Sitting of 30 June 1986

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

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take to seek to reduce hospital waiting lists in (a) Mid Glamorgan and (b) other area health authorities in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): In support of the responsibility which all district health authorities, including Mid Glamorgan, have for managing their hospital waiting lists, a workshop was held on 9 April to identify problems, analyse the reasons for them and to provide solutions. Another will be held in the autumn to review progress achieved.
    In addition, the announcement of the establishment of a Welsh Office catalyst team was made at the April workshop with the aim of helping authorities to target the main problems identified and to indicate appropriate measures that can be taken to reduce waiting times. Preliminary results of this work have already highlighted certain immediate steps which could be taken in individual authorities to reduce waiting lists. Although the cost of this can be substantially met by district health authorities within existing resources, I am prepared to support measures, with special financial provision, that will help make an early start on the specific problems identified. Health authorities, including Mid Glamorgan, will now be notified of this initiative, which I am taking this opportunity to announce.
    Mrs. Clwyd: We must welcome any new initiative from the Welsh Office, particularly if it means giving extra funds to the hard-pressed health authorities, and I hope that the Minister will spell that out in some detail. The problems of social deprivation, high unemployment and all the other factors that make Mid Glamorgan a special case have been spelt out to the Welsh Office time after time. The high levels of people waiting for in-patient and out-patient hospital treatment are completely unacceptable. I press the Minister again to make substantial resources available to Mid Glamorgan to meet its special needs.
    Mr. Robinson: It is precisely because of our concern about waiting lists that I have today announced this initiative. It is an initiative for the current year and its purpose is to speed measures which we believe have been identified and can be taken by district health authorities, and I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that fact.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I particularly welcome my hon. Friend's initiative for pursuing the waiting lists in Wales, but may I press him a little further on the analysis of the existing position? How much of the increase in the waiting lists is due to what I would call new demand for treatments which were either not available before 1979 or certainly not as widely as now and of which we should be proud?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is right. There are a variety of reasons for the growing waiting lists, which is a rate of growth that we inherited. There have been 450,000 more patient attendances than in 1979, looked after by an 18 per cent. increase in front-line staff, including 4,000 more nurses.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Can the Minister explain to the people of Wales why there is a need for waiting lists at all in 1986?
    Mr. Robinson: The key thing that we must concentrate on is not so much the waiting list as waiting time—the length of time that people have to wait when they enter hospital for acute and routine surgery. People have to wait because there is considerable pressure of demand on our health services, which will always be there. The pressure comes from the fact that there is a growing public expectation of what the Health Service can provide, and that is very clear.
    Mr. Rowlands: What does the Minister say about the system by which a patient goes to see a consultant and is told that he or she has to wait for 18 months before an operation can take place, and the same consultant then offers to do the same operation for £1,000 a mere 20 miles down the road? Will the workshop system and the review that the Minister is to undertake cover that sort of thing, so that we have full-time consultants working in a full-time Health Service?
    Mr. Robinson: Clear guidelines are laid down for private practice and it is not possible to queue jump by, first, seeking an early consultation, and then queue jumping for provision through the National Health Service.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The Government have been too complacent for too long. How speedily will the Minister move to assist the cancer patients of north-east Wales, who must travel to England for treatment, and who experience long waiting times for initial treatment? The journey to Clatterbridge hospital in the Wirral is difficult and lengthy at certain times of the year. Have not waiting lists risen by more than 8 per cent. throughout Wales during the past year? Does the hon. Gentleman know that almost 130,000 Welsh people await treatment of some kind, and that in many areas of the Welsh Health Service more people wait for treatment each year than receive it? The Minister has dawdled long enough. He must bring forward measures for new money speedily.
    Mr. Robinson: I thought that I had just announced new measures for more money and a special initiative. Between 1974 and 1979 the rate of increase was 7 per cent. Today it is still 7 per cent. Similarly, the figure for out-patients was then 55 per cent. while today it is 53 per cent. The story is not quite as bleak as the hon. Gentleman would like us to believe.
    The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of cancer services in north Wales. As he knows, we have

    683
    conducted our own inquiry, which has resulted in a consultation paper, which was recently issued. We now expect responses to that.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the redistribution of the underclaimed rate support grant.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Following discussions with leaders of local authorities in Wales, I announced on 20 February that £13 million of underclaimed grant would be recycled to county councils. Rate bills in Wales were reduced as a result by 5p in the pound on average. I have now decided to recycle the remaining balance of underclaimed grant which presently amounts to £5 million. I expect this to be used to reduce the rate call in 1987–88.
    Mr. Raffan: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's words, that those county councils that succeed in making savings will receive a higher proportion of the remaining grant, and as Clwyd alone has co-operated and done so, how much will Clwyd receive?
    Mr. Edwards: Clwyd increased its overall share of the total grant available, and my decision to recycle in full will give the county £2·6 million more grant than it initially claimed.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crying need, particularly in the rural counties of Wales, for more resources to be made available to maintain the county roads, which are in a tremenduously bad state as a result of recent bad winters? In allocating any future resources, will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind?
    Mr. Edwards: We continue to keep under review the allocation of resources between the various competing local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if, say, the rural authorities put in a bid, it is promptly matched by a bid from, say, an area of urban deprivation. It is a question of allocating resources in a way that is agreed by the local authorities as a whole.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that local authorities in Wales which have acted responsibly throughout are rather disgusted by the arbitrary way in which he has treated them? Will he at least ensure when he next reports on these matters that the redistribution between the two tiers of local government will not be affected?
    Mr. Edwards: District councils in Wales have, on average, spent in line with the settlement and have therefore claimed the amount of block grant to which they are entitled. For district councils, therefore, there is no unclaimed grant to recycle. The announcement that I made about recycling concerns solely the counties.

    Leasehold Reform
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration is being given by his Department to the special needs of leaseholders in Wales in respect of the implementation of the Nugee report on leasehold reform.
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce affecting the
    684
    position of leaseholders in Wales, with specific reference to the implementation of the Nugee report on leasehold reform.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: In addition to taking action on the main recommendations of the committee on the management of privately-owned blocks of flats, it is intended to introduce legislation as soon as possible which would extend to all domestic leaseholders a right to challenge the coverage and premiums for the insurance of their properties proposed by owners of freeholds.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which is most encouraging to the people of south Wales. May I remind him, however, of the activities of one company that operates primarily in south Wales —Castlebeg of Jersey. The hon. Gentleman's Department has received a catalogue of complaints about the activities of that company, including complaints about malpractices, intimidation and deliberate attempts of tax avoidance. Will the Minister give an assurance that when legislation is introduced it will be sufficiently tight to provide proper legal protection for those who are subject to that company's depredations?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the activities of Castlebeg Investments, which is causing problems not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in mine. My right hon. Friend has written to Castlebeg Investments in response to a letter from that company, expressing his concern about its activities. We shall, of course, ensure that legislation is drafted in a way that will provide the protection that both the hon. Gentleman and I are seeking to achieve.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: I welcome the Nugee committee's recommendations, but will the Minister go much further and accept that, even if the recommendations were adopted, the onus remains on the tenant to contest the matter in the courts? Does he accept that the level of premium could still be open to imposition, because only people wealthy enough in accommodation would be able to exercise that right? Will the Minister look again at my ten-minute Bill of 14 January and consider whether the onus should be put on the landlord to check the insurance and on the tenant to arrange insurance cover, because that would be in the best interests of both parties?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill. When seeking to amend the law we must tread a delicate balance between the rights of the lessor and the rights of the lessee. We will do all that we can to draft legislation to ensure the maximum protection for leaseholders, but we must also consider rights on the other side.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Have the Government any plans to abolish the current leasehold system in Wales?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and what has been the percentage increase in each case.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 8 May 1986 the total numbers of unemployed claimants in the Newport travel-to-work area, Gwent and Wales were 13,021, 29,828 and 179,225, respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a comparable basis.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to scrutinise the Newport figures closely? Is he aware that male unemployment is far higher than female unemployment? If the Minister deducts from the figure the many thousands travelling to Newport to pursue their work, he will see that male unemployment in Newport is very high indeed and compares with blackspots such as Ebbw Vale and the top of the Rhymney Valley. Bearing in mind Newport's favourable geographical position and its communications network, is that not a severe indictment of the Government's economic policies?
    Mr. Edwards: On 8 May 1986 unemployed claimants in the constituency totalled 4,986 and in the Newport travel-to-work area the total unemployment rate was 16·1 per cent., and the male unemployment rate was higher at 19·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the jobs are provided for those in the area not only within but outside Newport along the M4 up to Cwmbran and beyond.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Development Board for Rural Wales has shown a particularly well-directed and determined aggression towards reducing unemployment in its area? Does he also agree that the time has come for the board's area of rural Wales to be increased substantially?
    Mr. Edwards: I certainly agree that Mid-Wales Development is doing a good job. I was in New Town on Friday opening new premises for Laura Ashley and visiting other premises. There is no doubt that the board is providing many job opportunities throughout the area that it covers. I have considered its possible extension, but I have decided that on balance the arrangements should remain as they are. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have recently altered the arrangements under which the Welsh Development Agency covers the rural area and it has introduced a number of new measures which will extend its activities in other parts of Wales.
    Mr. Raffan: In view of its important implications for jobs in north-east Wales, what is the current position of Delyn borough council's application for the extension of the Delyn enterprise zone to cover the former Courtaulds Greenfield site, and will my right hon. Friend be supporting the application?
    Mr. Edwards: I could not fail to notice the vigour with which my hon. Friend has advanced the case for the application, which I am considering carefully. I must also consider all the other bids that are being made by other areas which have special claims. My hon. Friend will know that we have made substantial special capital allocations available to Delyn and the enterprise zone, which is proving extremely successful.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State share the Opposition's concern that such new jobs as are coming, welcome but inadequate, tend to be for females and part-time and therefore low paid, increasing the relative poverty within Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I remember an Opposition Member telling me some years ago that one of the effects of the
    686
    recession would be to destroy job opportunities for women in Wales. He said that that would be one of the adverse consequences. We cannot be entirely unhappy about the fact that there is a tendency for more women to go to work. It is not entirely a bad thing, to be criticised. It is also true that much of the substantial capital investment that is taking place is creating jobs for men and women. That is particularly true, for example, of the large-scale capital investment which has been taking place in the steel industry, the aluminium industry and other heavy industries.

    South Wales Coal Industry
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future employment prospects in the coal industry in south Wales.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future employment prospects in the coal industry in south Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman designate of British Coal last week and had a useful discussion covering a wide range of issues affecting the south Wales coalfield.
    Mr. Jones: A new deal between the CEGB and British Coal foreshadows the loss of another 1,500 jobs in the south Wales coalfield. Does the Secretary of State understand that the south Wales work force, between March 1983 and March 1987, will be halved, even though in the past year productivity has risen by 61 per cent.? When will the Government sanction the new Margam mine in west Glamorgan? We demand that this is clone urgently, given the indications of new job losses. Finally, when will the budget of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd be expanded, in the certain knowledge that the new job losses will wipe out any of the gains so far made by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was right for the National Coal Board and the CEGB to do a deal to enable lower energy costs to be passed on to industry generally. That will undoubtedly increase pressure on the coal industry to increase productivity levels even further than it has so far, and I am glad to say that productivity levels are rising fast in the south Wales coalfield.
    We discussed Margam. It is a fact that the board is currently reconsidering the Margam issue. No formal propositions have been put to the Government, but we will consider such propositions if and when they come.
    As for the financing of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., the hon. Gentleman will know that £20 million is currently available. We have made it clear that that important organisation will receive the finance that it requires to do the job that it has undertaken.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that today the last pit in the Rhondda has been closed, that at Ogmore over the past few months every colliery has been closed—five collieries and 5.000 men put out of work—that 27 pits have been closed and 43,000 jobs lost in the mining industry since the end of the miners' strike, and that 30,000 tonnes of coal are imported every month from South Africa? Is the right hon. Gentleman one of the 50 Tory Members who have direct or indirect financial links

    687
    with the South African apartheid regime? Perhaps he will ask his hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) whether he has an interest directly in that regime.
    Mr. Raffan: I certainly have not.
    Mr. Edwards: The fact that coal mining has ceased in the Rhondda emphasises the historic nature of the process that has taken place under successive Governments over a long time. I raised with the chairman designate the question of South African coal which is entering Europe, and in some quantities indirectly into this country, but he told me that it has practically no effect on the south Wales industry, because it is not the kind of coal that is generally produced in south Wales.
    Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Let us have a question instead.
    Mr. Raffan: I assure my right hon. Friend that I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on that point. I might add that I have no financial interests in South Africa whatsoever. Indeed, I am a former member of the executive of the anti-apartheid movement, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. I am completely opposed to the present South African Government. We should look after the interests of our own coal mines first. The Government should perhaps consider taking action against imports of South African coal into this country, as well as other sanctions against the South African Government. I hope that the hon. Member for Ogmore will withdraw the smear that he made against me personally and show some courtesy to this House by doing so at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to get involved in the smearing that may be going on. The question of coal imports was one of the issues discussed at the recent meeting of the European Community Ministers. The imports that affect the south Wales industry are largely north American imports rather than South African imports.

    initial Teacher Training
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report by the Welsh Advisory Body on Further and Higher Education on the rationalisation of initial teacher training provision in the Principality.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The committee of the Wales Advisory Body considered this matter on 27 June. It decided to advise my right hon. Friend that a review of initial teacher training provision in Wales at the university and local authority colleges should be undertaken in conjunction with the University Grants Committee and that a decision about any rationalisation of local authority provision should await the outcome of that review. My right hon. Friend is giving this advice careful consideration and will announce the future intakes to initial teacher training courses in the public sector as soon as possible.
    Dr. Marek: Does the hon. Gentleman recall his secret instructions to the Welsh Advisory Body that initial teacher training rationalisation in Wales should be based on a minimum yearly intake of 100 students? Does he also
    688
    recall his instructions to the University Grants Committee, which in a letter dated 20 May to universities said that it was
    "grateful to universities for agreeing to accept the additional numbers."?
    If the hon. Gentleman recalls those two questions of policy, what does he say to the charge which, by a backdoor method, he has tried, shamefacedly and unacceptably, to close Cartrefle training college and to evade responsibility for so doing?
    Mr. Roberts: I absolutely deny the charge. There is nothing secretive about the way in which I or my predecessor with responsibility for education in Wales acted. The working group, whose papers were leaked, recommended that initial teacher training should cease at Cartrefle. School leavers have been able to choose from six B.Ed courses in Wales and about 50 B.Ed courses in England, and too few have chosen Cartrefle.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that, under the Government, the number of students being trained and going into primary school teaching has increased?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entry of students increased from 400 to 500 between 1983 and 1985. The addition of a further 25 this year raises the annual entry until 1989 to 525.

    Pupils (Expenditure)
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure per pupil in all Welsh schools in 1979, and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Total net revenue expenditure per pupil in maintained schools was £624 in 1979–80 and £1,066 in 1984–85.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman still maintain, even after the report he received from Her Majesty's Inspectorate which was an indictment of the state of school building, let along the state of the curciculum, that net expenditure on education by all local authorities in Wales has increased in real terms during his period in office?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course I do, because the real-terms equivalent of the figures that I cited on revenue spending per pupil were £949 in 1979–80 and £1,066 in 1984–85—a difference in real terms of £117. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the HMI report, but I am sorry that he did not see fit to withdraw his disgraceful allegation that Ministers tampered with it. I assure the House that that was not the case. A breakdown of total expenditure per pupil by local education authorities in Wales shows that only 3 per cent. is spent on capitation fees and less than 5 per cent. on building maintenance.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Do not these figures make nonsense of some of the exaggerated propaganda about expenditure on education in Wales and in the United Kingdom generally? Is the enhanced figure per pupil the amount actually available in schools, or is some of it eaten up in the cost of increased administration?
    Mr. Roberts: I have given a breakdown of some of the figures relating to expenditure per pupil. It is a fact of life that 71 per cent. of the expenditure goes on teachers' salaries, 10 per cent. on other salaries—I think that that

    689
    meets my hon. Friend's point—13 per cent. on premises, less than 5 per cent. of which is spent on maintenance, 3 per cent. on captitation and 3 per cent. on other expenses. My hon. Friend is right to say that the expenditure figures make nonsense of many of the allegations against the Government.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What plans does the Minister have to replace the pre-1903 schools? Too many of them are still dank and dingy. There is a lot of damp and many have leaking roofs. Is it not really a moral question—our youngsters should have the finest investment in their education, given the awful difficulty they will have on leaving school in getting jobs in a period of depression? Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me the advice that, rather than give increased grants to the public schools of Wales, he should channel that money into the local education sector and ensure a better deal for children in state schools?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that there is a considerable amount of money available to local education authorities for education—some £659·5 million in rate support grant in the current year. Some of the old schools are, indeed, in bad condition but I have also seen schools built by the Labour Government which are now falling apart. This year we have increased the capital expenditure available to local authorities by 30 per cent., with £39 million for education buildings.

    Arfon and Dwyfor Districts
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will take steps to give the Arfon and Dwyfor districts full development area status.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The assisted areas map was drawn up in 1984 following a most comprehensive and objective review. The investment decisions of industry demand a substantial measure of stability in the map and I have no plans at present to make changes.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last month's unemployment figures showed that unemployment was more than 21 per cent. in Pwllheli and more than 19 per cent. in Caernarfon in areas not designated as development areas, whereas the average unemployment figure in development areas was 19·6 per cent. in Wales, 18·9 per cent. in Scotland and 20·1 per cent. in Great Britain? In view of the higher unemployment in Arfon and Dwyfor compared with other development areas, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider and give development areas status to those two areas?
    Mr. Edwards: Similar changes have taken place in a number of areas in England, Wales and Scotland. If changes were to be made on that basis there would have to be a substantial redrawing of the map, which would not necessarily be to the advantage of Wales. I should emphasise the considerable scope that is available in an intermediate area for providing assistance. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate that.

