
community. I am thinking, for example, of the elderly widowed who cannot go out and those who may not have television or may not have even a radio. Then of course there are the ethnic minorities, about whom, as many of your Lordships know, I am deeply concerned. Their problem in many cases stems from the fact that they do not speak English. Certainly many do, but many do not, particularly elderly Asian women such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Therefore I think it is absolutley essential that some provision be contained in this Bill for the provision of information, assistance and advice. I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord that the provisions in the Bill at the moment are totally inadequate in this context.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have the honour to be president of an organisation called Dial UK. It has 76 local groups throughout the country that give information to disabled people. Many of the people who work for Dial are disabled themselves. Many of their problems are most complicated and difficult. One of the jobs that they do is to try to help disabled people understand the very complicated legislation that we in Parliament churn out. I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which I have great pleasure in supporting.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, any professional worthy of his salt would have to support, irrespective of party, the spirit behind the amendment. The question is where the money is to come from. The other question is the proper organisation and control of the system under which such an advice service operates. It is plain that something must be done. I would hope that those more able than myself to think of sources of funds that are available would be able to provide the answer.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like briefly to support two matters to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Those of us in the social work field recognise that without the Citizens' Advice Bureaux the statutory services would be overwhelmed with work which they are now saved from doing. Although I was a statutory worker in a social services department, I have to admit that the voluntary organisation in this area was very much better than the statutory service. Secondly, I support the noble and learned Lord where law centres are concerned. Here again, those who cannot afford fees for solicitors and who are not really au fait with the legal aid system depend on law centres. With regard to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had to say about where the money is to come from, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether this is the kind of thing with which the trust could help? Or am I off beam entirely?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to your Lordships' remarks about the

229
amendment courteously and clearly recommended by the noble and learned Lord at the beginning of this post-dinner debate. I am well aware of the important and valuable work carried out by our voluntary advice services, both legal and other. Local authorities have traditionally been a major source of support for these organisations. It is the Government's intention that they shall continue to be so. I need hardly remind the House of the substantial support that the Government have given the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux through the Department of Trade and Industry. Following the Lovelock Report, this grant-in-aid has been significantly increased and now stands at over £7 million. Some of this money is directed through local advice bureaux but most of their support is provided by local authorities, which also fund other sorts of advice, information and citizens' rights centres.
There is no question that local government has power to make these grants. I believe that the £10 million that local advice bureaux receive is evidence of its will to support these services. It is important to recognise this considerable commitment already shown by district and borough councillors for funding advice centres. The amendment seeks to require local authorities to provide these grants. The amendment is therefore quite different from Clause 48. The clause provides new powers that the boroughs and districts need in order to take on a role which the GLC and the MCCs presently perform. The effect of the amendment would be different. It would be to describe in statute the priorities which a local authority must have in making those grants.
I recall making this point with some force to your Lordships' Committee on the Bill. I did so because looking around at a rather better populated Chamber than we have at the moment I could see almost no one who was not deeply committed to one voluntary activity or another. There can hardly be a gathering anywhere else in the world of people who habitually gather together for other purposes and who individually play such diverse and important roles in the voluntary field. I asked your Lordships to consider for a moment what would be your individual reaction if a Peer or Peeress should write into the Bill a specific requirement to fund his or her favoured activity and not their own. Your Lordships at once perceived what would follow. The Marshalled List would be crammed to overflowing with similar amendments on an army of other activities.
The noble and learned Lord himself has proved that the temptation would be irresistible. The Committee stage amendment sought to put Citizens' Advice Bureaux alone on to this privileged list. That was in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who had a strong CAB interest. Now the noble and learned Lord takes over the amendment. He has a strong legal interest. Lo and behold, law centres are to share this privileged niche.
In the end it must be best to leave these decisions with local councillors, who are in closest touch with the needs of their areas. We cannot determine their priorities for them. Of course, I understand that advice bureaux, like other voluntary bodies, seek the greatest
230
possible certainty about their grants in 1986. The Government are already doing a great deal to ensure continuity by increasing central Government support over the transitional period and by adjusting the mechanisms of local government finance so that councils will have their resources to take on their new responsibilities.
With all respect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, spoke as though the local authorities in question would not have been relieved of a single penny of the very considerable precept burden which at present they are paying and which contributes in part to the very purpose to which he now wishes them to contribute and to which they will be better able to contribute as a result of not having to pay the precept.
I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that in principle, if a voluntary organisation falls within the terms of Clause 48, it is eligible for support from the trust, when we have provided it. I think that that was the question she asked me.
I ask your Lordships to consider the record of support by district and borough councils to date and to think again about whether it is right for this House to require them to make grants of a particular sort without requiring them to make others, because it means that these favoured activities will receive the first cut, as it were, and the more we add to them, the less there will be left. I believe that it is a bad principle to single out one or, as it now is, two or, as it later might be, three, or perhaps after that five or 17 special activities as activities which must be carried out by statute. I hope that your Lordships will share my view that, although I have no feeling at all against what the noble and learned Lord wants—which is the continuation of this service—as guardians of the other services, which would also be funded from the same source, we ought not to pick these out by this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, If I may say so. I find that reply highly disappointing. The necessity for legal aid and for services of the kind provided by the CABs is known and acknowledged everywhere to be vitally important. The Government have told us that neither the Lord Chancellor's Department nor the Secretary of State for the Environment will take responsibility for it. The whole responsibility is passed back to local authorities, which are now subject to fierce financial restriction, rate capping, and controls of various kinds. It is in that situation that this burden is passed back to them.
What will the priorities be? The legal services may well become one of the early non-priorities. What happens then? Are all these bodies to be wound up? The Government are nurturing a very dangerous future for themselves. This society is now under considerable harassment. Crime is on the increase. The risk of public disorder, as we have seen, is growing. Unless a network of legal means of securing redress is available to the citizen, those citizens who are deprived may take their own remedy and not reciprocate by their own observance of duties, which the rule of law requires. The risks are serious and I am sorry that they are so lightly undertaken and looked at by Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 81AZC:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Economic Development Authorities.
.—(1) On the abolition date there shall be established for Greater London and each of the metropolitan areas a body corporate which shall be known as the London Economic Development Authority, or by the name of the county with the words "Economic Development Authority" as the case may be, to which the Secretary of State shall transfer the functions to which this section applies.
(2) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan economic development authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county, and for the London Economic Development Authority shall be the councils of the London boroughs.
(4) The functions of the Economic Development Authority in each area shall be—

(a) funding whether directly or through any body corporate whose object includes the assistance, promotion and encouragement of existing and new industrial or commercial enterprises in Greater London and the metropolitan county areas by way of grants, loans, guarantees or other financial assistance;

(b) the provision of research and information necessary to the development of programmes appropriate for the economic, industrial and employment development of the areas concerned:

(c) the provision of training projects, or funding of such projects whether directly or through any body corporate, appropriate to the employment needs of the areas concerned.

(5) An order under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities and provisions amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 81AZC, and with your Lordships' permission I propose to speak, albeit very lightly, to Amendments Nos. 81AZD and 81AZE.
Amendment No. 8JAZD: After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Joint committees for economic development.
.—(1) The councils of the districts in a metropolitan county or the boroughs in Greater London shall not later than the abolition date establish a joint committee of members of these councils to undertake the duty contained in subsection (2) below.
(2) It shall be the duty of a joint committee established under subsection (1) above to provide funds and make arrangements for the provision by them of funds for assistance to individuals and organisations wishing to establish, or maintain industrial, commercial or service activities which will provide or retain employment within the area of that metropolitan county or Greater London as appropriate.")
Amendment No. 8JAZD: After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Financial assistance for economic development.
.—(1) The constituent councils in a metropolitan county or Greater London shall not later than the abolition date establish a fund to provide financial assistance to industry in accordance with the provisions contained in this section and for the purposes set out in subsection (3) below.
(2) The constituent councils may provide assistance where at least two-thirds of them are of the opinion that—

(a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the area of the metropolitan county or Greater London, and

(b) the undertaking for which the assistance is provided is or will be wholly or mainly in that area.