    Sheep Annual Premium
    Mr. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the closing date for receipt of claim forms for the sheep annual premium; and if he will seek to extend it for farmers in serious financial difficulties.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: For the 1986 marketing year, the closing date for the receipt of claims for the first application period was 24 December 1985, and for the second application period, 10 April, 1986.I have no plans to seek to extend the most recent closing date, which is now well behind us.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend allow his usual good common sense to override the bureaucratic objection in this case in view of the fact that many farmers in my constituency are suffering financial penalties of up to £6,000 because of an oversight? In view of the major problem of confidence in the sheep industry as a whole, will my right hon. Friend now provide an assurance that there will be compensation in the wake of the decision to ban the movement and slaughter of lambs? Will he further provide a major and massive publicity campaign to rest ore faith in Welsh lamb and the industry?
    Mr. Edwards: There were 155 late claims in the 1986 marketing year compared with 127 late claims in the previous year. The rules of the European Commission are extremely strict on this matter and, except in the case of force majeure, we are not able to deal with claims submitted after the application date. Of course, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the present circumstances arising from the restrictions we have had to impose on sheep in the area. We have said that we will consider compensation for specific farms suffering specific losses. This is a matter that we will be discussing further with the farmers unions. I am particularly anxious that we should be able to lift the restrictions on as large a part of the area as we can as quickly as possible. We are at present carrying out an extremently intensive monitoring programme and I hope to give some further results to the House this week.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what efforts the Welsh Office and he personally have made to persuade the European Community to be less obdurate in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey)? Does he appreciate that many farmers throughout rural Wales are losing a great deal of money as a result of the decision he has told us about, especially bearing in mind that some of the forms were misleading? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is now prepared to allow specific compensation for specific farms which have suffered specific losses as a result of the movement restriction, which is different from what was said by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his statement?
    Mr. Edwards: I have already said that we will consider specific compensation in specific cases. That is something we have made clear. On the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, that is a rule that has persisted over a good many years in which there have been frequent exchanges between the Commission and the Government. The rules are absolutely strict and adamant. I do not think it is practical to make the changes the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Can my right hon. Friend explain the serious matter of the late claims, and will he consult the farmers unions in Wales and take steps to make sure it does not happen again?
    Mr. Edwards: The forms set out the position and the rules absolutely clearly, and massive publicity is given. This is not a new rule that has suddenly been introduced.

    691
    It has been operating for a good many years and it is widely known by farmers. However we will continue to do everything we can to publicise the rules so that people are fully aware of them.

    NHS (Financing)
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the financing of the National Health Service in Wales.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend consistently receives representations and petitions concerning the National Health Service in Wales, which cover many issues, including that of funding.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of recent revelations concerning X-ray facilities in hospitals administered by West Glamorgan health authority which are on the point of crisis because of staff shortages? Is he aware that the general administrator of that health authority has said that although approval has been given for the appointment of a consultant radiologist he cannot be appointed because there is no cash? Is he further aware that in the Neath general hospital, at times the X-ray department is unmanned? Those are just a couple of instances of what is happening in the National Health Service in Wales because of a shortage of cash. What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the management of resources in the West Glamorgan health authority is for that health authority. If it has problems along the lines that he is emphasising, it is for the management to sort them out. I should say that since 1979 the resources available to West Glamorgan health authority have increased by no less than 36 per cent.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: In the light of the Minister's initiative, which was mentioned earlier, will he consider employing extra gynaecological surgeons in Wales? There is a great delay these days in the second phase of investigation of cervical cytology. Women with positive results are having to wait longer and longer for the second stage to be carried out.
    Mr. Robinson: With regard to the initiative that I announced earlier, we are looking at all possibilities that can help to decrease the length of the waiting lists. However, the initiative is aimed at things that we can do quickly and in the short term to bring down waiting lists.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Departmental Performance
    Mr. Freudasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will state his most significant achievements as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over the last six months.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): To have ensured the continued efficient administration of the affairs of the Duchy.
    Mr. Freud: Would the Chancellor welcome the setting up of a judicial appointments commission, which would minimise the personal patronage available to holders of his office and to the Lord Chancellor when appointing judiciary?
    Mr. Tebbit: That question should be primarily one for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but for my part I have to say that it would be such a breach with the past and with the system that has worked extremely well in the county palatine that I would not myself welcome it in the Duchy.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among his many achievements, one of the most significant has been to expose the glaring inconsistencies of the political party that has effectively voted "Don't know" on nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Tebbit: I have tried to tell the people of the Duchy about those matters. In particular, I should welcome the opportunity perhaps even to lead some sort of group to discuss those matters in the Duchy, in which the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties could have another one of their standing punch-ups on whether they are unilateralists, disarmers or would-be buyers of cruise missiles.

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many official engagements he has carried out since he last answered oral questions.
    Mr. Tebbit: Twenty-eight. That figure does not include meetings of Ministers which I have attended, nor engagements in my capacity as chairman of the Conservative party organisation.
    Mr. Winnick: That is very interesting, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain amount of sympathy among the Opposition, surprising as it may seem to him, about the way in which so many of his Cabinet colleagues are rubbishing him and even spreading the word that the Prime Minister now regrets appointing him to his position as chairman of the party? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's rude, aggressive and abrasive style sum up this Government so well? If so, why are his Cabinet colleagues so highly critical of him?
    Mr. Tebbit: It would not be appropriate for me to answer from this Dispatch Box on matters concerning my position as chairman of the Conservative party. In so far as anything that the hon. Gentleman has said today is relevant, or even anything that he has ever said in this place has been relevant, he is, as ever, talking rubbish.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend take comfort from the fact that at least we on the Conservative Benches are very happy indeed that he is Chancellor of the Duchy and will not lose any sleep over it at all?
    Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. What I find even more interesting is the support that I seem to be getting from some Opposition Members, particularly in that, as I understand it now, there are some Opposition Members, including some on the Front Bench, who, far from hating Tebbit's law, are beginning to think that it was a popular thing and that they had better not threaten to repeal it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy consider it part of his duties to visit in the forthcoming period St. Michael's Wyre in the county of Lancaster and also the site of the Abbeystead pumping house? He will be aware that this week there will be a debate in which the

    693
    issue of compensation for the bereaved and injured can be raised for the first time. People there were led to believe that the Government would take a continuing interest. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor went there on a visit. The people now look for a fulfilment of their expectations and of the Government's promises. The right hon. Gentleman's visit would be much welcomed, if he could deliver practical solace to them.
    Mr. Tebbit: I shall take good care to look into that matter, but I would be surprised if it fell within my ministerial responsibilities.

    Ministerial Visit
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to visit the Duchy.
    Mr. Tebbit: On 23 September of this year.
    Mr. Silvester: As my right hon. Friend is reported as saying that it is possible that the English development regions may feature in any future manifesto, would he use his position as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to speed that up and set up a development board for the north-west, including the Duchy, which would add further to the improvements that the Government have made in the north of England?
    Mr. Tebbit: I am always surprised to read the things in the press that I am alleged to have said or not to have said, or what other people are alleged to have said about me. I do not recollect saying what my hon. Friend attributes to me. However, the Government will continue with their policies designed, above all, to restore the position of the regions, just as much as we have restored competitiveness to many other parts of British industry.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Annual Report
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost of producing the most recent annual report of the Church Commissioners; and what was the comparable cost over the past five years.
    Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I will publish in the Official Report the cost in each of the last five years. The cost of the 1985 report and leaflet is estimated to be £27,000. The average cost for the same period was just under £26,000.
    Mr. Bruinvels: In congratulating my hon. Friend on the way in which he presents the reports of the Church Commissioners to the House of Commons and on the way in which the reports are produced, and noting the interest in the Church Commissioners—in 1981, there were two questions to them, and in 1985 there were 48 oral and written questions—may I ask him to develop the annual report to include the recommendations and justifiable fears of the Central Board of Finance, which is concerned over the operation of the General Synod, which now costs more than £8·5 million in budgeted expenditure. Does he agree that the Synod is meeting too often and taking on too many responsibilities? Could he include in the annual
    694
    report some of the major achievements of the Synod and some of the problems, which would justify the belief that the Synod should not meet as often as it does?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I must make it clear that the commissioners have no responsibility for the General Synod. Without discourtesy to my hon. Friend, I believe that it would not be appropriate to comment on that matter, especially as the Synod will meet soon and he is a dishtinguised member of it. As for the annual report of the commissioners, I am happy to say that our administrative expenses are 4·9 per cent. of total income.
    Mr. Frank Field: I thank and congratulate the commissioners on increasing the amount of information that they publish in their reports about their activities and the range of their portfolio. As the report is laid before Parliament, am I right to assume that the commissioners are accountable to Parliament? If they are not, to whom are they responsible?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous comments about the annual report. It has received an independent award for the manner in which it explains the commissioners' work. The strict position is that the commissioners are an independent statutory corporation, but with responsibilities to this House and to the General Synod. As the annual report shows, the commissioners invariably consult widely in the Church and elsewhere before taking decisions with social and ethical implications.
    Following are the figures:

    Cost of the Commissioners' Annual Report and Leaflet

    £

    1980

    25,900

    1981

    26,383

    1982

    24,330

    1983

    25,823

    1984

    27,265

    1985

    *27,000

    * Estimate.

    Expenditure Plans
    Mr. Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, to what purposes the Church Commissioners intend to devote their increased income over the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: The commissioners' investment income rose by 11·7 per cent. in 1985 to £93·5 million. That compares with a 6·1 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. Eightytwo per cent. of this income was spent on stipends, pensions and housing for the clergy.
    Mr. Greenway: The Church Commissioners are to be congratulated on their prudence. How much of the increase in income has come from investments in South Africa? Can my hon. Friend confirm that all bishops and clergy are paid by investtments which are held partly in South Africa? Will he also confirm that the Church Commissioners and the Archbishop recently said that we cannot take investment decisions as a form of protest While calling for economic sanctions against South Africa? Can my hon. Friend explain this?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I would want to make it extremely clear that the commissioners do not invest and

    695
    never have invested in South Africa. They have investments in several companies and they have made a careful statement about this matter in the annual report, which we have just discussed. On the best calculation, rather less than 0·5 per cent. of their income is so derived. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive my not going further into the matter, but the Church will be having a debate on this matter today week.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Emoluments
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish figures showing the information available to him as to the emoluments of legislators in other Commonwealth and European Parliaments, in comparable terms to those of right hon. and hon. Members.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am arranging for the publication of a table in the Official Report setting out the salaries and principal allowances received by legislators in a number of other Commonwealth and European Parliaments.

    Country

    Salary

    Allowances

    UNITED KINGDOM

    House of Commons

    Basic salary of £17,702. Maximum salary of £18,655 for those who draw the London allowance of £953 per annum, which is taxable. Whole of salary taxable.

    £13,211 'secretarial allowance. £1,321 to meet cost of secretarial pension scheme; £6,606 to employ temporary assistance in event of illness of secretary; all maxima. £7,133 (max) subsistence allowance £200 allowance to help in drafting private Members Bill. £2,202 to assist in clearing up affairs of a deceased, retired or defeated MP (year beginning April 1985).

    AUSTRALIA

    House of Representatives

    A$44,519 (£19,532). All taxable.

    Electoral allowance of A$ 15,869 (£6,962) for a constituency of 5,000 sq km or less. Allowance of A$23,010 (£10,095) for a constituency greater than 5,000 sq km. Not taxable.

    BELGIUM

    Chamber of Representatives

    BF 1,872,381 (£27,274), half of which is a tax-free allowance for expenses. BF936,190.5 (£13,637).

    Half of salary, BF936.190.5 (£13,637) is a tax-free allowance for expenses.

    CANADA

    House of Commons

    C$56,100 (£26,638). All taxable.

    General allowance of between C$18,700 (£8,879) and C$24,700 (£11,728) varying by size and distance of constituency from Ottawa.

    DENMARK

    Folketing

    204,400 kr (£16,437). All taxable.

    General allowance of between 22,000 kr (£1,769) and 64,000 kr (£5,147) according to distance from Copenhagen. Allowance of 91,200 kr (£7,334) for secretarial assistance.

    FEDERAL GERMAN REPUBLIC

    Bundestag

    DM98,688 (£29,350). DM58,980 (£17,540) is tax-free.

    FRANCE

    National Assembly

    402,188Fr (£37,526) of which 45 per cent. 180,985Fr (£16,887) is tax-free.

    45 per cent, of salary, 180,985Fr (£16,887) is regarded as tax-free expense allowance. 207,972Fr (£19,405) allowance for office expenditure. 235,728Fr (£21,995) allowance to employ secretarial assistance.

    GREECE

    Chamber of Deputies

    2,611,660Dr (£12,244) for Athens MPs. 2,730,371Dr (£12,801) for others. Taxable

    108,000Dr (£506) general allowance.

    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I thank my right hon. Friend for undertaking to do that. Will not fair-minded people find the comparison impressive, and should it not be more widely known, especially, perhaps, by the press, that this House has resolved to decline the full awards which were recommended by an independent review body?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is quite right. There will be public interest in the table when it is available. I think that the press would probably wish to pass on the point that he mentioned.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to reduce the salaries of right hon. and hon. Members and to recommend an increase in the salaries of Members of the European Assembly, following the Government's plan to force through with a guillotine, which appears to be a constitutional outrage, a transfer of work done in this House to the rather absurd and costly European Assembly?
    Mr. Biffen: I am always alert to constructive suggestions and I listened to all that my hon. Friend had to say. I think, however, that his suggestion would be regarded as provocative.
    Following is the information:

    697

    Country

    Salary

    Allowances'

    ITALY

    Chamber of Deputies

    L86,853,120 (£37,705). Tax is payable on 70 per cent, of the gross salary after deducting social security contributions (18 per cent.). Taxable salary is L58,979,328 (£25,610).

    Tax-free allowance of L10,044,000 (£4,360).

    LUXEMBOURG

    Chamber of Deputies

    LF1,380,000(£20,102)half of which LF690.000 (£10,051) is tax-free.

    Half of salary, LF690,000 (£10,051) is tax-free and regarded as an allowance for expenses.

    NETHERLANDS

    Second Chamber

    F199.470 (£26,280). All taxable.

    General allowance of between F114,813 (£3,913) and F129.624 (£7,827) according to distance of home from The Hague. Travel allowance of F110,090 (£2,666). All taxable.

    NEW ZEALAND

    Houseof Representatives

    NZ$45,000 (£15,694). All taxable.

    Expense allowance of NZ$4,000 (£1,395). Constituency allowance of between NZ$6,500 (£2,267) and NZ$14,000 (£4,883). Day allowance of NZ$27 (£9) for every sitting day attended and allowance of NZ$40 (£14) for every night away from home. All allowances tax-free.

    PORTUGAL

    House of Deputies

    l,363,200Es (£5,950). All taxable.

    Taxable allowance of 1,380Es (£6) per day of attendance for Deputies living in Lison and 4,140Es (£18l per day of attendance for Deputies living outside Lisbon. Non-taxable allowance of 2,272Es (£10) per day of attendance for Deputies who are members of Parliamentary Committees.

    REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

    Dail Eirearn

    IR£17,978 (£16,152). All taxable.

    Subsistence allowance of IR£31 (£28) per night for sittings for MPs living 20 miles or more from Dublin. IR£19 (£17) day allowance for MPs living within 10 miles of Dublin.

    Note: The figures in brackets in £s are converted from local currencies at rates of exchange at the close of 25 June.

    Manpower
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Lord Privy Seal what is his latest estimate of the total number of people working (a) full-time and (b) part-time in the House of Commons; and what was the comparable figure five years ago.
    Mr. Biffen: On 1 April this year there were 772 full-time staff and 157 part-time staff in post in House Departments. The comparable figures on 1 April 1981 were 745 and 154 respectively. The number of people holding passes as Members' secretaries or research assistants is currently 1,165, of whom 429 are classified as temporary. No comparable figures are available for 1981.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. Friend for revealing some illuminating figures. As we work in a village atmosphere, and as there appears to be a growth industry in part-time and full-time employment, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no abuse of the allocation of passes or of the vetting system to bring in research assistants? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the number of temporary passes that are issued on a daily basis for people who come to do repairs in or around the House or for research assistants from America who are, perhaps, not doing the work that is expected of them?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will appreciate that on 29 January this year the House had a most rigorous debate about research assistants and what was a legitimate
    698
    number. The House took a certain view, which I know will not have been congenial to my hon. Friend. One tries to secure a proper control over numbers and have regard to security aspects, although there is a convention that we do not talk about security on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Winnick: Although the Leader of the Housecould not agree publicly, is he aware that a large number of people believe that we would be far better off as a country if the Prime Minister worked part-time instead of what she is doing now?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman must have used the whole of the past fortnight to crank up that highly original comment. I am absolutely worsted for words. I am sorry.
    Mr. Hind: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to read a report published on the number of letters and items that are received by Members of Parliament? Is he aware that each Member of Parliament receives about 10,000 letters a year? As a consequence, will he consider the need to increase the amount of secretarial and research assistance that should be made available, especially to hon. Members who represent areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is a matter for separate consideration, since I have made it clear that the secretarial allowance will be further reviewed.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Leader of the House have available now, and if not, could he publish later, the figures by Department of those who applied for full-time jobs in the House now and live years ago?
    Mr. Biffen: I am not sure whether that information is available, but I shall certainly investigate, and if it is I shall publish it.
    Mr. Stokes: In case my right hon. Friend gets the matter out of proportion, did he read recently in the newspapers that hon. Members in the main have received only one or two letters each about the present position in South Africa?
    Mr. Biffen: I admire, as ever, the shining ingenuity of my hon. Friend. I do not think that his question can conceivably arise from the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but I am sure that he makes a fair point.

  WALES

    Housing (Senior Management)
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has had to his circular on housing for senior management in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): None, Sir. The circular was issued on 17 June following consultations on a draft version.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To prevent any stupid vote-catching complaints that the circular is favouring the rich, will my hon. Friend point out the need to attract top-class entrepreneurs to Wales to create the jobs that we so badly need there?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The purpose of the initiative is to create a good pool of housing for top industrialists.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: In assisting people to respond to this obnoxious, waffly circular, could the Minister say what research his Department, or anyone, has undertaken to substantiate the demand that could exist for this type of housing?
    Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided to issue the circular on the basis of the many representations made to him on this subject.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is not one of the major difficulties in this case that many of these houses are required in sensitive areas, for example, in areas of particular beauty? To that extent, will my hon. Friend hold consultations with the housing authorities on this matter?
    Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend reads the circular, he will see that we cover that point. Obviously we are not looking to build such houses in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister tell the House which planning authorities in Wales supported the draft circular when he sent it out?
    Mr. Robinson: We received a considerable response to that consultation, and about half the representations were in favour and about half were against. The majority of representations against the draft circular came from local authorities.

    South Glamorgan (Patient Costs)
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how the average cost of treatment per patient in South Glamorgan compares with the equivalent cost in
    700
    neighbouring health authorities and for all health authorities in Wales; and what assessment he has made of the implications of differing average costs of patient treatment for the numbers of patients treated in different health authority areas.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: With regard to comparative costs, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 26 June. As to the implications for differing costs, the National Health Service director for Wales is discussing costs per standardised unit of work and cost improvement schemes with each authority during the current round of annual reviews.
    Mr. Jones: While I would not suggest that unit costs are all-important, they are relevant. Does my hon. Friend accept that if South Glamorgan health authority could achieve the same unit costs as the all-Wales average, according to figures which he has supplied to me, it would manage to treat an additional 10,000 patients a year?
    Mr. Robinson: I note what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, the performance of south Glamorgan will be discussed in the annual reviews.

    Surgeons
    Dr. Roger Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the numbers of (a) general surgeons and (b) surgeons in other working specialties in each authority in Wales for every 100,000 population; and how these figures compare with (i) Scotland, (ii) the English regions and (iii) the other countries of the European Community.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: As at 30 September 1985, health authorities in Wales employed the equivalent of 2·1 whole-time consultant general surgeons and 6·3 whole-time consultants in other surgical specialties per 100,000 of the population. As the comparisons requested are detailed, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate a table of figures in the Official Report.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Minister consider promoting experienced neo-surgical registrars to reduce these waiting lists?
    Mr. Robinson: That is a factor that we can take into consideration in looking at this initiative.
    Such information as is available for Wales, Scotland and England relates to 30 September 1985 and is given in the following tables. Comparable information for other countries of the European Community is not available.
    Following are the figures:

    (a) Consultant whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population at 30 September 1985: health authorities in Wales

    General surgeons

    Other surgical specialties

    Clwyd

    1·7

    5·4

    East Dyfed

    2·8

    6·2

    Pembrokeshire

    3·7

    5·3

    Gwent

    2·0

    6·0

    Gwynedd

    2·6

    5·2

    Mid Glamorgan

    1·7

    4·9

    Powys

    0·5

    2·3

    South Glamorgan

    2·3

    10·2

    West Glamorgan

    2·0

    7·6

    Wales

    2·1

    6·3

    (b) Consultant whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population at 30 September 1985: Scotland, England, English Regions

    General surgeons

    Other surgical specialties

    Scotland*

    2·8

    9·3

    England

    1·8

    6·5

    English Regions:

    Northern

    2·1

    7·3

    Yorkshire

    1·7

    6·4

    Trent

    1·5

    5·7

    East Anglia

    1·5

    7·2

    North-West Thames

    1·9

    5·6

    North-East Thames

    2·0

    7·6

    South-East Thames

    2·0

    6·9

    South-West Thames

    1·6

    5·7

    Wessex

    1·4

    6·0

    Oxford

    1·8

    5·9

    South-Western

    1·7

    6·4

    West Midlands

    1·9

    6·6

    Mersey

    1·9

    6·2

    North-Western

    2·0

    7·1

    * Figures for Scotland are provisional.

    In the above tables, "other surgical specialties" includes: Ear, nose and throat; traumatic and orthopaedic surgery; ophthalmology; radiotherapy; urology; plastic surgery; cardio-thoracic surgery; dental surgery; othodontics; neurosurgery; obstetrics and gynaecology; paediatric surgery.

    Sheep Industry
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Hon. Members will be aware of the measures that we have taken recently to restrict the movement and slaughter of sheep in certain parts of Wales. It is too early to assess the impact that these restrictions will have on the industry. However, I will repeat the assurance that there is no danger to public health and no reason for consumers to refrain from purchasing and eating lamb.
    Mr. Howells: Can the Secretary of State put the minds of farmers at ease by saying that he does not think there will be any need to extend the restrictions to other parts of Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: There is no evidence of any need to extend the restrictions to other parts of Wales. We are carrying out intensive monitoring, with the object of taking the area of Anglesey south of the A5 and the whole of Clwyd out. I hope that if the results prove satisfactory later this week—it must depend on the testing—other areas can be taken out. We are carrying out another programme, which will be under way this week, of spot sampling across the whole area to see whether we can address other specific areas and take them out as quickly as we can. We are having to do an intensive programme of monitoring because we must he certain, as we take areas out, that it is safe to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are devoting all available resources to this programme.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to publish the results of the latest tests as soon as possible, bearing in mind the public anxiety? As over 1 million
    702
    lambs under one year old and some 5,000 farm holdings are concerned, will he give a categorical assurance that there will be urgent and generous compensation? Does he agree that in the farming community there is grave disquiet over this matter?
    Mr. Edwards: I instructed my officials this morning that I would wish to publish the latest results this week, and certainly as quickly as we can. We want to make all the information available. The hon. Gentleman raised the general issue of compensation and pointed out that there are over 1 million lambs in the restricted area. That fact emphasises the difficulty of defining methods of compensation that are fair both to those in the areas and those outside, who will also be affected by any changes in the market. These are complex and difficult questions that we shall have to discuss with the unions. I repeat the assurances that have already been given by Ministers about our considering specific compensation for specific cases.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that discussions with the unions and the complexity of the matter are no reasons for not announcing clearly to the House, in a statement, the basis of and guidelines for compensation? Does he understand that there is urgency among farmers, particularly in my constituency — the area worst affected? Is it not time that he made a statement? He is Secretary of State for Wales and has responsibility for this matter, but he is the only Minister with responsibility under the order who has not made a statement about it.
    Mr. Edwards: I am now answering detailed points at Welsh Question Time, which seems a good way to deal with the matter. We shall publish all the information as it becomes available. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that compensation is a complex matter. We have given certain assurances. The sheep variable premium provides an underpinning, and we shall have to consider the circumstances if, for example, lambs grew so fat that they did not qualify for the premium. These are difficult issues and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. W.igley) will know that sheep farmers in the Lleyn peninsular, for example, just outside the area, may be affected by market changes. Therefore, we have to discuss with the unions a basis for compensation that covers those both inside and outside the areas who suffer specific and identifiable loss.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that others, such as abattoir owners, will be affected? Perhaps even more important than compensation, is it not necessary to restore public confidence in the healthiness of Welsh lamb, which is the best that there is?
    Mr. Edwards: We shall consider compensation for specific cases for sheep producers. I caution my hon. Friend about the suggestion that we should spread compensation to other areas that may or may not be affected. I cannot give any such undertakings. I can continue to give, and this is the object of the restrictions, the absolute assurance that it is safe to eat lamb and that people can go on eating Welsh lamb in the knowledge that we have introduced these restrictions so that we can maintain that assurance.

South Africa
3.35 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in South Africa, particularly with regard to the BBC's role in reporting it."
It is important that an objective assessment should be available to the nation about what is happening in South Africa. Many people feel that we are not now getting it through the BBC. It is particularly important that we debate the matter because of the obsessive and possibly, therefore, misleading view of the BBC on the issue.
I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that, like me and many other hon. Members, you have yet to receive a single letter on the subject of South Africa, yet for the last fortnight—day in and day out—the BBC has been boring on with little else. The events in South Africa are important, tragic and complex. However, there are many other issues of at least equal importance, not least the Single European Act, yet this and many other issues do not get even a dicky-bird on the BBC.
I am sure that the demonstrating and the posturing classes are much exercised by their concern over South Africa, particularly the extreme Left councillors in Brent and Northampton who are indulging in anti-South African jamborees at ratepayers' expense—possibly illegally. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that South Africa is not a topic ofconstant conversation on the Northampton omnibus.
The matter is urgent because the myth-building potential of the BBC, if it continues to use its apparent bias, means that unless we have a debate we shall be unable to gain an objective view of the situation. There are daily interviews with Bishop Tutu, who favours sanctions, yet the screen is denied to Bishop Mokoena, who is against sanctions. Is he less Christian, or does he have fewer followers? The nation's sitting rooms are papered with flickering pictures of Winnie Mandela, the promoter of the unique barbarism of dangling burning tyres around the necks of living victims, yet we see only glimpses of Chief Buthelezi and there is oblivion for the courageous white opposition leader, Helen Suzman.
Why this virtual censorship, a policy that the BBC claims to abhor? Is it because they oppose sanctions? When the general, all-purpose, stand-up comic the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was questioned on his meeting with South African businessmen, why was he not asked whether they favour sanctions? Is it that there is a BBC case? Is there, outrageously, a corporation point of view? Or is its approach motivated merely by an institutional "megasulk"—part of a vindictive crusade against any policy advocated by the Prime Minister, and in particular her positive and courageous stand on South Africa? Is it retribution or revenge for her approach to Peacock? I think we ought to know.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They really should come before.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that Mr. Erskine Skinner knows about these things, but the hon. Member for
704
Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in South Africa, particularly with regard to the BBC's role in reporting it."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members have the right to move an application under Standing Order No. 10, but no different views can be heard. At this sensitive moment, after what has happened, it could be thought by those who do not know our parliamentary procedure that only one view about South Africa exists in the House. Is there any way in which hon. Members can protest at the way in which an hon. Member has put forward the South African authorities view, using the House of Commons to spread propaganda, when there is no opportunity for the expression of the alternative view which, I believe, is shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people?
Mr. Speaker: Frequently, in applications under Standing Order No. 10, views are expressed with which the rest of the House does not agree. There is no opportunity to put a counter argument during a Standing Order No. 10 application. I have no doubt that other opportunities will arise in the days to come, as they did last week.
Mr Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an additional matter which I wanted to raise earlier so as to save your time.
Normally Standing Order No. 10 applications are made by Members who want to raise an issue which is of public importance because they want to generate some propaganda for their cause. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), however, was able to inveigle a Standing Order No. 10 application to stop the BBC getting across a message which he did not want to be publicised. In effect, he was saying to the BBC and the media generally, "Do not give us any statements about what is happening in South Africa because that does not matter. We should be discussing the World Cup and goodness knows what else." The hon. Gentleman then went on to put the opposite point of view.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when Standing Order No. 10 applications are made by those who do not want an issue to be publicised they should not be allowed to get past their first sentence. If some Opposition Members were doing this, it is my guess that their applications would be regarded as trivial and unimportant. The hon. Member for Northampton, North argued the opposite of what he really wanted to say. He said that he wanted a debate, yet in reality he wanted to stop others talking about South Africa.
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea what the motives of the hon. Member for Northampton, North were. That is not a matter for me.

European Communities (Amendments) Bill
Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal startled the House at 2.30 last Friday when he announced the Government's petulant decision not only to introduce a timetable motion on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that had had only three days in Committee but that the guillotine motion would be moved out of prime time at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night.
That affront has now been compounded by the terms of the motion of the Order Paper today, allotting a derisory two hours for completion of the Committee stage and one hour for Third Reading. This will not allow time even for votes to be taken on the outstanding amendments.
Since the Bill further reduces the powers of Parliament and the rights of British people, is this not to treat the House with total contempt? Is it not a flagrant abuse of power by the Executive? Is it not unprecedented for a timetable motion on a constitutional measure to be moved at the end of a parliamentary day? Is it not unprecedented for a timetable motion drastically to truncate the remaining time available for debate?
You, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of the rights of Back Benchers and of the House itself. The precedent that the Government seek to establish in this motion on an important constitutional measure is dangerous to us all. Once created, it would make a shameful reference point for every successive Government. Is there any way in which you can prevail upon the Government not to pursue these arrogant and undemocratic procedures.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might be helpful to the House if I were to respond immediately. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) makes a valid point that I accept at once, but the motion is amendable. The best way I can help the right hon. Gentleman is to suggest that we can possibly look at the matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While I appreciate that you, Mr. Speaker, have no responsibility for Government motions, would it he possible for you to establish before tomorrow, first, whether it is in order for a motion to be moved on which it is not possible to complete the remaining stages? I think that any Clerk would agree that that would not be possible. Secondly, is it in order to move a guillotine motion without any reference to the Business Committee? We know that is because, obviously, there is not enough time that the Business Committee could allocate. Thirdly, is it in order under paragraph 8 of this motion to have an arrangement whereby hon. Members will be deprived even of the opportunity of voting on vital amendments? Is it possible to establish before tomorrow whether it is in order for such a constitutional outrage to be moved and placed before the House?
Mr. Speaker: Without passing any comment on what the hon. Gentleman said in his final sentence, I say to him and to the whole House that the motion is amendable and the House will have heard what the Leader of the House said about discussions. It may well be that the House will decide a rather different motion when the matter is debated.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well to have discussions through the usual channels, but from your high office, Mr. Speaker, what can you do to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers? It is a monstrous abuse of parliamentary procedure not only that time is not to be allowed to debate the issues but that there will not even be time to vote on the issues raised in the Bill. Do you, Mr. Speaker, not have a say?
Mr. Speaker: Sadly, it is not a matter for me. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, I am not responsible for Government motions on the Order Paper. I am responsible for the selection of amendments, and I shall bear these exchanges very much in mind.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I should like to take up the point about time, Mr. Speaker. Vv e have already debated this in Committee, and the Chairman of Ways and Means, acting on behalf of the Chair, has selected a number of groups of amendments. On my calculation there are at least eight groups upon which votes can be taken and another two or three groups on the clause stand part debate.
As has been pointed out, the terms of the motion that the Table and you, Mr. Speaker, have permitted to be tabled would prevent some of those votes if hon. Members exercised their right to vote and did not speak on the earlier debates. How is it possible for such a motion to be in order when it prevents even the Question from the Chair being put on the subject that the Chair has already selected for debate? Surely this is a unprecedented motion which requires to be looked at carefully by the Chair. As the protector of the minorities in the House and, indeed, the rights of Parliament against other persons in assemblies who would wish for our power, Mr. Speaker, you have a duty and an opportunity to see whether this is in order.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the selection of amendments at Committee stage. That is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Leader of the House has heard all that has been said about this matter. I think that he appreciates the anxiety expressed about the question of time. [Interruption.] From the point of view of the Chair, I can add nothing to what I have already sand, which is that it is in order for a motion to be placed on the Order Paper, and that that motion is amendable.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the remaining amendments to be considered in this most important business deal with different and specific matters, some of them constitutional and some of them policy matters. You may also be aware that many of us, myself included, have not yet sought to speak on this matter, but may well be anxious to speak on one or other of the specific issues still to come. Therefore, when you, Mr. Speaker, consider the nature of the amendments which may be put down to the motion that will be considered by the House, will you bear in mind the desire of hon. Members to speak on and, following the point that has already been made, to vote on separate and importantly distinctive matters which are contained within this important Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers in the House, irrespective of what the