(3) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry,

(b) to promote the efficiency of an industry,

232

(c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry, or in undertakings in an industry,

(d) to promote the reconstruction, reorganisation or conversion of an industry or of undertakings in an industry,

(e) to encourage the growth of or the proper distribution of undertakings in an industry.

(4) Financial assistance may be given on any terms or conditions and by any description of investment, lending or guarantee or by making grants.
(5) In this section "industry" unless the context otherwise requires, includes any description of commercial activity and reference to an industry includes references to any section of an industry.
(6) Financial assistance under this section shall be provided by one of the constituent councils designated for that purpose by the other constituent councils and that council shall manage the fund in accordance with arrangements which shall be agreed between the constituent councils.
(7) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated Council incurred under this section in proportion to the rateable values of their respective areas.
(8) The power conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to incur expenditure for the purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.").
These three amendments are concerned with the future of economic development in the areas covered by the GLC and by the metropolitan counties. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I do not expect to obtain a vote majority in your Lordships' House tonight. Comments have been made in various publications as to the composition of that majority, and I propose to make no further remarks on that. But with your Lordships' permission I shall use my best endeavours at any rate to win the argument. Ultimately in the public eye it is the argument and the cause which matter, notwithstanding the harsh arbitrament of arithmetic, which perhaps in somewhat artificial circumstances will militate against the acceptance of any one of the amendments that I am venturing to put forward tonight.
The question to which I invite your Lordships to address yourselves is whether unemployment is a serious problem. The very subject of unemployment gives rise to all kinds of sentimental observations as to its undesirability, mainly by those who have never experienced its scourge or known its degradations. It is germane to the argument that I venture to put before your Lordships this evening that any endeavour that is made in modern society right across the board by whatever body—whether it be private, whether it be local authority, whether it be public board, or whether it be by co-operation between all three—and the Government is in itself the correct, honourable and moral thing to do at this time in our country.
It is not possible—and we all know this—to make a really significant impact upon unemployment within a short period of time. The damage done in the last five years has been so deep that it will take a long time to recover from it. But whether it be 40,000 or 50,000—which are insignificant enough figures in terms of the condition of this country at this time—added to the employed list from the unemployed list, it means that there is less suffering, less anguish, and less despair among 50,000 or so families. This at any rate is something.
The significance of this is well appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. Even the Minister of State, Mr. Norman Lamont, in commenting on the advantages of inward investment in the United Kingdom on 23rd May last, said that it was creating more than 28,000 jobs and preserving nearly 18,000 others. He produced that as a justification for inward investment. We on this side of the House would be the last people to deny that or to deprive the Government of what vicarious pleasure they may gain from it. Are efforts to relieve unemployment, even on this scale, worthwhile?
9.30 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself, at Question Time yesterday, was commenting favourably on the work done by the Docklands Development Corporation, aided by the Government and in collaboration with the local authorities. He said that 4,000 jobs were important. For our part, we could not agree more. The various bodies that exist at present under the existing legislation—the Greater London Enterprise Board, supported by the GLC and the metropolitan counties themselves—are, as they stand now, contributing almost exactly that figure, between 50,000 and 55,000 jobs a year.
Then, Her Majesty's Government, when considering the activities of the GLC and the metropolitan counties—which, oddly enough, were dominated by the Labour Party, but that presumably is a political coincidence—suddenly decided that these bodies should be abolished. The savings, we would add, were estimated at one time to be £100,000, because it was supposed to be a cost-effective exercise, but we now find out through Coopers and Lybrand (who are a very eminent firm of consultants employed frequently by Her Majesty's Government and by local authorities) that the abolition costs are likely to range between £122 million and £167 million. Therefore the Government must consider whether the maintenance of the economic arms of the GLC and the metropolitan counties are cost effective.
The present position is that this has been proved conclusively. Time unfortunately prohibits my documenting it in any great detail even though I assure the noble Lord that I have the full particulars here and am prepared to answer any questions on them. It is quite clear that the Greater London Enterprise Board has been providing jobs to the tune of some 4,000 at an expense far lower than that borne by the state in the payment of unemployment pay and the resultant total burden on the Exchequer by shortfalls in taxation and otherwise: or, as the Select Committee of your Lordships' House put it, £5,000 per annum, at that time, per job. Both the GLC, through the Greater London Enterprise Board, and the metropolitan counties in their own different ways, have been responsible for the creation of new jobs or the preservation of old ones at far less cost.
I should have thought that that would immediately have aroused the support of the Government for continuation. Cost-effectiveness is cost-effectiveness. It has been enshrined in various items of Government legislation in the past three years. I remember well the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act
234
1982, as I think it was, in which it was spelled out in some detail. In the event, the GLC have provided some £60 million in London in collaboration with private funding to the tune of £40 million. By any standards I would have thought that that would have been regarded by quite impartial people, people who did not have to obey the party whip, people who did not confuse conventional chivalry with intellectual cowardice, as a very admirable thing that should be supported. GLEB, the Greater London Enterprise Board, has been a highly successful operation in London. To do anything other than to encourage its activities is really a gross insult to the nation as a whole.
As far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, they operate in a slightly different way. The enterprise boards, the corporate bodies, occupy a much less important proportion of their aid spectrum to industry and to their regional economies. They make loans and grants; they have been responsible for wage subsidy schemes; they have supported co-operative development agencies—the agencies to which such eloquent support came from the Government Benches during the passing of the Bill relating to co-operative development agencies, to various enterprise boards and also to land and property development.
As I say, so far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, the savings in jobs may be classified as follows. I have the individual figures for individual authorities if Her Majesty's Government wish to prolong the argument unduly. I shall merely summarise them. In respect of loans and grants, some 18,243 jobs have been created or saved in the years 1979–80 to 1983–84. In the case of wage subsidy schemes, some 6,665 jobs have been created or saved. So far as the aid given to co-operative development agencies is concerned—so beloved, we were told, when debating the recent Bill of Her Majesty's Government —some 826 jobs have been created or saved. So far as the development boards are concerned—and they occupy a much smaller proportion of the spectrum than in the case of the Greater London Council—some 4,882 jobs have been saved; and a further 14,400 jobs have been saved in the course of land and property development, giving a total of some 45,000 jobs.
If the Government were to come to the House or were to go to the country—and it need not be specially emphasised for the purposes of the Brecon and Radnor by-election—and were to say, "For reasons that we have already given and which we hope we have explained adequately to you, we prefer to abolish two-tier government, the GLC and the metropolitan counties; nevertheless, we intend to support with every means in our power the efforts that have been made in the past by the metropolitan authorities and by the GLC", the country would then tend to regard their arguments as reasonable. But there has been no enthusiasm whatsoever for the efforts of the GLC, through the Greater London Enterprise Board, and the metropolitan counties through the various agencies that I have described.
There has been nothing but acid poured on the efforts that they have made. Perhaps there has been a polite pat on the back here and there—perhaps the conventional politeness that passes for reasonableness on the Government Benches. But the country knows