707
Government may do. There are, according to the Chairman of Ways and Means, up to 10 separate debates left for the Committee stages. As only two hours have been allocated, if my arithmetic is correct, there will be an average of 12 minutes per major debate. There is one debate in which we ought to be considering the whole subject of European union and economic and monetary union, and that in 12 minutes.
Is not that an abuse not merely of the rights of Back Benchers but of the constitutional process? Does that not create—I say this advisedly to the Lord Privy Seal—a dangerous precedent for a future Government who might come forward with a guillotine motion allowing, say, only two or three minutes per series of debates? At what stage, Mr. Speaker — I ask you in all sincerity—would you, and the authorities of the House generally, feel that the procedures of the House were being abused by this sort of timetable motion?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be some confusion outside as to why there is so much anger amongst hon. Members on this issue. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will recall that when the Leader of the House announced on Friday his intention to table a guillotine motion he was asked, and appeared unable to reply, when in the past any Government who had not at any stage sought to move a closure motion had sought to introduce a guillotine motion.
You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that on Thursday night and early Friday morning the Government at no stage sought to move a closure motion. On Friday the Government failed miserably to muster anywhere near 100 Members to secure progress. They are now proposing to introduce a guillotine motion to steamroller through important business in a thoroughly disgraceful way. I ask the Leader of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the right of Back Benchers to speak on these matters, and a number of us have not sought to speak on any occasion so far.
The guillotine motion is a constitutional outrage and a parliamentary abuse. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the views that have been expressed today and will give the House a reasonable opportunity to debate this important matter.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been much protest from both sides of the House, and when the Leader of the House said, "Let's discuss it through the usual channels", I muttered to myself, "Good old Leader of the House; he's a decent chap. That is what one would expect from him." Ten minutes later I do not know what on earth it means. Could it be explained what the two sides will discuss? Why are we all feeling so pleased about it?
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that there are to be discussions through the usual channels and I am grateful for that because I have been unable to take part in these debates for quite "armless" reasons. I also appreciate that the distinction between this Bill, a vital constitutional issue which it is proposed to steamroller
708
through, and the Shops Bill, on which the Government announced in advance that there would be no guillotine, is a matter for the Government. But a question for you, Sir, is what other opportunities we, as Members of the House, have to discuss the abdication of our rights and responsibilities to the EEC, which is implicit in the treaty, apart from the Bill, which is being truncated in this fashion?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem on Friday was that the Government could not find enough Common Market slaves to cut short the debate on the previous Thursday night. At 12.13 am, the Government asked leave to report progress. Long before that, Mr. Speaker, it had been said within your hearing that the debate would go on all night. The Government decided to get rid of nine hours of debating time. They even left the ex-leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), without any chance to initiate his Adjournment debate as he was putting a supplementary question to the Liberals somewhere else. Of course the right hon. Gentleman should have been in the Chamber defending the Common Market because he was a champion of it. It was rather remarkable that he was absent. However, nine hours of debating time were lost not because of filibusters or long speeches from Opposition Members but because the Government could not find enough hon. Members to stay up and to vote in the Lobby in favour of closure motions.
Now, in your name, Mr. Speaker, the Government say that the House will have to have one hour in which to debate Third Reading and that there will be two hours for the Committee stage. Although I did not support the change, the House recently agreed that speeches could be limited to 10 minutes during debates in which many hon. Members wished to speak. But now you—or whoever is in the Chair—are in the nauseating position of having to stop hon. Members speaking after two minutes, never mind 10.
This constitutional issue means that the Common Market takes away powers not only from Back Benchers but from the Chair. Thus, I suggest that you have an interest in seeing that the constitutional position is upheld, and in ensuring that debate is not limited to three hours.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you not been placed in an invidious position in having to deal with these points of order? As I said on Friday, the Leader of the House has completely ignored your previous ruling that points of order should not be used as a method of making statements. We should have had a business statement today so that the Leader of the House could be answerable to the House. Instead, we have had a succession of disgraceful attempts to avoid interrogation by hon. Members.
At 11 am on Friday the Leader of the House raised a point of order and threatened the House with what he would do at 2.30 pm if we did not come to heel. At 2.30 pm he raised another point of order and announced that he would introduce a guillotine. Today, in response to a point of order, he has again left you to answer the questions and has failed to make a statement. Now that we have seen the terms of the guillotine motion and the

709
truncated nature of the debate allowed under it, it is clear that the Leader of the House should have made a full business statement to the House today.
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed points of order on this important matter, which affects the rights of the House, to continue under the guise of a statement. I thought that that was the right thing to do, as the Leader of the House was helpful in rising immediately after the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard the views expressed, and I hope that something will come out of the discussions that are to follow.

Community Radio Experiment
3.48 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to an abuse of the rights of the House which, although not of the dimensions of the issue to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have already referred, is nevertheless an issue to which you have previously adverted, and commented upon adversely. According to page 4079 of the Order Paper, a written question has been tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). which has next to it a symbol meaning that it was tabled on Friday. It asks the Secretary of State for the Home Department
"whether he will make a statement about the community radio experiment."
Two matters arise from that question which I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker. First, no sooner had it been tabled than the Home Office and the Government machine began distributing the contents of the reply to the press in terms of a briefing. Since yesterday the press has been full of the purport of' the reply which the hon. Gentleman will receive later this afternoon. It is that the Government have decided to abandon the experiment in community radio, despite the fact that only last month the Minister of State said that the Government were keen for the experiment to proceed.
On previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have said that it is not acceptable to the rights of the House for the Government to make an important announcement by means of a planted question and, before the House has had the opportunity to see the content of the question—which is the property of the House—for the answer and ancillary information to be communicated to the press in an effort to lay down a trail to deal with adverse criticism arising from the Government's decision.
When a major policy statement is made by the Government on a matter about which they spoke a great deal last year and to which they have attached great importance, is it not disgraceful that they should act by means of a planted written question instead of the Home Secretary having the courage to come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House about abandoning the policy which they trumpeted so loudly?
Mr. Speaker: I have not seen any briefing which might have been given to the press. It certainly was not given to me. I often see questions tabled for written answer. This question asks the Secretary of State to make a statement on the community radio experiment. I have no idea what that statement will be. We shall know later this afternoon.
Mr. Clement Freud: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind the House that your ruling is that when a statement is made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box the cancellation of a project so announced should come from the Dispatch Box. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, because the newspapers have leaked exactly what is to happen to community radio. It is deplorable that the hundreds of people who have worked hard and spent hours applying for licences, encouraged by the Home Secretary, should receive their reply in such a shoddy manner.
Mr. Eric Forth: As the hon. Member involved in this, may I say that I hope that no one

711
is impugning my position because I am as entitled as any other hon. Member to ask a question such as this, particularly since the local commercial radio station in my constituency is concerned about the issue. Since I have no knowledge of the answer to the question, I am waiting for it as eagerly as other hon. Members. I hope that I shall have the opportunity to question the Home Secretary on the answer to my question.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can say any more. The article is by a Mr. Simon de Bruxelles and I have no idea how reliable it is.

BRITISH COUNCIL AND COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE SUPERANNUATION BILL
Ordered,
That the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions on draft statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Defence

  FIRST DAY'S DEBATE
  4.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, contained in Cmnd. 9763.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Younger: The provision of national security is the first task of any Government, and the defence plans of any responsible Government are bound to take a significant slice of the country's resources. It is important that those plans should be described and explained in detail, both to Parliament and to the taxpayer. As has become a well-established practice, this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" describes the nature and extent of the threat to the United Kingdom's security; sets out the policies of the Government and our allies in response; reports on the condition, strength and activities of the services; accounts to Parliament for the management of the defence budget and the Ministry of Defence; and provides a comprehensive range of background facts and figures.
  However, national security depends to a very large extent on stability and continuity in defence policy. We must also move with the times. We must not only tailor our defence efforts to changes in the threat to our security; we must take account and advantage of developments in technology. Such changes can—indeed must—be based on continuity. A process of continuous upheaval and uncertainty could only reduce rather than add to our security. This evolutionary approach is graphically illustrated in successive statements from the Government. Their underlying theme is one of steadily improving defences within a consistent and stable framework of policy. Over the years, they have set out the essential background to our defence commitments and the rationale for the resources we devote to defence.
  To hear some of this Government's less well-informed critics talk, one would gain the impression that our defences were on their last legs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, defence has harvested the huge benefits that have flowed from the seven successive years of our commitment to the NATO real growth aim. We stuck to that commitment because it was imperative to repair the deficiencies that we inherited and to take account of developments in the threat we face. These developments are spelt out in successive statements. As the White Paper makes clear, Soviet military spending is accelerating. The Soviet Union has kept up its programme of modernising and improving its nuclear weapons, its land and air forces in Europe, and its increasing powerful navy. Unlike NATO, it maintains, and has dramatically increased, its ability to engage in chemical warfare on a large scale. Furthermore, Soviet weaponry is now growing in sophistication as well as in numbers: high quality is being added to sheer quantity.
  NATO's response is well known and has been made very clear. We do not need to mirror the Warsaw pact's forces in every respect in order to preserve our own security. The NATO approach has been, and remains, consistent. It is the "twin track" of maintaining sufficient

  713
  military capacity to deter aggression combined with realistic, balanced and verifiable measures of arms control. I shall return to arms control a little later in my speech. For the moment, I want to concentrate on Britain's contribution to NATO which, as the White Paper reminds us, is a formidable one, and second only to that of the United States. In every respect, things are incomparably better than they were when we first took office. We are better organised. We have carried through the radical overhaul of defence organisation begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his outstanding achievements in this area — and consolidated the improvements that have been realised in the management of defence resources.
  Our service men and women are better rewarded. We have transformed their pay and conditions of service to reflect the esteem in which they are held by this Government and by society as a whole. We have better reserves and we are expanding their numbers, increasing their rewards, and widening the range of roles that they can perform. Further, the services are better equipped. Indeed, we are planning this year to devote some 45 per cent. of the defence budget to equipment.
  The results of our concentration on more and better equipment are plain to see. Let me remind the House that in the last financial year alone we ordered four major and three other warships, 16 naval aircraft, Challenger tanks to equip a sixth regiment, six regiments' worth of Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicles, 18 battalions of Warrior and Saxon armoured personnel carriers, three regiments of the new multiple-launch rocket system artillery, and 130 RAF trainer aircraft. Among many other items, we brought into service 13 warships, as well as a number of smaller vessels, 21 naval aircraft, a regiment of Challenger tanks, two battalions of Saxon armoured personnel carriers, four batteries of air defence missiles, 48 RAF aircraft and much more, from small arms to Sea Eagle missiles.
  Major decisions, which I shall he taking later this year, include the provision of airborne early warning, for which competitors are due to submit firm prices by 7 July, and a decision on the way ahead for our amphibious capability.
  By any standards, our achievement over the past seven years has been impressive. The ending of our commitment to real increases in defence spending does not mean that the achievements are over. Our programmes to update and re-equip the armed forces will continue. But we have to be realistic. Real growth at that pace could not have continued for ever. As the statement makes perfectly clear, and as the Select Committee on Defence has noted in its report published last week, we anticipate a slight decline in the defence budget averaging about per cent. a year for three years, excluding the planned reduction in Falklands expenditure. We have enjoyed seven years of growth; we must now capitalise on the gains we have made.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and his Committee on their report on the White Paper. Considering the speed with which they were obliged to consider the White Paper, take evidence on it, and draft their conclusions, the Committee has come up with a report that is a model of clarity and concision.
  714
  I should particularly like to thank the Committee for the realistic and balanced way in which it has addressed the question of matching programmes to resources. This is not a new idea, nor is it a technique of despair, only resorted to in a time of crisis. It should be, and is, the normal method of managing a large and complex budget that contains a variety of very different programmes.
  This is the sensible and prudent way in which a responsible Government manage their affairs. Of course, from time to time it necessitates the taking of difficult decisions: it always does. We are perfectly prepared to face up to these. However, it would be quite absurd to exaggerate them and draw conclusions of doom and gloom. No such conclusion has any realistic justification.
  Those who say that the budget must keep for ever going up and up if we are to have adequate defences are both wrong and unrealistic. Our defence budget is running at a level about 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. That is not all. Within that much larger budget, equipment has risen from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. We spend a higher proportion of our budget on equipment than anyone else in NATO. Moreover, we are profiting substantially from our sustained drive to improve the output we get from defence spending. The White Paper draws attention to the remarkable increase in competition in the procurement of equipment. Two years ago, about 38 per cent. by value of equipment contracts were placed subject to competitive forces. The figure is now well over 60 per cent. Furthermore, only about 9 per cent. of contracts are now placed on the old cost-plus basis.
  We are confident that the result of such greatly increased competition will be substantial reductions in tender prices and much better value for money for the Ministry, and for the taxpayer. As the Select Committee rightly observed, it is, of course, difficult to quantify the precise savings that we make. The reason should be obvious. In most cases it is hard to calculate precisely what has been saved, because nobody knows what we would have had to pay in the absence of competition.
  Although I accept that the examples quoted in the White Paper, and in the Select Committee's report, are of necessity illustrative, they vividly show that the policy is biting. Thus, competition for the production of the Warrior armoured personnel carrier saved about £100 million, or 12 per cent. of the previously estimated costs. The introduction of competition for the supply of missile pallets, which we had previously bought noncompetitively, has led to the price being cut by half. We have saved 20 per cent. of the estimated costs of Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicles; £20 million of the costs of Upholder class submarines—and there are plenty of other examples.
  Competition is not the end of our efficiency drive. We are continuing to transfer resources from the tail to the teeth — for example, about two thirds of naval manpower is now in the front line. Naval support staff numbers have been cut by about 6,000; the Army's "lean look" exercise is resulting in, increased efficiency and the RAF's programme of contractorisation is well advanced.
  We have reduced the numbers of United Kingdom-based civil servants by 77,000 — about 30 per cent.—since 1979, and further reductions are planned. Ten years ago, there were 79 civil servants to every 100 personnel in the regular forces; five years ago there were 69, and today the figure has come down to 53. These reductions have not come about easily. As well as putting more work out to the

  715
  private sector, the Department has had to work hard at improving efficiency in working practices and eliminating inessential tasks. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the success of our Civil Service in carrying out its tasks with great efficiency while reducing its numbers by no less than 30 per cent. is by any standard a remarkable achievement. It reflects very great credit on their skill and dedication, and I should like to thank them all, at every level.
  Efficiency improvements are continuing to flow in. And they are not simply once-and-for-all measures. Their effects will be permanent, and will serve to benefit the country not just for the lifetime of this Government, but during those of our successors. Other factors are working in our favour. Falklands-related expenditure is continuing to fall; we are currently enjoying the benefit of lower energy prices; and defence is sharing the dividends of the Government's successful counter-inflation policies.
  I trust that it will not have escaped the notice of those who like to lambast the Government with the supposed burden of Trident that, notwithstanding misleading newspaper headlines, the cost of that programme has substantially decreased in real terms. All these things are helping. Nevertheless, we are having to manage the change in our budgetary profile from several years of real increases to a few years of slight decline. This year, I have had to look very carefuly at our programme so as to ensure that commitments and resources are properly matched.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman's argument apply to helicopters?
  Mr. Younger: My argument applies to all the activities we undertake, as well as to ships, helicopters, and all other forms of equipment. Decisions on those will be announced when they are taken.
  This scrutiny has been hard and realistic. I began it with no pre-conceptions. It is not yet complete—indeed, as I explained earlier, it is a continuous process. As I have assured the House, there is no question of having to withdraw from any of our major commitments or any major part of them. In order to manage the transition from real growth I shall inevitably have to take some difficult decisions.
  We are having to take difficult decisions about 'order dates. Since the process of scrutiny is a continuous one, I cannot give the House a catalogue of final decisions, but I can give an indication of some of the decisions that flow from the exercise. In general, in order to minimise the impact on the front line, I have sought economies in the support and works areas, and in minor projects.
  However, it has been necessary to go further than that. To take some examples, in the case of the Navy, we will not proceed with plans we had to retrofit new towed array sonars to type 22 frigates, which will continue with existing towed arrays. In the Army, we will not be proceeding with LAW mine, and we are reducing the provision for future mine systems. In the Air Force some adjustments are likely to the time-scale and production quantities for some weapon systems and, for example, the size of the second batch of Harrier GR5s—for which a quantity of long lead items has recently been ordered — is under consideration. A decision will be taken towards the end of the year.
  716
  The diversion of aircraft and weapons in support of the major sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia will also have some temporary effect on the RAF programme and, in particular, will lead to a short delay in the build-up of the Tornado GR1 reconnaissance force.
  As I have implied, other difficult decisions will be necessary. We will take these as and when we have to but, clearly, I shall have to take the greatest care when deciding on the size and timing of all orders for the foreseeable future. However, there is no question of wholesale deferrals. We shall take decisions, in the normal way, as they come up. For example, we attach great importance to the provision of effective self-defence for individual ships against aircraft and missiles. Our programme for enhancement of this capability has been continuing. Earlier this financial year we placed orders for a further seven Phalanx and Goalkeeper close-in weapons systems. We shall be issuing a preliminary inquiry this week to shipbuilders who wish to be invited to tender to build up to another four fleet minesweepers. Orders are likely to be placed next year. We are about to place a contract for the full-width attack mine fuse, which will dramatically increase the effectiveness of our barrier mines.
  Sir Antony Buck: Everything that my right hon. Friend has just said has been good news—
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: What good news?
  Sir Antony Buck: Yes; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that what my right hon. Friend said about new equipment was good news, because the hon. Gentleman is devoted to the Navy, just as I am. However, some of us are a little disconcerted about my right hon. Friend's comments on the towed arrays for the type 22. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the equipment that will be provided for the type 22 will make this rather expensive ship—these days all ships are expensive—fully effective, and that he is not being penny wise, pound foolish?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's strong interest in this matter. Of course, we would greatly have preferred to have the advanced capability towed array. It is one measure which we have been able to take to save money. There will still be an effective towed array, which has been proved in practice, but we shall have to forgo the improvement for which we had hoped.
  Sir Patrick Wall: My right hon. Friend has not said anything about the ordering of the type 22 frigates. Unless they are ordered soon, my right hon. Friend will not be able to keep his promise to keep 50 destroyers and frigates at sea.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. If he will wait, I shall come to that subject later.
  In addition to the formation of a 12th Armoured Regiment in BAOR, which we announced last year, the introduction of the Warrior armoured personnel carrier will permit us further to strengthen the capability of 1(BR) Corps by the re-mechanisation of 6 Brigade starting in 1988.
  I appreciate the interest among many hon. Members on both sides of the House in the future frigate ordering programme. The House will be aware that we are currently considering tenders for follow-on type 23 frigates. Progress is being made in the negotiations, and I shall

  717
  make an announcement as soon as I can, certainly before the recess. I reaffirm also that we shall be maintaining about 50 escorts in the destroyer-frigate fleet. Our shipbuilding programme is the biggest it has been in recent years.
  Mr. Frank Field: I think that there is widespread support on both sides of the House for the idea that work should be provided for Swan Hunter, if that is at all possible. The Government have made a clear statement that the O2 of the type 23 sequence will go to Swan Hunter if its bid is competitive. In answer to parliamentary questions, the Government have said that they will judge that competitiveness on the basis of bids made by other yards for the sequence of boats from the O3 onwards. May we have an assurance that, if the Government have gone back to Swan Hunter's on its original bid for the O2 and invited it to change its final bid, that shipyard will not be allowed to change its bid for the O3 onwards now that final bids are in from the other yards?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He is substantially right in all that he has said, but it is not quite right to say that Swan Hunter has been offered the opportunity to put in the best bid. The company has been offered the order for the type 23 frigate No. O2, provided it can match the price elsewhere. This decision was taken last year as a special gesture to Swan Hunter, which was disadvantaged by a previous decision, of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware. That is the position. At the moment, negotiations are proceeding with Swan Hunter. I hope that it is able to meet the conditions that we have put on the order and feels that it has been fairly treated in this matter.
  Mr. Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by going back to Swan Hunter with information about the bids from the other yards for the 03 onwards, he will in effect have been telling Swan Hunter what the bids were for the other orders? It is therefore important that an undertaking is given that, now that final bids are in for the O3 onwards—not O2— there should be no revisions by any of the shipyards, including Swan Hunter.
  Mr. Younger: Again I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not quite an open competiton in the sense he has suggested. This is a special offer, if one likes to put it that way, to Swan Hunter for a special reason. It was given a special offer —if it could match the best price, it could have the order. There is no question of Swan Hunter being given any secret information from other yards. It is a question whether it can match that price. That decision may have been right, or it may have been wrong, but it was a clear decision. I hope that the House will appreciate that it was made in the best interests of Swan Hunter, giving it an opportunity to recover from what it regarded as an adverse earlier decision.
  Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of the principals of Swan Hunter that, as a follow-on yard, it will be disadvantaged with respect to the flow of information from the lead yard unless his Department takes firm control? The principals are concerned that they will have to pay for the information which would come from the lead yard for follow-on orders.
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the concerns that have been expressed to us. We are negotiating on this matter with the company. Although I shall not say any more about those negotiations, I stress that the system of having a lead yard and different yards which build the follow-on ships and follow-on equipment is well tried. We shall try to ensure that it is fairly and properly applied, just as it usually has been in this case.
  Sir David Price: I should like to represent the interests of another shipyard which is involved in this matter. Does my right hon. Friend realise that he must be even-handed in his dealings with all the yards? We all accept the idea of first of clubs, but from then on my right hon. Friend should not just accept one yard, giving it special treatment compared with the remainder. Many yards in the United Kingdom have the same problems of unemployment, and so on. My right hon. Friend must go a little further in reassuring the House of a "fair do". That is a simple concept.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I draw a distinction between the special position of Swan Hunter and the type 23 frigate O2. The decision was taken last year because of an earlier decision elsewhere that the company would have a special opportunity to bid for the O2 on certain terms which I have described. As far as the rest of the ordering, except that order, is concerned, I assure my hon. Friend that there will be absolute fairness between the various yards which submit bids. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Younger: This must be the last time that I give way.
  Mr. Brown: It is the last intervention, I assume, from the Labour side of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many frigates he intends to order this year?
  Mr. Younger: That would be to anticipate the announcement I hope to make before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate that announcement today, although he might hope that I shall.
  The result of all our efforts will he a realistic programme that will allow us to maintain our present all-round contribution to NATO. The White Paper makes clear the scale and diversity of that contribution. Among our NATO allies, only the United States maintains a greater range of commitments. Furthermore, as the White Paper emphasises, none of our four main NATO commitments can be seen in isolation from one another. All are interrelated. All are irreplaceable. The elimination or serious reduction of any one of them would seriously weaken the Alliance.
  We do not take the insular view that our security interests stop at our back door. Not only do we retain formal responsibility for the defence of our dependent territories but we have world-wide political, economic and trade links. We therefore have a legitimate interest in promoting stability throughout the world, and our out-ofarea capabilities and deployments make their own contribution to the security interests of the Alliance.
  The House will know that a Royal Navy task group is currently circumnavigating the world and taking part in a series of exercises with our friends and allies. The task

  719
  group has already visited Venezuela, the United States and Canada and has just completed a successful contribution to exercise RIMPAC in the Pacific. I am also glad to be able to announce today that HMS Illustrious, which was damaged by fire earlier this year, will be rejoining the group later this summer. On the final leg of the deployment, in November and December, the group will be involved in an important exercise in Oman, which will demonstrate our ability to respond rapidly to a crisis anywhere in the world by strategic air deployment.
  Our all-round contribution gives this country a strong and influential voice in NATO. It enables us to play a leading part in all matters affecting our national security. It ensures that we have a major say in formulating NATO's policies. The White Paper illustrates this point. It describes the prominent part we are playing in promoting more and better equipment collaboration, both with our European allies and more widely within NATO. We also hold a central position in NATO defence planning, including, particularly, our strong support for efforts to improve the Alliance's conventional defences. As the House will be aware, Britain is the first country outside the United States to have received substantial contracts for research under the strategic defence initiative. Last week contracts were concluded worth over $14 million to British companies and research establishments. I am confident that more are on the way in the near future. This is, I think, a very encouraging start.
  It is, after all, only six months since the memorandum of understanding that covers British participation was signed. This is a very short time in the context of the SDI research programme as a whole. There is a very long way to go in SDI research, and there are plenty of opportunities for other British firms, universities and institutions to join in. I hope that they will take advantage of the tremendous possibilities that exist.
  I note, with some surprise, that Opposition parties are now committing themselves to oppose those contracts and the high-technology jobs that they will safeguard. I only hope they realise that their policy would result in the research programme for SDI continuing unabated with no participation for British industry, a drain of British skills to the United States, and no British influence at all in the conduct of the SDI research programme. Perhaps with that in mind the House will agree with me that the actions of today's Opposition make the Luddites of old like wizards of high technology by comparison.
  The White Paper also reaffirms our belief in, and support for, effective measures of arms control. We have long emphasised that strong defence and realistic arms control go together. We have also set out very clearly what arms control cannot do. It is not an alternative to defence; and it is not a quick and easy route to better East-West relations. However, when both sides are prepared to negotiate seriously with the aim of reaching balanced and verifiable agreements it can achieve very real benefits. This is our aim and the West has on the negotiating table radical and serious proposals for achieving it — 50 per cent. cuts in the superpowers' strategic arsenals; total elimination of the whole class of long-range intermediate nuclear missiles; a global ban on chemical weapons, reduction in conventional forces in Europe, beginning with the crucial central front; and the introduction of a wide
  720
  range of significant measures to improve confidence and stability in Europe. We hope that the Soviet Union is prepared to take an equally constructive attitude.
  In recent weeks the Soviet Union has tabled a range of new proposals at the bilateral US-Soviet talks in Geneva. We would very much welcome it if that was indeed a sign that it was now prepared to take a more constructive approach. President Reagan gave a cautious welcome to the proposals in his Glassboro speech 10 days ago. I know from my discussions last week with the US Administration that they are considering them very carefully. If the Russians are now indeed ready for serious negotiations, they will not find lacking a positive response from the United States.
  In the meantime, we support adherence to treaties and agreements that already exist. We applaud President Reagan's decision to dismantle older weapon systems to remain within SALT 2 limits; we urge the Soviet Union to respond constructively, and, as I stressed in the United States last week, we hope that both sides will continue to observe the SALT agreements in the future.
  This country is directly involved in talks at the various forums for multilateral arms control at Geneva, in Stockholm, and in Vienna. Perhaps I can highlight just two points. The first concerns chemical weapons. At the Geneva conference on disarmament we are working hard for a verifiable worldwide ban on those dreadful weapons. We abandoned our offensive chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. The United States has produced none since 1969. The Soviet Union has responded to that example of one-sided disarmament not by reciprocating, but by exploiting its 17-year monopoly to the hilt.
  There is an important point here that needs answering. If there were any validity in the unilateralists' theory that one-sided disarmament would produce an equivalent response from the other side, the West's one-sided chemical warfare disarmament would surely have proved it. The Soviet Union has had no need whatever to produce chemical weapons for over 17 years, yet it has carried on regardless. Nothing could prove more clearly that one-sided gestures are futile, and that negotiations will succeed only when backed by strength. Those are the circumstances in which the decision has been taken for the United States to modernise its own chemical weapon stocks if no arms control agreement is reached. Our primary goal must still remain a global ban.
  Secondly, the House will have noted that NATO has established a high level task force on conventional arms control to look at ways of strengthening stability and security in Europe through the increased openness and the establishment of a verifiable, comprehensive and stable balance of conventional forces at lower levels.
  We welcome Eastern recognition of long-standing Western concerns about conventional disarmament in the Budapest statement of 11 June. While there are a number of questionable elements in it—such as the presumption that parity in conventional forces already exists in the whole of Europe—we shall be considering the Eastern ideas carefully, both nationally and in the high level task force. In the meantime, there is ample opportunity for the Warsaw pact's words to be reflected in a practical and positive way in the negotiations at Vienna and Stockholm.
  The Government's approach to arms control, like our approach to the defence of this country's vital interests, is firm, logical, consistent and realistic. Not only the British

  721
  people, but our allies, have the utmost confidence in our ability and willingness to defend western values and to secure peace with freedom in Europe.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the general area of arms control I should like to ask him about one issue he has not addressed—the British Government's attitude towards a comprehensive test ban in view of the test last week and the continuance of the moratorium. The British Government have always argued that their only objection to a comprehensive test ban is the need for adequate verification and that if that could be achieved they would certainly settle for a comprehensive test ban treaty. In view of the statements in recent months, which suggest that the Government are moving towards the American position —even if they could have adequate verification they still would not want it—could the Secretary of State tell us where he stands? Is it still Government policy to try to have a comprehensive test ban treaty?
  Mr. Younger: I am glad to respond to that. I can confirm that it is still very much the Government's position to do everything we can to aim for a comprehensive test ban treaty. As long as that fails to be negotiated, tests have to continue in order to maintain the capability and safety factors of present weapons. Our ultimate aim remains unchanged, to have a comprehensive test ban treaty. It is still the case that verification and so on is the most severe obstacle to achieving that. I hope that it can be overcome as quickly as possible.
  I referred earlier to defence as the prime responsibility of any Government, and I must return to that point now. It is far from easy for any Government to fulfil this requirement. It is necessary to allocate funds which could so easily be needed in other fields of government to face up to the reality of the various dreadful types of weapons with which we are threatened; it is necessary to choose priorities, which is never easy. But those hard facts have to be faced, and a Government with any claim to be responsible have to face up to them.
  It is precisely in this respect that the present stance of all our Opposition parties falls so lamentably short as the amendments tabled to today's motion so amply and frankly demonstrate. It is bad enough that we face a so-called "alliance" which has two defence policies that are in complete conflict with one another. Liberals, on the one hand, wish to ban all nuclear weapons and many support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, recognise the danger of that and support a nuclear deterrent, but they do not know what, except that they will cancel the Trident programme. That shambles is only made worse by the current position taken up by their leaders—that as they do not know what to do, they must take more time to think about it. The plain fact is that there is no such time available. The decisions we took to initiate the Trident programme were taken in 1980 to fill a need in the mid-1990s. That is the sort of lead time which one has to face up to for highly complex products. In that matter, the alliance is simply left behind. It is too late to think about that now.
  But the Labour party, which has at least taken up a position, has chosen one which would be gravely damaging to Britain and NATO, and, I fear, even more fatal to itself. Abandoning the Polaris fleet which is our ultimate defence now, and the Trident programme which
  722
  will replace it, is a policy fraught with danger. The Labour party's policy would leave us with no deterrent to an attack by vastly superior conventional and nuclear forces, other than a big build-up of conventional arms, probably requiring conscription, which would not only be far more expensive than Trident but quite inadequate to redress the conventional imbalance that it sought to meet. Labour would add to the abandoning of Polaris and Trident, we understand, the removal of all United States nuclear bases from Britain. The effect of those policies really cannot have been thought through by anyone in the Opposition, and it is high time it was.
  I have no doubt that the United States response would be a greater likelihood of reduction of its contribution to the defence of Europe both in men and money. It is the biggest contribution of all. Those reductions would be followed by others, to the great weakening of the NATO forces in the face of an ever-strengthening threat. I accept that that policy may be helpful in patching up the deep divisions in the Labour party, but it simply will not do for a party which, presumably, aspires to become a Government. I just do not believe that the British people, if they were ever faced with such a dangerous and unworkable policy, would contemplate supporting it for one moment.
  This is, of course, for the Labour party to decide—not me—but I hope that it will listen with great care to what is said in the debate, because there is still time for Labour Members to think again and draw back from a policy that is likely to be so damaging.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I have listened to the Secretary of State's comprehensive review. I appreciate that it is not entirely within his departmental remit, but the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the shrinkage of the merchant service in recent years, which is an important part of the defence equation. What do the Government intend to do about that?
  Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is a most important point. I can only say that I cannot include every aspect of this large White Paper in one speech, but I can assure him that that matter gives rise to great concern. We are watching carefully the state of the merchant fleet with particular regard to the types of ships that we are likely to need for any future defence purpose. The present situation is that there are sufficient such ships for our needs, except for one or two particular categories. However, we are keeping the matter closely under review. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  As I have said, defence is the most important long-term issue that any Government face.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be moving towards his conclusion. I wanted to intervene because he roundly attacked the inconsistencies, as he sees it, of the Opposition parties. He claimed for the Government stability, consistency and genuine continuity of policy stretching over the years.
  Earlier the right hon. Gentleman carefully explained to the House that he was cutting overall defence expenditure by one and a half percentage points, and perhaps five or six percentage points over the next five years. I should like to draw his attention to the answer given by his

  723
  predecessor to last year's Select Committee on Defence, when it was put to him that that might happen. His predecessor said:
  "I would think that is an unthinkable denial of resources in the defence budget. There are no plans or any discussions or even information that such a thing could come about."
  In the light of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has announced that such a thing has just come about, how on earth does he square that statement with his predecessor's clear answer, taken on the basis that it could not be, as we must say in the House, a deliberate deceit?
  Mr. Younger: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that one thing he would be well advised not to try to do would be to reopen the subject of the divisions in the alliance on defence. That would be much better swept under the carpet, if the hon. Gentleman could find a carpet big enough.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's precise point, there is nothing new in any of this. It was clear as from last year what the trend of expenditure would be in the defence budget. What I had to do, which my predecessor did not have to do because it was not yet in the time scale for him to do it, was deal with this year's review of the budgeting expenditure and bring it into line with the expenditure in the White Paper. There is nothing new about that. It is well known. The Select Committee has given an extensive description of it.
  The hon. Gentleman's energies would, on reflection, be better directed to going back to his colleagues in the Social Democratic party and trying to get some agreement out of them about a joint policy for the alliance, because two parties that have two different defence policies may be giving choice, but it is a choice that the British people will find confusing.
  As I have said, defence is the most important long-term issue that any Government face. It is not a subject for flippant sloganising, and it is not susceptible to glib solutions. Security can be achieved only by sustained efforts to provide the forces that are necessary. The Government are facing up to their responsibilities seriously and realistically, as the White Paper makes clear. Defence is one area of policy where there should be no changes of direction from year to year. There are no quick fixes in this White Paper. Instead, there is a clear message— continuity, consolidation and realism; and sustained effort in support of NATO and in defence of our peace and freedom.
  Today we have before us two amendments tabled by two of the Opposition parties—or perhaps I should say three. They are revealing amendments because they attempt to lay before us the truly devastating and damaging alternatives, or non-alternatives, with which the country is faced. In view of those amendments, which I hope will be closely scrutinised in the debate, I ask the House to approve the motion on the Defence White Paper.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, Cmnd. 9673, and in particular the Government's plans to buy the Trident nuclear system, are leading to damaging cuts in Britain's conventional defence capabilities at home and abroad and in Britain's defence
  724
  industrial base; calls upon the Government to cancel Trident and to use the money saved for more practical non-nuclear defence purposes; declares that the security and the defence of the United Kingdom will be best served in future by maintaining strong conventional defences within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and not by acquiring a new generation of nuclear weaponry of any kind; and calls upon the Government to take an active part in securing the removal of all nuclear weapons from the United Kingdom and the reduction and abolition of all nuclear weapons, and also to make plain its opposition to the production and deployment of chemical weapons by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and any other nations".
  The Secretary of State has tried to paint a reasonably rosy picture of defence expenditure, but, as he knows—he has not tried to conceal it—it is clear that from now on expenditure for Britain's defences will fall. The figures were in the public expenditure White Paper and, of course, they are in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986", which we are now debating.
  The calculation of the percentage amount of that fall, as often, depends on what assumptions are made, but they range from about 4·5 per cent. at one end to close on 7 per cent. at the other. Outside commentators and, I am told, perhaps even some internal Treasury sources have estimated that the fall, cut or reduction could be close on £1 billion a year. When that point was put to the Secretary of State in the Select Committee on Defence, he seemed surprised. However, the accuracy of the figure has never been convincingly challenged. Perhaps it will be challenged later in the debate but it has never been refuted.
  As with all Governments, this Government's figures are based upon a number of optimistic assumptions and on wishful thinking. They are based on assumptions about inflation and the exchange rates. The inflation figures—and the Select Committee stressed the importance of these figures—may look reasonable at the moment. However, with the Chancellor running the money printing presses on a three-shift basis, and with wages in the private and public sectors increasing by twice or three times the retail price index, the short-term future for inflation does not look too good. With the balance of payments deteriorating, the value of the pound in the international exchanges can only decline. It will certainly not go up. As the Secretary of State knows, a rise in inflation and a fall in the exchange rates would make his problem worse.
  A number of major commitments have not yet been costed. The cost of completing the Nimrod project, whether or not it is completed by GEC — and the Opposition hope and believe that GEC will be able to complete it successfully—has not been calculated. If it is not completed by GEC, there will be the cost of purchasing a new system from the United States.
  The cost of replacing the Royal Navy's amphibious vessels has yet to be calculated. The Opposition believe that these vessels must be replaced.
  Some of us were rather surprised to read the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State regarding the European fighter aircraft. Apparently that aircraft has not been costed. The Secretary of State is hoping that the expenditure will not fall into the budget until well into the 1990s when no doubt he will not be Secretary of State for Defence. Even more surprising, it appears that all that we are committed to—and perhaps Conservative Members knew this—is a feasibility study. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will deal with that point in detail