235
quite well the difference between wholehearted enthusiasm and people who, for party political reasons, are dragging their feet.
I have given the classifications under which these bodies have worked but I should like your Lordships to bear in mind what we will call, from the accounting point of view, the technical aspects. I do not use the term narrowly, but in the accounting sense. It is so easy to be impersonal, when one is debating an Act of Parliament, when referring to public boards, the Greater London Enterprise Board, or special bodies that are helped by the metropolitan counties. It is so very easy to take them in the abstract and to have no knowledge of, no regard for and no sympathy with the people who are there doing the job of trying to create and preserve jobs—the jobs to which the Government ought to have dedicated themselves years ago.
It should therefore be remembered that these organisations to which I have referred have a number of qualities implicit in the capabilities of the skilled and dedicated staff who have up to now performed their functions. The technical aspect is this. They are able to supply management assistance to enterprises; they are able to assist in personnel assessment; and I believe, from reading some of the Government papers on this matter, that there is a growing appreciation of the need for personnel assessment. That is not to be confused with party nepotism.
There are the technical people, the engineers, the people skilled in electronics, the people skilled in construction and in the various other professional aptitudes. They incorporate among their number people who are skilled investment appraisers. There are accountants, there are inevitably lawyers—because presumably we are still a law-abiding country—production engineers, those engaged on research and development, those engaged in administration, and those engaged and skilled in business training. These are the skills that have been accumulated over the years by these bodies, by the metropolitan counties and by the Greater London Enterprise Board: skills spread over a wide area and which even the noble Lord will not be able to convince either me or the House are within the resources of individual district councils covering a small area.
9.45 p.m.
If the noble Lord cares to pay attention to Paper No. 127, which is the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, which considered this question, he will find that it states:
"In conclusion the Committee repeat their conviction that the administration of local government in Greater London and the metropolitan counties depends for its effectiveness on preserving the integrity of many of the specialist services built up by the GLC and the county councils. These authorities have demonstrated their ability to respond positively to the challenges of scientific and technical development. Further challenges lie ahead. The great conurbations require specialist staff and facilities to meet them. Economic, efficient and forward-looking services demand excellence, integration and continuity. The existing services should be improved, not by being dismembered but by being encouraged to progress. Centres of excellence are slow to develop but easy to destroy"—
and especially, if I may add, within your Lordships' House by majorities who may not always, despite the
236
arithmetic, be able to devote the time to study matters in the same degree and to the same extent as a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
That is not the only opinion. There is also the opinion of a very renowned firm, well known to the Confederation of British Industry, to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and to some of the principal private companies up and down the United Kingdom which use its services. This is what it has to say on this matter:
"The strategic and conurbation-wide view co-ordinating role of the metropolitan county councils will be lost. This will lead to a decline in service in the following respects. The metropolitan areas will find themselves at a disadvantage in competing for mobile investment. The present intense and often wasteful competition will inevitably increase. The smaller metropolitan districts will lose out to the major cities and the metropolitan county areas as a whole will lose out relative to the rest of the country whereas the shire counties will still have an important promotional role".
It goes on to say:
"The representation lobbying role of the county councils will disappear, again leaving the metropolitan areas at a disadvantage. This role is important not only in attracting inward investment but also in making representations to the Government and the EEC on matters affecting major industrial sectors and the economy of the conurbation".
It continues:
"The proven expertise of the MCCs in obtaining grant-aid from the EEC and other sources will be lost".
Then it says:
"Many valuable local economic initiatives can only sensibly be justified on a scale larger than that of smaller districts. The close relationship between economic development and other strategic services, especially land use, planning for major industrial developments and highway planning on a more than local scale will be fragmented and in many cases lost".
Furthermore:
"The loss of the county-wide level of economic development activity will have its most serious effects in the smaller districts and in those places—for example, Merseyside—where specialisation by agreement is further advanced. In the longer term the overall capability of local government to promote and assist the economy of conurbations is likely to be seriously weakened".
It concludes with the observation, which I trust the Government will note, that it is almost inconceivable that the Government should, at a time of such high unemployment, seek to abolish the one local, democratic organisation with the resources and powers to protect its areas effectively on a regional, national and international scale. These observations do not come from the publicity department of the Labour Party headquarters at Walworth Road. They come from people who are far more skilled in their own particular sphere than many Ministers are in their own sections of Government.
But, to top it up, there are the observations which were made in a report published under the auspices of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry themselves. This report was published in December last and is called Urban Industrial Change. This is what the Government's own commissioned report said:
"To minimise the fragmentation of agencies responsible for urban economic development, all the policies proposed are probably best implemented by local authorities who are closely in touch with the problem. Within the metropolitan counties implementation should be the responsibility of the county councils and the GLC in London. The county councils are the appropriate bodies because of their experience in promoting industrial development and because of the need to adopt co-ordinated policies within the conurbation."
Those are the observations that have been made.
I have no doubt that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will, with his usual felicity, be able to say, "Well, of course, all we have really done in doing this is to pass the responsibility to the district councils", and, as he said in reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, he does not want to interfere with the priorities. The noble Lord knows just as well as the House that all this is very hollow. The noble Lord knows perfectly well, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, also knows quite well, that, when it comes down to the "muttons" of it, the Government, by rate capping and by the fixing of cash limits, can in fact ultimately extinguish every activity of which they themselves do not approve. He knows that quite well.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): No, I do not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl will have his time to explain, and he should be able to do it. That is the observation I have to make on the first amendment. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I have a certain flexibility of mind, and the next amendment, No. 81AZD, which we regard as an inferior solution, nevertheless comprises and takes into account the need for a county-wide economic development service as set out in this amendment. It may not be as good as the amendment I have just moved, but, at any rate, it is a step on the way.
Similar observations apply to Amendment No. 81AZE, which, once again, is less desirable than the first one that I proposed and even less so than Amendment No. 81 AZD. I commend it to the noble Lord as being a fall-back position, with which, even at this late hour, he might be constrained to agree. I should be only too happy to withdraw my amendments if the House as a whole were convinced that the Government really meant business in giving every kind of encouragement to these bodies that have served the nation and their localities so well over the last four years. We shall not be satisfied with weasel words, and I am quite sure that, with that in mind, the noble Lord will address himself with his usual fluency to trying to persuade us that the Government are wholeheartedly behind the purposes of these amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord who has just sat down that 20 years ago—I agree that he was not in this House then—the Socialist Opposition kept this House up until breakfast every morning under the leadership of Lord Morrison, as he then became, fighting the formation of the GLC. The noble Lord hinted that we are playing party politics, but who was playing party politics then? We need not have had this Bill at all if the GLC had behaved financially responsibly, but, as we all know, it has not. It has spent hundreds of millions. It has a budget far larger than that of some European countries. Mr Livingstone himself spent over £12 million of the ratepayers' money to get himself back into power as head of the GLC. So with due respect to the noble Lord, he is rather exaggerating the facts of financial life today.
238
We all regret unemployment, but I rather doubt whether the abolition of the GLC will cause any unemployment. However, as the noble Lord's party were all for the LCC, and now we are going back to more or less that same system, it is surprising that he is so very adamantly against the Bill.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, this amendment brings us back to the well-worn theme of the need for an overall authority. I have the greatest respect for noble Lords on the Front Bench and many other noble Lords in your Lordships' House who know infinitely more about the problems of London and the metropolitan counties and the intricacies of this Bill than I do. But I must confess that I remain largely unconvinced by the arguments so frequently deployed that the London boroughs and the district councils can cope adequately, in areas covered by this amendment and others, with the problems that will face them after abolition.
I do not wish at all to denigrate the boroughs or the district councils; on the contrary, I have great admiration for much of what they do. But the fact is—and I think this is indisputable—that there is an enormous range of difference between their performance. Some perform very well; some perform much less well. There are all sorts of differences. There are differences of aims, differences of methods, differences of motivation and, above all, differences of financial resources. So I feel very strongly that, as envisaged in this amendment and in several other amendments which have been lost in your Lordships' House, we need an overall co-ordinating body.
If I may be permitted to repeat a phrase that I used when speaking to an earlier amendment, we need an overall body with an advisory role, a co-ordinating role and a watchdog role. But after abolition who is to provide the advice? Who is to provide the coordination? Where is the watchdog? I must return to the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has spoken in some detail about the Greater London Enterprise Board and the splendid work it does. The noble Lord might also have mentioned the London Co-operative Enterprise Board, another splendid organisation, which was established in 1984 with a fund of £1 million and provides small loans of up to £25,000. A quarter of a million pounds has already been lent to no fewer than 22 co-operatives, and one-third of a million pounds has been set aside to help ethnic minorities, which I think is tremendously important.
10 p.m.
The Greater London Enterprise Board—I do not think the noble Lord mentioned this—has been supporting many small business enterprises, again with particular emphasis on those businesses which are run partly or wholly by disadvantaged people and the ethnic minorities. It is encouraging to learn that £1 million has been invested since June 1983 in 25 projects designed to help the ethnic minorities. I should like to make an important point in this regard. Some of these businesses straddle the boroughs' boundaries.