  725
  tomorrow. However, the thousands of workers in the aerospace industry need to be told what the commitments are and we need assurances about the building of the European fighter aircraft.
  On other occasions the Secretary of State has told us that there will not be a fundamental defence review. We have been told that there will be stringent financial reviews, hard choices and difficult decisions. As we know, that is the language of cuts. However, we have been told that there will be no review.
  I believe the Secretary of State. He would not dare, as he knows, for political reasons, have a fundamental defence review. We believe that if the Conservative party were to win the next general election a defence review would result. In the meantime, the Secretary of State, like the good soldier that he is, will soldier on. There will be selective cuts, and we have heard about some of them today. There will he programme delays and there will be what is known in the trade as salami slicing.
  It was reported recently in Jane's Defence Weekly—and we have heard a list of cuts today—that 40 projects are under consideration for cuts or delays. The cuts will fall mainly on the budget for equipment. We believe and fear that the prime target again will be the ships of the Royal Navy. It is rumoured that the ghost of Sir John Nott is again beginning to stalk the corridors of the Ministry of Defence, striking terror above and below decks. The Government maintain — and we heard it again today from the Secretary of State—that they are committed to a Navy of 50 destroyers and frigates. The Under-Secretary of State has also made that claim, but we have noticed that he makes it these days with little relish or enthusiasm.
  As the Select Committee made clear, there is no point in having 50 frigates and destroyers if most of them are in a naval museum or if they are unable to venture out much further than the Isle of Wight. To maintain a modern 50-warship Navy, the Government must order at least three type 23 frigates a year. We got one in 1984. We did not get any in 1985, and we still have not had one in 1986, although great announcements are presaged for the end of this Session.
  Unless the Government speed up their ordering quite drastically, our sailors will have to go to sea in the 1990s with the technology of the 1950s and 1960s. The costs of maintaining an aging Navy will of course be an additional burden on the defence budget, and the prospects for our warship building yards, especially on the Tyne and on the Clyde, will be grim.
  Under this Government we have already seen the virtual demise of Britain as a builder of merchant ships. Our Merchant Navy is declining rapidly and, unless orders start coming quickly, we will soon become a naval nation with little or no capacity to build our own warships.
  The real problem, which was hardly mentioned by the Secretary of State, is Trident. Over the next few years, the cost of Trident will increase rapidly and dramatically. At the same time, the total spent on defence will not only remain static but will actually fall. Within a falling defence budget, there will be an escalation in cost of one item which is completely sacrosanct and which will not be cut by the Government in any way.
  Yes, of course the Government can afford Trident, but the price will be paid by the ships of the Royal Navy, by the aircraft of the Royal Air Force or by the tanks in the British Army, or through a combination of all three. Our conventional contribution to NATO and our front-line
  726
  capability will be reduced and weakened at a time when the urgent necessity in Europe, especially after the lessons of the nuclear explosion in the Ukraine, is to raise the nuclear threshold. Some of the battlefield nuclear weapons in central Europe are a thousand times more powrful than the explosion in the nuclear power station at Chernobyl. If one or two of those battlefield nuclear weapons were used, friend and foe would be destroyed, and not just on the battlefield. The urgent necessity is to build our conventional strength and raise the nuclear threshold. The Government are reducing our conventional strength and thereby lowering the nuclear threshold in NATO and in Europe.
  Cutting the non-nuclear equipment budget—which is where we believe the money for Trident will be found.—would also put thousands of jobs in the defence industries seriously at risk, because 95 per cent. of those jobs are engaged in producing non-nuclear equipment. The damage is compounded because almost £5 billion of the contribution and the cost of Trident will not be spent in Britain. It will be spent in the defence industries of the United States. A type 23 frigate costs £110 million or £120 million, yet the shipyards and the warship yards on the Clyde and on the Tyne have to scramble for the few orders available. However, the Government are prepared to pour £5 billion into the defence factories in California and Texas which have done so well out of President Reagan's defence-led and deficit-financed economic boom.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Will the right hon. Gentleman give employees in our naval warship yards an assurance that their jobs would be safeguarded under a naval programme initiated by an incoming Labour Administration? Will he give the same guarantee that he gave to workers at Vickers in Barrow?
  Mr. Davies: Indeed. We have made it absolutely clear that, because we will switch the money spent on Trident to conventional—
  Mr. Michael Mates: All of it?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, all of it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read the Opposition amendment.
  Mr. Mates: No cuts?
  Mr. Davies: I can give the Minister the assurance that he sought.
  Mr. Lee: May I have it absolutely clear? All jobs in naval shipyards will be guaranteed by an incoming Labour Government through a naval building programme: is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
  Mr. Davies: The jobs will be preserved because we will be able to preserve the naval ordering programme and the present Government will not. I shall read our amendment out if the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr Mates) wants me to.
  Mr. Mates: Yes, read it out.
  Mr. Davies: We believe that the money saved by cancelling Trident should be used for non-nuclear defence. It should be used to makntain and preserve existing commitments. We do not believe that the Government can preserve existing commitments— a 50-warship Navy, a European fighter aircraft and the rest. It should be used

  727
  also to strengthen our conventional defences in NATO, to raise the nuclear threshold and, we hope, to prevent a nuclear war, or a war in Europe becoming a nuclear one.
  Mr. Couchman: The right hon. Gentleman has just given some commitments to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and he made some statements regarding the extent to which Labour would transfer from Trident to conventional forces. How, therefore, does he explain that, on a platform which I recently shared with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), when the hon. Gentleman was challenged on how he would find money for his aspirations for the National Health Service, he said, "We will stop Trident"?
  Mr. Davies: I will have to study what my hon. Friend said. I have just made the point clearly in the House of Commons, which is the right place in which to say such things.
  Mr. Couchman rose—
  Mr. Davies: No. This is a two-day debate. I have given way enough and the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to make his speech. I have made the commitment absolutely clearly where it should be made —here in the House.
  We believe that the case against acquiring Trident or any other nuclear system for Britain does not rest only on financial and economic grounds. The issue is not just about modernisation, a word conveniently chosen by the Government to preserve what was again today described as continuity so that there is no debate about this fundamental issue.
  The issue at the moment is whether it makes economic, military and political sense for Britain, bearing in mind all of the changes that have occurred in society, our place in the world and in the world itself since the end of the last world war, to acquire what I would describe as third generation nuclear weapons. The House knows that Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin acquired the first. I understand from my reading of the history books that there was not much debate about that then. Mr. Macmillan acquired the second generation; and ultimately—there is still time—the country will have to decide whether to go down that road for the third time.
  It is absurd to pretend that this is a simple issue. There are financial and economic factors, and the effect on Our non-nuclear defence exenditure must be considered. We have also to consider the morality, or otherwise, of nuclear weapons and the military credibility of a British nuclear system in a world of massive superpower nuclear superiority. There are also the political consequences for Britain of whatever decision is taken to be considered.
  Perhaps because the issue is so complex and can never be entirely resolved by applying objective criteria, most debates in the House and outside tend, unfortunately, to become slanging matches. Those who are against the bomb are accused of being unpatriotic, and those in favour of it are sometimes accused of being the perpetrators or seekers after nuclear holocaust. It is obvious that neither picture is true of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and people outside.
  We agree with the Government at least in one respect. It is no good pretending that this decision can be put off
  728
  much longer. It is no good hoping that the political dilemma can be avoided by waiting almost until the Polaris hulls are full of holes and the noise of their engines can be heard in the Kremlin. Nor is there any escape, as some seem to think, in the arms talks. We all hope that the talks will be successful, whatever that really means. Mr. Karpov and Mr. Kemplemann at Geneva might eventually be able to agree deep cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of Russia and America. They may agree to cuts of 50 per cent. I hope that they do. As the Secretary of State said, some optimistic noises are coming from Geneva, Washington and Moscow.
  Even if Russia and America agreed deep cuts, they would still have massive nuclear capabilities and all of the questions about a British nuclear system would remain. Questions about morality, costs, and the effect on our conventional weaponry and the military capability of a British nuclear system would remain. There is no escape from making a decision. It is no good hoping that the Geneva talks will enable hon. Members to postpone a choice.
  The Opposition's stance is clear. We do not believe that it makes sense, militarily or otherwise, for Britain to go nuclear a third time. I have mentioned the economic and financial case and the effects on our conventional defences, but there is a moral case. Many people might be surprised to discover that they agree even with President Reagan that nuclear weapons are immoral. There are many who travel the extra mile with the American Catholic bishops and conclude, as they did, that if nuclear weapons are immoral a defence policy based on them is also immoral. There are many people who share the late President Kennedy's abhorrence for what he called "a strategy of annihilation".
  The military arguments that have been trotted out in respect of the British nuclear deterrent have not been wholly convincing. All of the best casuists and sophists at the Foreign Office and at the Ministry of Defence have hot been able to make a cast iron case.
  Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman and the Labour amendment make it clear that the Labour party does not believe in going on to the next generation of British nuclear weaponry. Will he make it clear whether, if Labour took office, it would decommission Polaris immediately?
  Mr. Davies: I shall come to that.
  The case for Trident has not been made strongly. We have had several facile phrases. We have been told about the second centre of decision-making. We have a seamless web. We have the weapon of last resort. That is a chilling phrase which conjures up a romantic but gruesome image of Britannia and her trident with her back to the sea and with Europe apparently in ruins and America either defeated or sulking in her tent. Then there was, and no doubt still is, the "peace in Europe for 40 years" brigade. That slogan was much favoured by the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). It had the slightly veiled hint that in reality it was the British bomb that had contained the hordes from the East. It ignored the effect on Europe of the post-war settlement and the fact that there had been other periods in European history when there had been peace for 40 years without nuclear weapons.
  I suspect that, paradoxically, the British bomb was not contrived or conceived as a military weapon, and that that

  729
  is why it has been so difficult to find a military rationale for its existence. I believe that it was born out of the great conferences at the end of the second world war. It could be said to be a Yalta or Potsdam bomb, a "seat at the top table" bomb—these days we hear little about the top table—or, dare I say it, a "not naked in the conference chamber" bomb. Sadly for some and happily for others there has been no British presence at the superpower talks. The Secretary of State tried to trot out the conferences where Britain is still present, but there has been no British presence at talks about nuclear weapons since 1963. The players are now Mr. Karpov and Mr. Kemplemann. We believe that it would be foolish nonsense to conjure up images of past glories by spending £10 billion or perhaps more on a weapon which we cannot afford and which we would not dare use.
  It is no secret that some hon. Members are opposed to Trident, yet believe that Britain can and should remain a nuclear weapon state. It is not the view of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). In an interview published in Jane's Defence Weekly on 15 March the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "As far as we can tell you, there is no case for renewing the independent nuclear deterrent … We don't see any case for the British independent deterrent and that's a view the Liberal Party has consistently taken since the late 1950s."
  He continued—I do not understand this—
  "we prefer to be simply the servicing and the facility arrangement for the American nuclear deterrent."
  It is no secret that some people believe that it is possible to cancel Trident and still acquire some sort of British nuclear weapon. They are indulging in escapism and fantasy. As Mr. William Rodgers, a vice-president of the SDP, pointed out in The Times of Thursday 12 June, such a view is a "fudge". He said:
  "The real fudge is to say unequivocally that Trident should be cancelled but that Britain should remain a nuclear weapons state. The lacuna is obvious: how? The idea of submarine-launched cruise missiles has its supporters. But it was rejected by Labour ministers in 1978 and then by a Conservative Government. Most defence experts are sceptical.
  If Trident is cancelled in two years' time, some £2·5 billion to £3 billion will have been spent … It is far from clear that the remaining sum would enable additional submarines to be built, new British warheads for cruise missiles to be developed and new missiles acquired, perhaps with French participation, all at significantly less than the cost of Trident."
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) may not agree with Mr. Rodgers. I have always listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches on defence and disarmament. He takes a great interest in the subject. However, I am afraid that on this matter the right hon. Gentleman is all at sea. He scatters words, ideas, and, metaphorically speaking, various nuclear systems around the Chamber like confetti, but we get little hard, practical analysis. We get many prescriptions, but there is no cure in sight.
  Last year we started with the French M7 missile, then we had a various assortment of cruise missiles, American missiles on ships, submarines, land and air planes, and then Anglo-French missiles on ships, submarines, land and air planes. Now the ideas have become even grander and more dangerous. Recently in Bonn the right hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying that we needed a European bomb — a European deterrent — which is, interestingly, mentioned in the amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the leaders of the Liberal party and
  730
  the SDP. They call for a European bomb and a sort of European nuclear club. It seems that the right hon. Member for Devonport has won after all.
  Who will prepare and bring in this European bomb? I suppose that Britain would contribute, but I do not know about the French. Perhaps they will play and perhaps they will not. They are not a member of the military structure of NATO. Will the Danes contribute to this European bomb? Will the Dutch, the Belgians and the Norwegians take part? Will they be consulted for their views?
  The most substantial question is whether the Federal Republic of Germany will take part. I should have thought that it was impossible to have a European deterrent without some sort of participation—perhaps perhaps it can be hedged around — by the most powerful economic and industrial country in Western Europe whose territory would be in the front line. Whichever countries participated, it would be impossible to have a European bomb without German participation. One could say that at least Franz Josef Strauss and his friends would be queuing up rapidly to sign and join.
  The repercussions of a European bomb, which must be considered as they have been tabled in an amendment, are enormous for the stability of West Germany, for other European nations of NATO, for relationships between Western Europe and the Soviet Union, and for arms control implications of the non-proliferation treaty, the comprehensive nuclear test ban agreement and all the other agreements which have been negotiated since the war. That is too high and too dangerous a price to pay to exorcise the angst of the leader of the SDP.
  We believe in, and we have tried to put forward, a comprehensive, clear defence policy, although the Secretary of State does not like it. It is that we should make a substantial conventional contribution to NATO and that we should spend the money that would otherwise be wasted on Trident on our conventional defences.
  Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet explained to the House how he justifies throwing the United States out of its nuclear bases here. How can he rely on a presence in NATO when NATO strategy is firmly based on conventional and nuclear deterrence? Has he seen what has happened to the ANZUS treaty which, in the past few days, has been effectively set aside because the United States was not prepared to be a member of a treaty organisation when one member of it had said that ships carrying nuclear weapons could not go through its ports?
  Mr. Davies: I know two things. First, a Labour Government will contribute, as this Government are contributing, 95 per cent. of Britain's defence budget to NATO. That is a substantial commitment, and greater than that of the United States. That contribution will be valued by our NATO partners, and will maintain the influence within the Alliance that we have now.
  Secondly, I noticed in the alliance amendment a reference to bases. I suggest that the time has come when the right hon. Member for Devonport should make his own, constructive defence policy and not try to escape by attacking the Labour party's defence policy.
  I have made it clear that our policy means that there will be a strong conventional contribution to NATO. That policy is morally right for Britain and it makes military sense. We shall put that policy honestly and clearly to the electorate, and I believe that it will accept it.
  5.22pm
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: Before I come to my comments on the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I shall spend some time dealing with the speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), speaking on behalf of the Labour party. Several points arise from his speech that I wish to explore. He has made it clear that it is Labour party policy to abandon the nuclear deterrent. I accept that this is the most fearful weapon that mankind has invented and I have no doubt that both he and I would be much happier if it had never been invented.
  However, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Soviet Union does not look at it in that way? Does he think that the possession by the West of nuclear weapons does not give the Soviet Union pause for thought? If he believes that the Soviet Union would hesitate to attack an enemy when it knew that it would be retaliated in that way he is admitting that nuclear weapons are a deterrent.
  As I understood him, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to the Soviet Union but that we should not have them. In effect, he is saying that the West must rely on the United States or France for its deterrence. I find it difficult to understand how he and some of his colleagues can, at one and the same time, be offensive about the United States and say that we shall rely on that country for the deterrent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer that we rely on the French. Does he seriously believe that by deliberately weakening ourselves we should be safer? I cannot follow the logic of that argument.
  The right hon. Gentleman was clear about what he would do with the money saved if we stopped all nuclear weapon programmes. I was delighted, because he was not so clear only six short months ago when he said that the Labour party would
  "maintain conventional defence spending at present levels."—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1126.]
  Presumably he has changed his mind since then, as he said that he wants to increase expenditure on conventional defence. However, I must draw his attention to the fact that that is not what his noble Friend Lord Graham of Edmonton said in the other place last week. He was speaking on behalf of the Labour party, so I am not allowed to quote his words. However, he made it clear that, in the view of the Labour party in the other place, we were spending too much on defence. If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he consults the Lords Hansard for 25 June 1986, column 363. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is disowning the Labour party Front Bench in the other place. It is difficult to understand precisely where it stands.
  If the right hon. Gentleman's latest remarks, contradicting what he said in January, are now the position of the Labour party, I wonder whether to do what he suggests would increase the level of deterrence. He says that if we save money on the nuclear deterrent, we could spend it all on something else. Last week, in the other place, a Government statement was made by my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur, which I am allowed to quote. He spoke of the alternatives that one could buy for the money that we spend on Trident over its life. He said:
  "This will be the equivalent of about three armoured divisions on the central front or, in terms of the equivalent
  732
  annual expenditure, half the amount we spend on service training, a third of the amount that we spend on BAOR, and a mere one-sixth of the amount that we spend on service pay and allowances". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 1986; Vol. 477, c. 370.]
  My noble Friend asked the Opposition in the other place, and I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he seriously thinks that, if he were sitting in the Kremlin, he would be more deterred by this country's possession of Trident or by our possession of three armoured divisions on the central front. I hope that this question will be answered by the end of the debate. I cannot say that three armoured divisions, however good they are—they would be very good if they were ours—would be a deterrent equal to Trident. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed that all nuclear weapons should be removed from the United Kingdom and that the ships that carry them should not be allowed to enter our ports. What effect does he think that that would have on the United States?
  I had the pleasure and privilege of attending a conference in the United States three weeks ago and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was there with me. It was clear from what was said by eminent United States speakers, not service people but people from universities, that the attitude of the United States is not anything like as good we would like it to be. We were told from the platform that the United States, which, as we all know, contributes nearly three times as much to defence as all the European countries put together, is getting fed up with constantly being told by Europe that everything that it does is wrong.
  We were told by one professor that a survey showed that attitudes in the United States were changing and that there was definitely a mood that Europe was a thoroughly tiresome place a long way away that cost America a great deal of time and effort. There was a question mark over whether it was really worth saving— [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) can laugh. We and the hon. Member for Attercliffe, if he was there at the time, were told that not once but twice from the platform during the conference organised by the Supreme Allied Commander-in-Chief Atlantic. There is no doubt that Americans increasingly question, as the older ones among them die off, the need for them to be in Europe.
  Another fact that I learnt when I was in the United States is that, increasingly, the people of the United States are turning away from the Atlantic. That is because, as I was told, for the first time more than 50 per cent. of the population live west of the Mississippi. When they look to the sea, they do not look this way; they look the other way. If Britain took a step such as has been described by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, the effect in the United States would be shattering. If the policy enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman were put into effect, the United States would before long withdraw from NATO. When the right hon. Gentleman propounds that policy, he should address himself to that difficulty.
  I shall talk briefly about the report of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, which was mentioned in kind terms by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall make three comments on the many matters which the Select Committee on Defence sought to cover in the report now before the House.