239
Perhaps I may refer particularly to the clothing and furniture industries which are centred in the most deprived part of London, formerly known as the East End, although I do not think we use that term any more. These industries are found in the three London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Islington. All three of these boroughs are rate-capped, so how can one envisage the continuance of this splendid activity unless there is some co-ordinating body? How indeed can such activities be maintained, let alone expanded? So much for the GLC.
As for the metropolitan counties, about which, admittedly, I know much less, they too are convinced that a county-wide economic development service is essential in the metropolitan areas. The metropolitan counties have grave misgivings in various areas. They are concerned, for example, at the loss of the lobbying and representative role of the county councils. They are concerned also at the loss of the proven expertise of the councils in so many fields, particularly in the sphere of obtaining grant aid from the EEC and from other sources. They are concerned of course at the loss of the county-wide level of economic development activity. These are very real and very reasonable concerns. I feel that this amendment before us goes some way towards solving the problem.
Finally, what is to happen to all the expertise so carefully accumulated by the GLC and by the metropolitan counties in this and in other spheres over so many years? I hope that the noble Earl can give us an encouraging answer.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I hope to deal in particular for a few moments with what was said at the Committee stage about this matter and perhaps to push the Government a little further along the road that they seemed to be half willing to travel when a reply was made to the debate at that time. But before I do so perhaps I should say that I have a double interest here.
First of all, for some years I was president of the Federation of Industrial Development Authorities, the group of local authorities which are particularly concerned to cherish and extend their role in helping industry. Secondly, as the chairman of a particularly difficult new town—one which was a decaying urban area—I know the effort, the resources and the manpower which have to be put into urban renewal and the rebuilding of an industrial economy. That is the background against which I view what the Government, in effect, are now proposing to do in the Bill.
The noble Earl who is to reply, may not realise that we have been dealing with this matter for six years in debate after debate in this House about the legitimate role of local government in industrial development. When the Government came to power in 1979 it was thought by them that all the activities of local authorities were superfluous, that private enterprise would do everything, and that efforts by local authorities could be abandoned and steadily closed down. We kept quiet at the time—that is, the Federation of Industrial Development Authorities—but then lots of things began to happen.
240
The Coopers and Lybrand report of that time—not the report to which my noble friend was referring—pointed out that in many cases public investment was needed in small enterprises, in providing small business premises and so on, and that the Government could not rely on private enterprise to do that. Then there was an internal group within the Department of the Environment under Sir Wilfred Burns, the then deputy secretary. That group looked into the use of the powers of Section 137 of the Local Government Act under which local authorities can spend up to a 2p rate on such activities. The group did not uncover any particular abuses by local authorities. Its final words were:
"Local authorities should be able to plan for employment as a positive activity, working alongside the private sector and central government".
That was the department's own internal working party.
Then came a consultative paper by the Government. All the time we were pushing quietly for the Government at last to recognise the legitimate role of local authorities in this matter. The Government's own consultative paper stated:
"The Government agrees with the Burns group conclusion that local authorities also have a positive role to play in sustaining and fostering local economies and employment. How best they can do so will differ between one area and another".
The Government finally moved from a position of utter hostility just three years before to accepting and beginning to applaud the role of local authorities, particularly in helping small businesses, in the way that their department's researchers had shown. At the same time there were surveys by the Association of District Councils which showed exactly how local authorities were spending their 2p rate. None of that spending was cause for blame or could be criticised in the vast majority of local authorities. Very responsible use was made of the 2p rate, mainly by helping small businesses. In the end we had even the CBI acknowledging that it, too, accepted that such was a legitimate role for local authorities, particularly with regard to helping small businesses.
The Government then tried to reduce the 2p rate to a ½p rate. We had in this House a battle in which, I believe, we can claim we had a victory. We persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to leave the 2p rate alone and not reduce it to a ½p rate. I say that to show how the Government's thinking has evolved over the years. I hope that we are now at a stage where the Government are reasonably sympathetic to what local government has been doing and do not have many areas in which they will find fault.
But what the Bill is now to do is this. It will reduce spending in the most decaying urban areas—the metropolitan counties; for example, my area of the West Midlands—from a 4p to a 2p rate. In other words, the district councils or boroughs which will inherit the powers will continue with their 2p rate spending power but the 2p additional spending power of the metropolitan councils will disappear. That seems to me foolhardy, short-sighted and, if I may say so, rather stupid.
The justification given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage was, first of all, that some local authorities in those areas are spending under the