  733
  My first point is how much I and all my colleagues welcome the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Committee and its activities. He has held office for only a few months, hut he has been extremely candid with the Committee. We all recognise his determination to get to grips with the many proplems that face him. We mentioned many of those problems in our third report of last Session, including the consequences of the ending of the Government's commitment to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. per annum. Those problems have not gone away. The Minister knows that. He made it clear to the Committee that he knew and, furthermore, that he would grip the problems.
  One example of the Minister's determination is the Nimrod airborne early warning adventure, started in 1977 by the Labour party, which has gone so unhappily wrong for so many years. My right hon. Friend made it clear that if the British system cannot be made to work in six months with a limited expenditure of money, he will have to look elsewhere. I agree with that. He must. Everyone hopes that he will not have to, because we would infinitely prefer a system manufactured by Marconi or another company which could be put in our aeroplanes and would work. The present system does not work. The Minister is right to put a time limit on the system because, as it stands, and as the Select Committee has been told by the Supreme Allied Commander-in-Chief Europe, it is a hole in the defences of NATO.
  That is a decision that the Minister will have to take. As he has frankly admitted to us, he must take many others. I shall not discuss them all because they are in the report, but I speak for the entire Committee and, I am sure, for the entire House when I say how glad we are to have a Secretary of State who is determined to get to grips with the problems and settle them in the best way he can and as quickly as he can in the interests of Britain's defence.
  Secondly, I mention the Merchant Navy, as I did in the debate last year, and, as the Select Committee's report did last year and this year. I make no apology for that. Although it may not officially be recognised as a defence asset, we all know that it is. I congratulate the Minister on having produced a table of figures in the White Paper and on addressing the problem in concert with his friends in other Government Departments. It is as well that he does that. Last year, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the size of the Merchant Navy under the British flag was diminishing and said that the General Council of British Shipping had forecast by how much it would diminish in the ensuring year. That has happened almost exactly as forecast. It is more urgent now than it was a year ago that the Government should address their mind to what to do about it.
  We all want a formal statement of Government policy, for which the Select Committee on Defence called last year, covering the areas of vital importance: the numbers of ships, the availability of ships, the legal powers over the ships and a range of similar matters. Every year, as the number of ships under the British flag diminishes, the more urgent it becomes for the Government to come to grips with the problem and consider what they can do to stop the decline, because, as the Government and everyone else knows, the vast bulk of our supplies, civil and military, still travel by sea and will for many years.
  My final point about the Select Committee's report is that I am glad that my right hon. Friend directs his
  734
  attention to service men's allowances. Ultimately everything that hon. Members and the Government do to defend Britain depends on the man in the field. If he is not treated well he will not perform well. As I am sure the Minister knows, there is a feeling throughout the forces that their employers, the Government, with our support, are not treating them in the matter of allowances as well as they should. I cannot say whether that feeling is totally justified. In some cases, it may be justified, but in other cases it may not. But it is essential that the Government should address themselves to the entire range of allowances to our service men.
  The Government should address the matter quickly and produce an answer that is seen to be fair. As I have said before, the defence of Britain rests on the individual to whom one of the greatest British soldiers once put a name—it is the same surname as mine— in a general order. That soldier is the man upon whom our safety depends. If he—in the words of that famous soldier—when ordered will stand to his front and face the enemy, we shall be safe. He will do so if he is properly treated and properly led. None of us has much doubt that he is properly led. It is our business to see that he is properly treated. If he is not properly treated and, when the call comes, does not stand to the front and face the enemy, we shall have no one to blame but ourselves.
  5.38 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The amendment tabled—but not accepted— by myself and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party draws attention to the underlying and fundamental anxiety on both sides of the House: that during the next three years there will be a reduction in real terms in defence spending of more than 4·5 per cent.
  The Secretary of State's interesting speech sought to pray in aid the consistency within the Conservative party on defence. He should recall that we were given a solemn undertaking last autumn that defence spending would continue on the basis of level funding for the next few years. He does not do his case a service if he tries to deny that he must now grapple with the problems of a declining defence budget.
  I do not deny that with cost efficiencies better value for money could be obtained, but we should not exaggerate the extent to which the Ministry of Defence can continue to make cost-efficient savings without serious cuts in its front-line effectiveness. This is a Ministry which, under successive Governments for more than 20 years, has looked for cost savings more zealously than almost any other Department. Although there was a good deal of fat on the system, we would be foolish to try to deny that it has now been cut to the bone.
  On forward budgeting, it will be extremely difficult to find the resources for the new fighter aircraft replacement. It was right for us to go ahead with replacing the fighter aircraft. It was extremely important on European grounds. It was one of the first recent decisions which demonstrated that the Federal Republic of Germany was prepared, on defence matters, to seek a solution which would he in the overall interests of NATO, and not be persuaded by the French to stick solely with German-French collaboration. The decision augurs well for our fundamental defence need in the next few years, which is that Britain, France and Germany should work more closely together than hitherto to strengthen the European defence pillar.

  735
  On a recent visit to Germany I visited the RAF and a Tornado squadron. I have never been to any part of the armed services where a single weapons system has been so enthusiatically received by everyone. It was praised at every level. There is no doubt that Britain has a fine aircraft, which is an extremely good example of European co-operation. I shall say more later about the future of European co-operation. Although we all agree that formidable obstacles lie ahead for European procurement, the Tornado aircraft is a fine example of what can be done.
  We still await a decision about our amphibious forces. It appears as though the Minister believes that much can be done by using the hulls of Fearless and Intrepid. I have some sympathy for him searching for economies, in view of the strains which will be placed on all conventional forces.
  Those ships were built in the days when ships were built to last. Perhaps we can extend their lives by an extensive refit. But many people, not just on both sides of the House but in the country, will not be happy to allow the Minister to give up the amphibious capability on the northern and southern flanks. It may mean some make and mend, but the Royal Marines have a special place in the affections of the British people and a proven record which we shall not allow to be sunk on the rock of inter-service rivalry.
  The Secretary of State may have to come to the House and say that it will be impossible to build a 50-frigate Navy. In another place, a former Chief of the Defence Staff and Chief of Naval Staff said that the present build rate would not provide a 50-frigate Navy. I agree that it will not, however much sleight of hand is used. What worries me even more is that we are not maintaining the build rate for the hunter-killer submarine force. Those ships are the real new capital ships of the Royal Navy, and they are fundamental to our specialised naval contribution to NATO. Few other navies can contribute in this area, and it would be a great shame if Britain cut back its hunter-killer submarine fleet. It is important to the European balance in NATO that Britain should maintain those forces.
  There is justified anxiety about the strain on the conventional budget. However, it is good to see that reductions have been made in the Falklands garrison. It must also be said that it is in Britain's defence interest to undertake negotiations with Argentina and lower the tension so that we can reduce the forces even further and reach, at least during the next few years, a modus vivendi.
  When there is a new Government, serious negotiations should take place on the long-term future of the Falkland islanders to obtain peace in the south Atlantic. We cannot continue to pay the heavy costs, of garrisoning the Falklands in perpetuity. None of us in the House would wish that commitment on our successors.
  Mr. David Crouch: I was in the Falkland islands last week. The right hon. Gentleman's point is very pertinent. It took a little time to persuade the Falkland islanders, their committees and councillors of this point, but they are beginning to appreciate that a reduction in the threat from the other side would mean less criticism levelled at them of the cost of defending the Falklands.
  Dr. Owen: I have always believed that the Falkland islanders can be persuaded, if we show leadership, that their best interests can, in the long term, be secured by
  736
  peaceful relations between Argentina and Britain. It will not be easy in the aftermath of the war. The Prime Minister seems to believe that there cannot be negotiations or discussions on sovereignty because of the loss of life and injuries sustained in the war. She underestimates the armed services and the people who went to the south Atlantic. They went there to resist aggression. In making their sacrifices, they did not believe that, in a reasonable time scale, there could not be discussions, dialogue and eventually a peace settlement between Britain and Argentina. Armed force is used to make way for peace.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we could have serious discussions with Argentina without saying that we shall give away the islands' sovereignty?
  Dr. Owen: I believe that one of the prices of war may be that the direct transfer of sovereignty to Argentina is no longer negotiable. The solution will come through shared sovereignty, or an allocation of sovereignty to some international body, such as the United Nations, so that sovereignty is held by neither Britain nor Argentina. Because of possible military challenges, there would have to be substantial safeguards if sovereignty was passed to the United Nations. However, there are safeguards that could be used and this could be a more fruitful approach.
  In view of the contributions made by the Secretary of State and by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), it would be wrong for me to avoid the central issue of nuclear policy. I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Llanelli said. The issue has become too polarised. He must, however, face the massive differences that will occur if the Labour party — if ever in government—decides to disown the American nuclear guarantee and asks the United States to withdraw from its nuclear bases in Britain. That would undermine the core of the existence, philosophy and military doctrine of the NATO Alliance, which has always been firmly based on the need for conventional and nuclear deterrence. If we turn round and kick in the teeth—for that is how it will be seen by the Americans—the principal guarantor of the NATO Alliance, by asking them to withdraw their nuclear bases, we must not be surprised if that is the result.
  We ought also to consider New Zealand's position. Only two days ago Mr. Shultz said that New Zealand,
  "in taking the position, in effect, that United States Naval ships cannot call at New Zealand's ports, has taken away one of the essences of the military alliance that constitutes ANZUS."
  For the first time it now looks as if Washington has taken a step formally to withdraw a United States guarantee to assist a treaty partner in time of trouble. There are ominous portents in that decision, deliberately taken. They are a warning to us in the United Kingdom of what would happen if the Labour party were ever to be returned to office and were to follow that course. Therefore. the right hon. Member for Llanelli, who singularly failed to answer the question that I put to him, must recognise that deep passions will be aroused and that there will be great concern and very considerable political argument, because what is at stake is the very existence of NATO.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
  Dr. Owen: Whether or not Britain should retain its nuclear weapons is a different question and a different

  737
  kind of argument. Provided that Britain accepts that NATO should still retain nuclear and conventional deterrents and provided also that we are content to rely upon the United States nuclear guarantee, that is a perfectly credible intellectual position to adopt. However, the question that this House has to answer—and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) whose Select Committee has done so much to enrich our debates posed it very openly—is whether we can continue to rely upon the absolute nature of the United States guarantee.
  We must consider the changes that are taking place in the United States. At one time, one in four of the United States population had their origins in Europe. Now it is one in 10. There has been a massive shift of population towards the western and southern states. Nobody who knows and loves the United States cannot but appreciate that the Pacific orientation is much stronger than it was 10, let alone 20, years ago. We cannot assume in perpetuity that Senators and Congressmen will still be able to persuade United States voters and taxpayers to fund 300,000 members of the United States armed forces on the mainland of Europe. That element of United States forces is, I believe, the real nuclear guarantee. It is far more effective than land-based United States missiles on the continent of Europe. Missiles are not nearly so important as United States forces.
  Mr. Hind: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that there is an intellectual conflict in the Labour party's position? It does not wish any nuclear weapons to be based on British soil, but within NATO it is content to call upon American nuclear forces to defend Britain, if necessary. In other words, it is all right to have access to the weapons but it is not all right to have them on British soil as British weapons.
  Dr. Owen: I have already dealt with the logical inconsistency and moral weakness of the Labour party's case. The logic of disowning nuclear weapons—not only our own but those of our allies—leads progressively to the justification of neutralism and to a lesser commitment to NATO, and it leads eventually through a grave impact upon the cohesion of NATO to its dismemberment, as we know it now.
  On the question of what should be the European role, there seems to be a growing acceptance in Europe that the European pillar within NATO must be strengthened and that the anxiety in the past that, if one talked about it, it might encourage the United States to pull out was unfounded. The arguments that one heard at the time of the Mansfield amendment—including the fear that if we became more independent in Europe that would feed American anxieties to withdraw—have been discredited. The urgent feeling that Europe should face up to its own defence responsibilities is widespread and there is considerable discussion about it.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli must face the fact that there are two European bombs at the moment. France is a nuclear state; so is Britain. The right hon. Gentleman seems not to realise fully the extent of the co-operation that now exists and that is building up all the time between the Federal Republic of Germany and France. The political parties in the Federal Republic of Germany do not wish Germany to become a nuclear state, but they recognise that if there is to be a strong European pillar of
  738
  NATO defence, the Federal Republic of Germany, as a non-nuclear weapon state, must become more involved in nuclear strategy. This becomes even more important as France moves on from Pluton to a new missile, Hades, a nuclear missile with a range which means it can be fired from French territory over the Federal Republic of Germany into East German territory. This means that: the Federal Republic of Germany needs to be involved in French nuclear strategy.
  What has worried me over the last decade is that as this Franco-German understanding has emerged on all matters of defence, and increasingly on nuclear defence, Britain has been unable to develop a nuclear relationship with France, or with the Federal Republic of Germany — though perhaps inevitably less so on nuclear weapons. A great deal has been done — I pay tribute to the predecessor of the Secretary of State for Defence and to his Department—to strengthen German-British conventional co-operation, but a great deal more can still be clone to strengthen it. A trilateral relationship — Germany, France and the United Kingdom—could hold the key to our nuclear defence.
  It is wholly wrong for people to believe that Trident is the natural follow-on to Polaris. It represents a very substantial increase in nuclear capability over and above Polaris. It is a very good system, and I am very pleased that the United States has it, because the Soviet Union has the same capabilities as those that are contained in the Trident system. However, the question for Britain is whether we can afford it and whether, in arms control terms, it makes any sense for a country that has always believed in a minimum deterrent to be adopting such a sophisticated deterrent.
  Trident represents a dramatic 800 per cent. increase in the number of warheads—from 64 to 512—and a 1,200 per cent. increase in the operational availability of warheads — from 32 to 384. It also represents a substantial increase in range—from 2,500 nautical miles to 4,000 nautical miles. Therefore, we must not continue to believe that Trident and Polaris are equivalent weapons systems. Trident is a quantum leap forward.
  Mr. Mates: The answer to the questions posed by the right hon. Gentleman are perfectly logical and stand together. He asked whether we can afford Trident and whether it will therefore be the cheapest replacement for Polaris. The Select Committee spent 14 months discussing the question of the next generation of nuclear deterrents and discovered that this was the cheapest system, maintaining the minimum deterrent, which is one boat at sea. Of course it is a leap forward in capability, and that may have to be taken care of afterwards. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that, although we are looking for a cheap and effective system, we must not adopt a system that happens to be more effective because it would upset the balance. The two are perfectly compatible.
  Dr. Owen: On the question of cost, I concede that the hon. Gentleman conscientiously believes that Trident is the most cost-effective weapons system. However, I do not believe that it was the most cost-effective system when the decision was taken to purchase first the C4 missile and then the D5 missile. I am the first to admit that as the months roll by and as the costs of Trident build up it becomes ever harder to make that choice. At the time of