241
2p limit; they can begin to spend up to the 2p limit and that will make up for what is lost by the disappearance of the "met" counties. That would be all right if it was, so to speak, big enough money. But if he takes the West Midlands, for example, he will see that two of the areas, Wolverhampton and Sandwell, which are pretty badly blighted and need promotion to restore their industry, are already up to the 2p rate which is mainly spent on industrial promotion. There is no room for them to start spending more to make up for the disappearance of the "met" counties.
The noble Lord then acknowledged—and I come to the more important point—that on 5th October his right honourable friend in another place said that he was prepared to consider an increase in the 2p limit for the smaller authorities if present funds proved inadequate. That was forced out of the noble Lord in a winding-up speech. How much more proof does he want? Some of the authorities in the most hard pressed and decaying areas are already up to the 2p limit. That can be established simply by looking at their spending pattern.
The noble Lord went on to say that in any case the Government would wait for the Widdicombe Report. That report is not about this part of the 2p rate spending. As I understand it, the investigation is into the possible abuse by local authorities in using their 2p rate to spend on propaganda. It is not about whether they are spending it on industrial development.
Where have we arrived? Do the Government really mean that if the need is proved they will increase the 2p rate to make up for the disappearance of the "met" counties? If so, what more proof do they want? Why after Sir Wilfred Burns' inquiry, their own consultative paper which I mentioned at the beginning, and the investigation by the Association of District Councils do we need yet more investigation as to whether local authorities are behaving responsibly in spending money on industrial development and promotion? It is a case which is already established, as far as I can see. We do not need to wait in any case and certainly not for Widdicombe which is to report on something quite different, as I undestand it. That is the main case. I hope that we can push the Government slightly further than the noble Lord, Lord Elton, went at Committee stage.
I end with one observation to support what two noble Lords have said already. In the end many of these bodies will not be of the necessary size with the appropriate authority and wide remit to undertake the industrial promotion that is needed in order to revive some of the decaying areas. Again we mentioned this at Question Time yesterday. I ventured the observation that in my view many of them will never be revived until they have a development corporation, because their problems are so acute. At least the metropolitan counties were half way, if one likes, to a development corporation in the sense that they could spend reasonable amounts of money on promotion and development. I hope that on all these counts the Government will take a step slightly further forward than they did at Committee stage.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, during Question Time on 21st May 1985 the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of
242
Tara, whether he was aware of the training services provided by the Greater London Enterprise Board to assist small businesses. The noble Lord replied, at col. 161 of the Official Report:
"My Lords, that may well be so, in which case I should say that this was an example of duplication, and another reason to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties".
The proposition that existing economic development, training and research projects carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are merely a duplication of Goverment activities in this field, and are therefore an example of the wastefulness of these bodies, is totally spurious. The local authority enterprise boards do not duplicate but complement the work of Government. It is sufficient for me to say that I am very doubtful that the local enterprise and training boards would have been set up if the work they did was already covered by Government agencies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, unemployment is the concern of every one of us. Any action taken to alleviate the problems it causes, particularly that which results in the creation of real jobs, must surely be accepted gratefully.
The GLC has set up teams of researchers to investigate the problems of industry and employment in the London area. They are closely involved with the implementation of their proposals, and consult with all those immediately concerned in the locality; for example, employers, trade unions and community interest groups. There is no other source of such systematic research, and the papers produced by the research teams are used by many organisations apart from the GLC. Stress is laid upon the link between research and current policy problems, and, unlike the research undertaken by academics, it is carried out on a short timescale and is closely associated with urgent policy issues.
The GLC has 40 research experts who work in teams in specified areas, such as private and public sector employment, the labour market, the property market and general economic policies which affect London. This type of research could not seriously be undertaken by boroughs, and long-term research, especially, is likely to be neglected in the face of financial stringency.
It is vitally important, at a time when employment is of such great concern, that we should support organisations which positively provide jobs. The continuity of the existing enterprise and training boards must be assured. We can do this by supporting this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I apologise for delaying your Lordships at this late hour on this matter. I can only make the plea that I have not spoken so far in the lengthy deliberations on the abolition of the GLC. I am not knowledgeable of all the intricacies of that organisation. However, I am deeply concerned about this particular issue. I should hope that we can divorce it from the general debate as to whether or not it is a good thing to abolish the GLC.
The question before us is whether we shall diminish what is an instrument for employment creation. I

243
think that to diminish an instrument for employment creation in the present situation is certainly undesirable. There is no doubt that the distribution of power to the boroughs is desirable in certain instances. However, in the case of employment creation and attraction of inward investment, and the stimulation of the domestic economy, these are duties and responsibilities that can be adequately discharged only by a strong, powerful and well-managed team.
I say that with some feeling because, like the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I have had experience in the whole area of attracting inward investment. I acted in this field with the Ministers of a previous Conservative Government. I found that, in their anxiety to attract inward investment, many bodies, many new towns, many organisations concerned with local problems, sent off delegations, printed literature and duplicated their efforts in no uncertain way to prove to their ratepayers that they were concerned about the state of unemployment in their areas. As a result, we had a dissipation of effort which diminished the whole intention of attracting inward investment.
Attracting inward investment is a highly sophisticated business requiring expertise, a great deal of knowledge and research and first-class presentation. It cannot be done by small bodies, small local authorities, each pursuing its own particular interest. Consequently I feel that we should look at this matter quite objectively. I may not be very knowledgeable about the experience of the London Enterprise Board, but I am prepared to accept what has been said in the House tonight: that it does a reasonable job on advice to management, consultancy to new businesses and assessment of viability. So many small industries make false decisions because they do not have the professional advice that is necessary to make them effective. It has also conducted interesting experiments in diversity of enterprise, including co-operative enterprise as well as normal private companies. For these reasons, I believe that it would be a mistake if the London Enterprise Board were to cease to exist in the new provisions.
I say this with some feeling because if there is one thing that we have enjoyed in Scotland it has been the Scottish Development Agency. This is a powerful instrument for employment creation in areas of high unemployment in Scotland. It is powerful because it has co-ordinated the entire effort under one strong authority. The achievements of the SDA would never have been realised if it had been broken up into a lot of small and ineffective bodies. It is because of that success—I pay tribute to the Government for having recognised its effectiveness—that the Government have supported it substantially.
It was initiated by the Labour Government and supported on the basis of its record of achievements by subsequent Conservative Governments. With that experience in mind it would be a mistake to diminish or to reduce in any way the effectiveness of one central authority. After all, the SDA operates for a country of 5 million. We are talking here about a body that would be responsible for some 10 to 12 million people in the Greater London area. For these reasons, unless I can be convinced otherwise, I would feel inclined from these Benches to support the amendment.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I felt for a moment that we were straying into the area of a Wednesday debate on the economy and on employment rather than being on the Report stage of a Bill. I felt a little confused by that because until, I think, September last year I usually replied to Wednesday debates on employment and unemployment in your Lordships' House. It is always a very severe temptation for me to do so all over again. Were I to yield to temptation, I think I would stick to perhaps two or three themes. They would certainly include a feeling that we have talked for an hour or so about employment issues without much mention of products, customers, the cost of labour or the cost of local or national taxes to employers.
I would further be tempted to say that where these rules of the market are observed, employment becomes generated quite quickly. It has indeed been rising in certain sectors of this economy and we now have substantially more people at work in this economy than do our French or German allies and competitors. We have about the same level of employment in this country as the United States of America. That is not bad going.
However, this is not a debate on employment. It is a debate on these amendments which seek to establish statutory county-wide authorities or financial arrangements controlled by boroughs or districts. Their purpose will be to promote economic development in one form or another in Greater London and each of the metropolitan counties either by providing support for an enterprise board, a training board, or other forms of financial assistance direct to industrial and commercial undertakings.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spoke at some length about the valuable work that he mentioned had been carried out by the GLC and metropolitan counties and their enterprise and training boards. As my noble friend Lord Elton said at the Committee stage in response to a very similar amendment, there is no reason whatever why this work should not go on if the successor authorities judge it to be worthwhile. That is why I consider that the amendments are unnecessary, and I am rather surprised that they have been put forward again today.
I shall repeat just briefly the principal points that my noble friend made. As many of your Lordships will be aware, the borough and district authorities are already supporting many valuable and impressive schemes which will help their local economy and provide additional jobs. They are active in the provision of sites and premises for industrial and commercial uses. They are active in the conversion of redundant buildings and the declaration of industrial improvement areas in which infrastructure and the environment are improved.
By far the majority of economic projects under the urban programme and approved by the department of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are at present brought forward by the boroughs and districts rather than the metropolitan counties and the GLC. These urban programme allocations to the metropolitan areas will not be reduced as a consequence of abolishing this tier of local government—an abolition which will reduce local taxation in aggregate fairly considerably. Most of the

245
critics of the Government consider themselves disciples of Maynard Keynes and I, therefore, imagine that they believe in Keynes' correlation between levels of taxation and levels of demand, as I certainly do.
These urban programme allocations therefore will not be reduced, and the boroughs and districts will be well placed to increase their efforts in these areas and will have both the powers and, if anything, slightly greater resources as a result of the loss of precept, to do so. The successor authorities will also be able to take control of the enterprise boards which already exist, and, therefore, ensure that the projects which they have been supporting will continue. However, the transfer of control is not something which in our judgment directly involves or should involve Government. The proper transfer of democratic control of these boards is a matter for the GLC and the metropolitan counties and the successor authorities.
The successor authorities need to be convinced that the boards are effective and are pursuing sensible policies and that it would be in the interests of their ratepayers for them to receive continued support. The Government are concerned that these enterprise boards remain accountable to the ratepayers as far as possible, and that is one of the reasons that the controls under Section 7 of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act were introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, kept trying to draw from me something other than support—I think "cynical" was the curious word he used—for the work being undertaken by these enterprise boards. I should like to dwell on this for just a few moments. My right honourable friend for the Government in another place has already given our view on the value of enterprise boards. He said:
"We are not opposed to them in principle. Their semi-independent role means that they can help pick out those viable projects which have a good long-term future. It also allows them to encourage the development of joint projects within the private sector".
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seemed to be suggesting that his amendments were the way of safeguarding specialist teams, for example, of the existing councils. But of course that is not so. As my noble friend said earlier this afternoon, this is a matter to be discussed when we look at the amendments tabled by my noble friend to enhance the positive role of the residuary body. I do not think that we should at this point be sidetracked on to that.
10.30 p.m.
Reverting to the Government's views on the enterprise boards, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State also pointed out the dangers which can be created, the need to safeguard ratepayers' money and to avoid an excessive scale of expenditure, and the imposition, as sometimes regrettably occurs, of political conditions in return for financial assistance. Some of these dangers are just as occasionally apparent in relation to the operations of the Greater London Enterprise Board.
Nor would I accept that enterprise boards have created quite so many jobs at quite so low a cost as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, claimed. I believe that just a little creative accounting may have gone into the production of the figures. The
246
GLEB's own publicity alleges a cost per job of £4,000 a year, but some GLC members—not the Government—have alleged that the cost is instead £17,000 per job a year, and there is quite a margin for disagreement over that figure.
I have knowledge, as has my right honourable friend, that enterprise boards have pursued some worthwhile schemes, and I am therefore glad to say that successor bodies are in a postion to ensure that they can continue beyond abolition if they are convinced that that is a sensible use of ratepayers' money.
I should say a word to some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. He suggested that we need a body like the GLC because some of the boroughs are rate capped. But it was the GLC also which was rate capped, and expenditure limits on successor authorities will of course take account now of their inherited responsibilities. As to his question as to who is to provide co-ordination after abolition—and that was also echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and the noble Countess. Lady Mar—the Government have just set up city action teams to co-ordinate government policies in the main urban areas. These will work with districts through the urban programmes, and so we shall have a central Government and local government partnership working to solve the problems of the inner cities. I hope that that gives some assurance to speakers in the debate like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who wanted to edge us on a bit further.
Local authorities of course have an important role to play in local economic development. The provisions of these amendments which would set up statutory county-wide organisations over and above such local authorities, and over and above the Government's national and regional priorities, would create tension without creativity. Jobs would indeed be created thereby but they would be bureaucratic jobs rather than wealth-creating ones. I have to say, therefore, that the Government strongly oppose these amendments.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Earl not intending to say a word about the Section 137 power? This is the nub of the debate which we have raised. I took down his words. He said that the local district authorities will have the resources as well as the power. They will not have the resources if they are already spending a 2p rate on this matter. They cannot make up for the reduction in spending by the disappearance of the metropolitan councils. This was the nub of the issue raised at Committee stage. I have raised it again now and the noble Earl has not said a word about it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I understand that the next amendment is on funding. Common sense suggests to me that the reduction in the precept liberates resources for whatever purposes the districts and the authorities may decide are desirable.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Earl does not know his local government legislation. The fact is that the councils are limited to a 2p rate by Section 137 of the 1936 Act. All funding has to come out of that. If a precept is reduced they do not have more than that

247
2p rate if they are spending it already. I suggest that the noble Earl looks this up and gives us a more satisfactory answer.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot get away from the fact that local authorities have considerable discretion on spending overall and they must allocate priorities within that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl has not replied to any of the arguments that have been advanced from this Box, and therefore there is no point in detaining the House further. I am quite content to allow the matter to rest on the record in the hope that tomorrow, if this matter is of some interest, your Lordships may read the speech of the noble Earl, my speech and those of my noble friends.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment?
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 81AZD, 81AZE, 81AZF and 81AZG not moved.]
Clause 49 [Functions of staff commission]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 81AZH:
Page 32, line 18, at end insert ("; and
(d) to advise the Secretary of State on the introduction of a scheme to permit and encourage employees of any relevant authority to retire early from their present employment, such a scheme to include provision for enhanced pension benefits and other compensation to be funded by the appropriate residuary body.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to Part VI of the Bill, dealing with staff issues. The first amendment, which stands in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, deals with the functions of the staff commission. We are suggesting by this amendment that the staff commission should be given power to enable it to advise on early retirement schemes and to recommend to the Secretary of State schemes for early retirement with enhanced pension benefits and other compensation.
It may be said (and if it is said, it is said correctly), that this is similar to an amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, at the Committee stage. That is true. At that stage the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, replying to that amendment, said, at col. 141 of the Official Report for 20th May, that he welcomed the spirit of the amendment—that is to say, this amendment today, which is substantially that put foward by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—and that he had himself put down an amendment to Clause 57 which provided for such powers. On that understanding and on that undertaking the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, withdrew his amendment.
We have put this amendment down again because when we examined, in the time available, the amendment to Clause 57 which was put down and was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, we found that it was not what was required. Thus we return with this amendment on Report. The amendment which was embodied in the Bill at Committee stage was to add at page 40, line 14, the following new paragraph:
248
"With a view to reducing the cases in which redundancy payments will fall to be made to such persons as are mentioned in subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may make a scheme for the making of payments by the residuary bodies to employers offering such persons employment which, by virtue of sections 84, 94 and 95 of the said Act of 1978, will preclude their becoming entitled to redundancy payments."—[Official Report, 21/5/85; col. 257.]
It was admitted by the Government spokesman that day, quite rightly, that this amendment was somewhat delphic. We were told by the Minister on that occasion:
"This rather technically worded amendment disguises"—
I would say that it disguises it so effectively that I cannot find it—
"a proposal intended to improve the job prospects of GLC and MCC employees".
He went on:
"We recognise that there could be scope for a voluntary early retirement—or VER—scheme in connection with abolition".
Well, there could be; but I would suggest to the House that no provision is made in this amendment that there should be.
Indeed, if we look at this delphic, this disguised amendment, this strange amendment, we see that the remarkable thing about it is that it makes no reference to early retirement at all. If you examine the words of the amendment, it appears to me as though it is one more attempt on the part of the Government to save money, because the objective of the amendment is to reduce the cases in which redundancy payments will fall to be made; not to encourage early retirement, not, indeed, directly to encourage jobs, but to reduce the cases in which redundancy payments will fall to be made.
So our first objection to the amendment is that, as far as we understand it, it is based on the principle of saving money by avoiding both payments out of the redundancy fund and the effect upon that fund. But, secondly, it does not—as Lord Winstanley's amendment did—make any provision for, as he put it, "enhanced pension benefits" on early retirement. There is no reference to early retirement. It is admitted by the Minister who moved it that any implied reference there might be is fully disguised. And in so far as it has any effect at all, of course, it does not deal with early retirement; it deals with employment. In so far as it has any effect at all, it is providing a bonus, a payment to employers which, it is hoped, will encourage them to take on people who they would otherwise not take on. That may be advisable, it may be a good thing, it may happen, it may not. But I submit to the House that it has absolutely nothing to do with early retirement.
Moreover, there is nothing in the amendment which guarantees to the worker who is taken on and given a job as a result of it, anything at all. There is no guarantee here that he has any particular set of conditions. He could be taken on on conditions which are significantly worse than the conditions on which he is engaged at the moment. He could be taken on for six months. He could be sacked at the end of that six months. Indeed, he could be offered a job at significantly lower rates of pay and poorer conditions than he has at the moment. If he refuses to accept such

249
an offer he would—and I quote from the amendment —be precluded from "becoming entitled to redundancy payments".
So, as a result of this amendment, the unfortunate worker might be caught on what I might call Gowrie's fork. On the one hand he accepts a job which is significantly worse, at significantly worse pay—that is one end of the fork. The other end of the fork is that if he does not do that, he forfeits his redundancy payment. And this is the amendment which is put forward as a substitute for a perfectly straightforward amendment which was put forward at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, which was dealing with a totally different subject—the provision of early retirement schemes and encouraging and advising the Secretary of State along those lines. In fact, it was a disingenuous answer to tell us that the spirit was welcome. It was a disingenuous suggestion to say that the amendment put down to Clause 57 provides for these powers. It does not provide for the powers at all. Therefore, if the Government truly welcome the spirit, they should welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 81AZJ and 81AZK as well as to Amendment No. 81AZH.
Amendment No. 81AZJ: Page 32, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) If either generally or in relation to any successor authority the commission forms the view that the interests of the staff or any class or description of staff or individual) members of staff of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council are not being adequately safeguarded as regards either recruitment by successor authorities of the arrangements for any transfer of staff to successor authorities, they shall recommend and the Secretary of State shall on receipt of such recommendation designate such staff or category of staff or individual members of staff under section 51 below to such successor authority as recommended by the commission.")
Amendment No. 81AZK:
Page 32, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section "successor authority" has the same meaning as in section 51(6) below.")
These amendments are similar to others, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, acknowledged, which your Lordships considered at Committee stage. I hope therefore that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat everything that I said then.
I am pleased, however, to be able to say that we welcome the spirit and purpose of the first of these amendments, Amendment No. 81AZH, which is designed to encourage early retirements among the staff of the authorities who will be affected by this reorganisation. Indeed, we proposed, and 'the House approved at Committee stage, an addition to Clause 58—subsection (3)—which provides the powers to set up a scheme 'which will go a long way to meet the objectives of this amendment. Its scope will, however, be different. It will be designed specifically to encourage all local authorities to take on GLC or metropolitan county council workers under 50 to take the places of existing staff who take early retirement. The potential scope of this scheme will extend to all local authorities, not just successor authorities within the meaning of Clause 51(6). We shall be issuing
250
detailed proposals shortly for consultation with the unions and local authority associations.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will agree that from his point of View as well as ours this is a step in the right direction, and that his amendment is unnecessary, the more so since we were persuaded to propose what is now Clause 58(3) by representations from the staff commission, among others.
The second of these amendments, Amendment No. 81AZJ, is designed to provide a safety net by giving the staff commission a power to direct the Secretary of State to exercise his powers to designate for statutory transfer to successor authorities under Clause 51 those GLC and MCC employees who for one reason or another have not succeeded in finding a replacement job in the new structure.
Such a power would be something of a constitutional novelty. This aside, as I explained when your Lordships considered a similar amendment at Committee stage, the principle underlying this amendment is at variance with the approach which we are necessarily following ourselves in devising arrangements for the staff who will be displaced by next year's reorganisation. This will not be a simple re-run of what happened in 1965 or 1974 under our previous reorganisations, when in general authorities were combined into larger units. On 1st April next year seven authorities will cease to exist and their functions will be dispersed and devolved.
I do not wish to labour the point at this stage—I shall return to it in responding to later amendments—but against this kind of background, the background of this reorganisation, statutory transfer is practicable only for staff engaged on a minority of functions. We have given firm assurances that such staff will be transferred by order. The groups concerned—for example, firemen and employees of the police forces who are accountable to the chief constable—were set out clearly in paragraph 10 of our November staff paper. Together these various groups represent a majority of the 120,000 or so (full-time equivalents) employed by the GLC and the MCCs. We have also indicated that other groups of staff may be similarly transferred if the successor employers request it. But the decision must be one for each successor to make for itself, subject to the staff commission's guidance. Where functions are being devolved and divided among up to 33 successors, as in London, the arrangements envisaged in this amendment would be in our judgment wholly impracticable.
This reorganisation will, as even the GLC's own management consultants have acknowledged, lead to a reduction in the number of posts in local government. That is partly its purpose. We cannot therefore guarantee—especially so long as the authorities concerned maintain their present stance—that there will be no involuntary redundancies. This amendment would pretend otherwise. It would benefit only those GLC and MCC employees whom the successor authorities do not require or want. It will not persuade those authorities to change their minds but merely transfer to them, possibly arbitrarily, the costs of making those staff redundant after abolition or of keeping them on without there necessarily being a job for them to do.

251
Of course, we are very well aware of the difficulties and of the real and unsettling uncertanties which the GLC and MCC employees are facing now. It is an unfortunate consequence of all change, however desirable, that it brings some uncertainty in its wake and takes time to settle down. We therefore appreciate the sentiments underlying this amendment. But it is unrealistic, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Earl has replied to all three of these amendments, and it seems to me that they are not wholly related or wholly identical. I should like to deal just briefly with the first of them. We seem doomed to dealing with these staff matters in the middle of the night, and, frankly, I am not at my best in the middle of the night. I must confess I am not all that good in the early morning, either, but that is another matter. However, since we are dealing with these very important staff matters at this hour, I think we really do have to try to deal with them properly. I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House would want it to be thought that noble Lords, wherever they sit in the House, are not very much aware of the anxieties from which employees in the relevant authorities now suffer, and that we were not all anxious by some means to allay those anxieties.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in moving this amendment, said it was very similar to my own, moved in Committee. It is of course identical, and I make no complaint about that, save to say that now it would appear that if there is any defect in the wording of this amendment all noble Lords on this side of the House are jointly responsible and will take equal responsibility.
I listened most carefully to what the noble Earl said in reply, but it seemed to me that he did not answer the point that was made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Of course, I did withdraw my amendment at Committee stage on the assurance given at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the point would be dealt with; and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about the amendment made to what was then Clause 57 and is now Clause 58. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, it seems to me that it deals with rather a different problem. I am not saying that it does not deal with a problem that ought to be dealt with—no doubt it does—but it does not deal with sufficient clarity, it seems to me, with this very important matter of early retirement.
At this hour I do not want to elaborate on the point: we debated it before in Committee. But I am bound to say that it is my view that in the fullness of time the Government will discover that it is very much cheaper to assist people to retire early voluntarily than it will prove to be to compel people to leave—which would be the consequence of not providing adequately for early retirement. I am bound to say, despite what the noble Earl has just said to us, that it seems to me that the amendment which was set down in response to my original amendment does not deal with early retirement. I think that we have to make proper provision for early retirement if we are to have all the benefits—and the benefits could be many.
252
In brief, I think that if we did have a scheme of early retirement it would mean that the whole problem would become less one of making people redundant than one of matching people to posts. Early retirement will free posts, and that would be an advantage to the Government in that it would be a cheaper option than the option which otherwise would be open to them. I also think it would be of great benefit to the staff.
I am disappointed with the reply we have had, and I am grateful, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for moving again my amendment and for pointing out the solution to it, on the basis of which I withdrew it at Committee stage. It is not entirely satisfactory, and I am bound to say to the noble Earl that I remain of that opinion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, on the question of early retirement, whether in fact the principle of early retirement has to be recognised in this day and age and, in that context, does one also have to recognise enhanced retirement benefit? Does not Clause 58(3) in terms recognise this? That is the first question.
The second question I want to ask my noble friend is this: surely those recruited to new jobs qualify for detriment compensation? Furthermore there are provisions for diminution of emolument under Clause 58(3) for those who do not secure replacement jobs. Therefore does this not all go a very long way to meeting the substance of the proposals contained in the amendment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in general my noble friend is quite right. I can give a short answer in the affirmative to his first question. The points raised by his second question, where broadly he is right, I shall be dealing with in some detail in an amendment shortly after this one.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister, before he sits down, to clarify for me the position as regards those people who would be irreplaceable. Throughout the debate that we have had on the GLC we have been told that there are certain qualifications held by people that are unique, and that these very people will be wanted wherever they will later find their place. I just wonder whether this amendment is so general that, when we are so busily encouraging everyone to retire early, we might lose those people. I think it is important that the scheme should be developed in such a way that the services of those people whom one really wanted to continue until they had finished their normal working period would be covered.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that if my noble friend reads what I have said she will receive considerable reassurance. It is most unlikely that irreplaceable people will be replaced.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty. The noble Earl has put these three amendments together and I had understood that we had agreed, through the usual channels, that these amendments should remain apart. Nevertheless I will put them

253
together one at a time, if I may, since he has put them together in the first place. On the first one, Amendment No. 81AZH, which is—the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley is absolutely right—in fact his identical amendment, may I appeal to the noble Earl? It is really quite simple, and indeed he said himself in his reply, in defining what was the purpose of the amendment which was moved by the Government at Committee stage, that the purpose of that amendment—I am quoting from him, though I wrote it down as he said it and I may have got it slightly wrong—was to encourage employers to take on workers under 50, as a result of losing those who had taken early retirement. In other words, the purpose of the amendment is to encourage employers to fill the gap of people who have taken early retirement with workers under 50, and for that purpose the amendment will provide them with some kind of bonus. But the bonus is designed to encourage the employer to take on further workers to replace workers who have taken early retirement. It has nothing to do with early retirement.
The amendment that we want—the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, put clown, and the amendment that we put down tonight—is not concerned with providing a bonus to firms to replace people who take early retirement. It is concerned with the prior position. It is concerned with encouraging early retirement. There are various ways of doing that, and the amendment does not specify them. You can do it by giving employers a bonus if they encourage people to take early retirement; you can do it as, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, suggested in his original amendment, by saying that there will be enhanced pension benefits if you take early retirement—and of course it would all be voluntary. Nevertheless, the Government have said twice that they welcome the spirit of this amendment, which is about early retirement. It is not about what happens afterwards.
I urge the noble Earl, even at this late stage, to tell us that he will go away and think and try to take this point on board. I urge him to do something about the fact that the Government have twice said that they welcome the spirit of this very simple amendment, and to do something not about people who take the place of those who get early retirement, but about people who get early retirement, and encourage people to volunteer for early retirement.
11 p.m.
I must now pass on to the other two amendments, because the noble Earl has introduced them. Amendment No. 81AZJ is the substantive amendment and Amendment No. 81AZK is simply a follow-through. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl said, that the aim of these amendments is to give the staff commission the right to act, if it thinks that an individual or a group has not been adequately safeguarded as a result of either recruitment or transferral. But we cannot agree, I am afraid, that the arguments which were put forward to a similar amendment at Committee stage—the noble Earl is quite right about that—nor the same arguments which he has rehearsed again this evening answer the point.
What we are saying in regard to this amendment, and no doubt others, is this. The Government have
254
departed from the Crombie principles for the second time since the war. They have not yet told the staff which of them will be needed, which they would have been told if the Crombie principles had applied. They have not yet guaranteed the staff a series of compensation payments—resettlement, retirement or long-term compensation—of the kind that the staff have been guaranteed in one job organisation after another since the war. We are saying that because there is an absence of these understandings, undertakings and guarantees, there is very widespread concern among staff.
With respect, it is no answer for the noble Earl to say that he does not intend to dismiss a large number of people, that the great majority of people will get jobs in the end. It is also no answer to say that this is a very special kind of reorganisation, in which the kind of undertakings which were given when the Crombie principles were applied cannot be given now, because we live in a period of uncertainty and, as he says, uncertainty is the hand maiden of change.
The fact is that the Crombie principles, or something like them—and this amendment does not go as far as those principles—were not rigid. They were applied in different ways to each reorganisation and similar sorts of principles could have been applied to this reorganisation. It is no answer to say that it is an uncertain world in which we live; quite the contrary. If it is an uncertain world, because there is no intention to maintain the level of employment in the public sector, because there is no guarantee of maintaining the level of employment, because there is much more unemployment than there was when the Crumble principles were used in the first instance and were subsequently employed, this is more reason for the Government to put into their legislation institutions which safeguard, or which can take action if they themselves do not safeguard, the interests of employees. The uncertainty of the economic environment is not an argument against this amendment; it is an argument in favour of this amendment.
It is not fair either to say that the Government cannot do this, because this is a decentralising form of reorganisation. There have been previous decentralising forms of reorganisation. The GLC housing reorganisation in 1980, when the functions of the GLC in regard to housing went down to the boroughs, was a decentralising reorganisation. Nevertheless, it was possible in that reorganisation to give much better undertakings and guarantees to the staff than any that are being offered to them in this reorganisation. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Government once again to submit themselves to the kind of overview which an overall responsibility given to their own staff commission would provide: the staff commission could take action and make recommendations if, in its opinion, adequate safeguards were not given for the staff.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am obviously disappointed because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would be rather pleased with me. He is not, but I have to rest on what I said earlier.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 81AZJ and 81AZK not moved.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say a brief word at this point. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should finish at eleven o'clock. I did say, under pressure, that we could keep the House until half-past eleven. If we can get this amendment through by half-past eleven—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: Then, my Lords, I am afraid we must adjourn the House now.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the potential mover of the next amendment, I do not think I can condense what I have to say into a short period of time. If, therefore, there is a debate to follow what I have to say, I think I must inform the Chief Whip, with respect, that in my judgment we cannot finish by half-past eleven.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Lord Denham.,)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, perhaps I may say that the whole of this Bill is about people. This particular part of the Bill is about the people who service people. Bearing in mind that during this Session of Parliament we have proceeded on many occasions well past eleven o'clock when it suited the Government, I think it is a little churlish for the Government Chief Whip to apply his own guillotine at this point in time. I think it is totally unnecessary.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord is speaking as a Whip, I have been doing my business with the Chief Whip.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that may be so, but I think I retain the right as an individual Member of your Lordships' House. I was always under the impression that nobody in this Chamber has the power to apply the guillotine. It would appear that the Government Chief Whip thinks that he has that power to apply whenever he thinks it necessary.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am not going to argue with the noble Lord. I do business through the usual channels. It was an agreement through the usual channels. We have now reached a stage where further consideration on Report must be adjourned, and I have moved to that effect.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Lord Dean of Beswick: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Contents have it.
Motion agreed to.

Kings College London Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.

Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  LATENT DAMAGE: LAW REFORM COMMITTEE'S REPORT
  LATENT DAMAGE: LAW REFORM COMMITTEE'S REPORT
  SCOTTISH NATURE RESERVES: INTERPRETATIVE FACILITIES
  SCOTTISH NATURE RESERVES: INTERPRETATIVE FACILITIES
  YOUTH TRAINING SCHEME: PAY
  YOUTH TRAINING SCHEME: PAY
  PATERNITY LEAVE
  PATERNITY LEAVE
  HONDURAS AND ANTI-SANDINISTA FORCES
  HONDURAS AND ANTI-SANDINISTA FORCES
  GLC AND MCCs: SERVICING OF DEBT
  GLC AND MCCs: SERVICING OF DEBT