  739
  the next general election we shall have to face the fact that substantial amounts of money have already been committed to Trident. That will have to be taken into account in reaching decisions, but I still believe that it is possible to cancel Trident, and I shall explain why.
  Mr. Julian Amery: A few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman was postulating that we would need a European deterrent because the United States defences might not be available to us. If that is the case, surely the minimum deterrent would need to be a bit stronger than that which we have today.
  Dr. Owen: If Europe is more self-sufficient in its defence the United States will not pull out of the NATO Alliance. It will strengthen those in the United States who wish to remain in NATO if they feel that Europe is making a strong conventional and nuclear commitment. That view is held by many Americans, and many Americans stationed in Europe who are responsible for defence decisions in NATO also hold that view. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe is only one example arguing that a stronger European defence commitment makes it easier for Senators and Congressmen to retain the American commitment to Europe.
  I am not postulating a European deterrent on the basis of replacing or excluding the United States, and the United States should certainly not be encouraged to withdraw. I would do everything in my power to hold the United States to the concept of the Atlantic Alliance for as long as humanly possible. If, as I hope, its forces remain for 20, 30 or 40 years, history will show that one of the reasons why they did stay was that there was a more equitable balance in the defence commitment to NATO by the European partners and the United States.
  How we make such a contribution brings me to the matter of Trident. The problem about Trident is that the costs will build up steadily over the next 10 years. A number of times in his speeches the Secretary of State has spoken about Tornado and said that the overall programme for Tornado costs was more than that for Trident. The Tornado programme, however, between 1974 and 1984 coincided with one of the most rapidly growing periods in our defence expenditure. There was an overall real terms increase of 24 per cent. and in the equipment budget the real terms increase was 86 per cent. I know that the Secretary of State tends to claim that this increase took place under a Conservative Government, but that is not the case. When the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister in 1977, we managed to persuade a Labour Cabinet facing difficult post—IMF problems about public expenditure that we should meet the 3 per cent. increase in defence spending for NATO.
  I would never say that the Labour party when in government ducks out of making responsible defence decisions. It is a tragedy that the defence of Britain has now become such a polarised issue. Between 1940 and 1979 there was a broad measure of agreement on defence measures, and it is only recently that we have got into the habit of voting against the Defence Estimates. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to vote against them.
  The problems arise because of Trident. Over the next 10 years, if Britain goes ahead with the Trident
  740
  programme, it will cut savagely into our defence capacity. For that reason, I am prepared to look at less effective alternatives. The question that we must ask is whether we can get a reasonable nuclear minimum deterrent that will make a contribution to Europe's minimum deterrent for less money than we would have to spend on Trident. There are a number of options and we should look seriously at them. The first option must be a system that already exists. To hear the talk in the House and outside from time to time, no one would believe that the United States is planning to deploy on its submarines and on its surface ships 758 nuclear-armed land attack missiles with warheads of 200 kilotonnes. Some 250 of those Tomahawk missiles will be deployed on submarines and the remainder on surface ships. The Tomahawk is an existing successful missile and can be fired from the torpedo tubes of conventional submarines. It is being fired from submarines of the United States navy. This missile is similar to submarine and surface-launched missiles in the possession of the Soviet navy, so it is not a new development.
  The matter of Trident replacement needs to be kept in proportion. How do the Americans describe this missile system? They talk about it as a strategic reserve and ascribe to it great accuracy of only 100 ft off target. It can deliver a weapon to a hardened strategic target, and the United States navy is extremely pleased with its capabilities. The missile has a range of 1,350 nautical miles, flies only 50 ft over water and with Stealth technology it is almost impossible to detect by radar. It travels from 100 to 300 ft over land with TERCOM guidance.
  That is a proven system, but it may well be that we do not wish to buy American technology. In 1981 the French considered, and are considering again, building a similar type of cruise missile to replace their land-based system, which is out of date. However, there is no doubt that they will carry on with their submarine-based system. British Aerospace is quite adamant that it has the capability to build a cruise missile of this quality. The TERCOM guidance system is in use on Tornado and the capability exists for using it on a missile. The Germans have shown some interest in cruise and expressed a readiness to consider a conventional armed cruise missile that would be European-built. Perhaps the Italians would be interested in it as well. Are we to say that such an option should not be seriously considered?
  It is to the credit of my hon. Friends and myself that we have suggested that the practicability of a European minimum deterrent should be discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has rather different views from mine about a submarine-launched missile. He has often rightly stressed the difficulty that exists in arms control agreements about making the distinction between a nuclear-armed cruise missile and one that is conventionally armed. That is a problem we face now because of developments in the United States navy and the Soviet navy, but my hon. Friend raises an important point.
  There are other options. The right hon. Member for Llanelli tended to scoff at the French ballistic missile system, but we should not ignore it as a possible option, although we would probably end up paying as much as we pay for Trident. It would not be a bad idea anyhow to discuss that option and to go to the French to find out what they feel about it.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate that it is desirable and right to discuss this, but the time for that has long since passed. If we had time to discuss that, there are two points I would make to the right hon. Gentleman. First, if these missiles have a range of 1,300 miles, they would be uniquely vulnerable in the positions that they would have to take up to have any chance of hitting a likely target. Secondly, if they are to be used in lieu of Poseidon, which is to go out of service in the mid-1990s, by that time the sort of system the right hon. Gentleman has devised would be uniquely vulnerable to the advanced technology of the Soviet Union to work against it. In that case such a large number would be needed for any to have a chance of getting through that the cost would be vastly greater than the cost of the Trident programme.
  Dr. Owen: I shall deal with these matters one by one. The Government have spent a lot of time persuading Britain and our European allies that they ought to have ground-based cruise missile systems, so presumably the vulnerability argument falls. The Secretary of State spoke about vulnerability in the 1990s. The system that will become more vulnerable if SDI research leads to deployment is the ballistic missile system, and the unique qualities of ballistic missiles that have made them an effective system make them extremely vulnerable to defence in space. That is not the case with a cruise missile.
  If the Secretary of State has opened his mind and talked to his counterparts in the Pentagon he will realise that the addition of Stealth technology has made a massive breakthrough to the capacity of cruise missiles. At the moment they are subsonic. There is no reason, apart from payload, why they should not become supersonic. I have mentioned only submarine launching but there is also the possibility of putting cruise missiles on aeroplanes, as the United States air force and the Soviet air force have already done. That is another option to be considered.
  I now come to the Trident submarine, not the missile system. The Secretary of State will not change his mind before the next election, whenever that is, so by then the Trident submarines will be on the slipway in Barrow. If the election takes place in the spring of 1987, which is probably the first opportunity for it, well over 50 per cent. will be committed to Trident 05 — the first Trident submarine—and well over 20 per cent. to Trident 06. It would be helpful if, when the Minister replies to the debate, he could tell us exactly how much is committed to the Trident submarines.
  On top of that there is the extraordinary 120 per cent. penalty clause on the Trident submarines. The House is entitled to know a little more about that. Presumably that has been designed to make the contract hard to cancel. I hope that the legal justification and morality of such a commitment can be explained to us. All that adds up to the fact that the Trident submarine could be difficult to cancel. The right hon. Member for Llanelli shakes his head. I thought that the Labour party's policy, if placed in that difficulty, was to keep it without the missile section as a hunter-killer submarine. That is an option, although it is an extremely expensive hunter-killer submarine, and a very big one. But given the amount of money that has already been spent and the need to win votes among the Barrow and Rosyth ship workers, I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman has come up with that solution.
  We, too, must look at this matter and in the next few months we must consider the various options for those
  742
  Trident submarines. Shall we scrap them or do what the Labour pa:ty wants to do and keep them as hunter-killer submarines? I know that the Secretary of State has no doubt at all. He would have Trident missiles and spend billions of pounds. It is a perfectly reasonable option to keep the missile section of the submarine and put cruise missiles in for vertical launch. That is the system that is now being used in the United States navy which already has 12 in a vertical launch mode and may well decide to go for 20 or even 25.
  The Secretary of State may shake his head, but let me deal with the vulnerability of cruise missiles. It is true they do not have the same amount of sea room as the Trident missile has with a 4,000-mile range. I agree that the large Trident submarine, if converted, would have a problem in that sense, but not so much as has been stated in the past because the nature of the continental shelf makes it extremely difficult to detect and pick up slow-moving nuclear-powered submarines. The right hon. Gentleman knows that better than most.
  The Secretary of State also knows that that option is considered not just by a few maverick figures, or the Social Democratic party because it has somehow to hold a halfway house between Trident, large bombs and the Labour party's no bombs. That option is now favoured by many serious people. The editor of the latest edition of "Jane's Fighting Ships" supports the cruise missile option. I do not know whether anyone inside the Ministry of Defence will ever dare tell the right hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that many senior officers in dark blue, light blue and khaki uniforms believe that it is high time that we were prepared to consider this as an alternative to Trident.
  A substantial body of journalists who comment on defence matters believe that we should reconsider the Trident decision because it will cost so much money. If they dare to put their heads above the parapet, we would see that a good many Members of Parliament on the Government's Back Benches are not convinced about the Trident programme.
  Against that background and this reduced budget that is a reasonable question. Many would not have questioned Trident while we were expanding the defence budget by 2 or 3 per cent. per year. Many might not have considered it hack in November when the defence budget was to be held to level funding. But now, when they see reductions of 2·5 per cent. per year in the defence budget, there are many more who are prepared to consider whether we can afford Trident.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are right to take a long careful look at the options over the next few months for retaining a European nuclear deterrent—a minimum nuclear deterrent. Why do I use the term "European"? Of course, it is right that the French President will still retain overall responsibility for a French weapons system, and as one cannot delegate to a military commander and as there is no federal President of Europe, it will have to be retained by a British Prime Minister. The command and control will always have to be in political hands.
  But if we could agree the refitting cycle for the submarines,; if we could agree the targeting strategy with the French, if the Germans and Italians were to come into a co-operative framework on how we saw nuclear strategy, would not that be a far more effective way of standing up against the United States when we dislike their strategy on nuclear arms control? Would not Europe be in a much

  743
  firmer and clearer position when arguing for maintaining SALT 2 limits if it also had its own worked-out view on NATO's nuclear strategy? Would not the partnership be more equal if, instead of the United States- speaking separately to the French, Germans, Italians and British, it could feel that there was an underlying cohesion on nuclear strategic matters among the main European partners? That is the logical development.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli referred.to the first decision by Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin and the second decision by Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson to.earry on. Do not forget that it was the Labour party which carried on with the Polaris decision in 1964. That process has been carried through. The same applies to Chevaline. The decision was first made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and carried on by Harold Wilson. It went to the Labour Cabinet in November in 1974 and was followed all the way through.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: It was not taken to the party.
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about whether it should or should not have gone to the party. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup thought that the decision should be made in secrecy, Harold Wilson thought that it ought to be made in secrecy, I think rightly, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth thought that the decision still needed to be made in secrecy. It was only announced in a flamboyant gesture with its code name by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) because he wanted to make a party political point in a rather cheap way somehow to justify his decision on Trident.
  This is a deep question which goes to the root of a British foreign policy, but, more importantly, to the root of a European foreign policy.
  Mr. McNamara: I am not necessarily disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but what worries me about it is that he is justifying the taking of these fundamental decisions in secret without the knowledge of Parliament, which had no knowledge of the price, and making the point that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) revealed the programme only to make a cheap party political point. Does he not believe that the British people should have known about it?
  Dr. Owen: There is a fair argument that the Chevaline project should have been announced to the House, but, in fairness, those who were involved in the early decision—I was involved in the latter part — genuinely thought that there were good security grounds for not revealing the information. It was not a new generation weapons system. It was a decision to retain the effectiveness of the Polaris warhead. After the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed there was no need for it. I inherited the decision in 1977 and I take my share of responsibility for the decision not to cancel, it having gone on for four years and already cost £700 million. In 1977–78 we got its cost under control, but it ended up costing more than was estimated and at £1 billion it was a pretty expensive investment.
  Chevaline was not of the same political gravity as the decision to go for nuclear weapons in the first place which
  744
  was made in total secrecy by Clement Attlee and his Cabinet. That secrecy was maintained by the Churchill Government. Nor was it of the same quality as the decision made openly by Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson to go for Polaris. I say only that the Chevaline decision went to the Labour Cabinet in November 1974 and it would have been possible for those who objected strongly not to have acquiesced or resigned from the Government.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: When the Labour Government, headed by Clement Attlee, decided to go ahead with the British atom bomb, the Cabinet was not informed. That curious concept of democracy seems to be quite common in the Labour party.
  Dr. Owen: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Conservative party's record, he will find that it has always been felt that some decisions involving nuclear weapons should be maintained on a need-to-know basis, and should not always involve the full Cabinet. I tend to think that that is wrong, but, whether it is right or wrong, it is done for the best of motives. In this country, the way to keep things secret is to be very rigid about how many people are involved. For many years, it has been understood that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer sometimes with the addition of one or two other senior Ministers provides a sufficient forum for a debate on nuclear questions.
  Mr. Younger: And the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Dr. Owen: Of course, I accept that.
  I do not want to delve into the history of the matter, as I have already delayed the House too long. But these are serious questions and they need to be resolved. Behind it all is the concern felt throughout the defence firms and industries about the pressure on the conventional defence budget. There is also concern in my constituency. Only last Friday, the Western Morning News ran a headline about the further 40 per cent. reduction in the work load of naval ships for Devonport dockyard over the next eight years. The Secretary of State has yet to decide whether to go ahead with agency management of the dockyard. I hope that, now that he has got his wretched Bill, he will not go ahead with that. I hope that at the very least he will settle for a Government-owned plc, which will achieve some of the things that he wants in terms of civil servant numbers but will not fragment the dockyard. I also hope that he will now take a more strategic view of what is needed on the defence budget in relation to the financial constraints.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State gave the impression that he would dribble out the decisions as they came along. That is probably the best political course, given that there will be a general election within the next two years. But it is the worst course for the morale of the armed services and for the morale of those who serve them. It would be much better if he made some of the difficult decisions that are needed, and if he took an open, honest and sensible strategic forward look in these Defence Estimates. If he did that, he would earn much more respect.
  The Secretary of State must consider the whole question of purchasing Trident. I know that it is a verboten subject in this Government, just as the devaluation of the pound was once a verboten subject in other Governments, but the Prime Minister must be made to understand that it will be an open question until the next

  745
  election. It would be of great value if the Government, as we ask in our amendment, considered how else we can make a practical contribution to the development of a European minimum nuclear deterrent without going on with the Trident system.
  The Secretary of State will also have to look at some of the other areas of the defence budget, not least the balance between the surface ship and the undersea navy. He will also have to consider the Falklands garrison, the future of manned aircraft and missiles. With our European partners, the right hon. Gentleman will have to consider whether it is now time for Europe to have a medium-range missile launcher that could be used with either conventional or nuclear warheads.
  This is a time for rethinking the budget. For the first time, the House accepts that there will be successive reductions in the defence budget. All of us should be prepared to reconsider past positions and to think long and hard about the future of our armed services and, in particular, about how we strengthen the European pillar of NATO.
  6.23 pm
  Sir Patrick Wall: I agreed with much of what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, particularly at the beginning of his speech. I am concerned about the reduction in defence expenditure that has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Like the right hon. Member for Devonport, I believe that Europe is getting together—as all those in the North Atlantic Assembly know. Much work has already been done on common weapons systems, not only on a European scale, but between Europe and America.
  I also agree about the grave danger posed by the Labour party's defence policy. Indeed, I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Devonport only about Trident. However, I shall not argue about that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave two valid reasons for continuing with Trident, and explained why there are no other options. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) said that the Defence Committee, of which I was a member, and which sat during the last Parliament, spent about 17 months trying to find a cheaper alternative to Trident. However, we failed to find one, and strongly recommended Trident.
  The North Atlantic Assembly has several committees, and one of the most important deals with arms control. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) wrote a report which has become a text book on nuclear weapons in Europe, and which is extremely valuable. The sub-committee that produced that report has now been renamed the special committee on nuclear strategy and arms control. That sub-committee, of which I am a member, went, not many months ago, to Geneva to examine the discussions going on about the different types of arms control and to consider how much hope of progress there was.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The co-author of that report was the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the hon. Member for Woolwich was a member of the Select Committee in 1981, he, along with other hon. Members, came down very firmly in favour of Trident rather than cruise?
  Sir Patrick Wall: I do not really want to start an argument between my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Woolwich. I said only that that report was extremely good. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden will agree with that.
  Mr. John Cartwright: I cannot let the comment made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) stand. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the various amendments to that report, he will find that I moved an amendment that made clear my concern about the major recommendation on Trident.
  Sir Patrick Wall: Before that intervention, I was saying that the Sub-Committee visited Geneva and found that progress on various aspects of arms control was not very encouraging. There seemed to be some chance of eventual agreement only in relation to chemical and bacteriological warfare. The first article of the proposed treaty banned the stockpiling, manufacture, possession or use of chemical or bacteriological weapons. There seemed to be a consensus on that issue. But the other articles involving the disposal of existing stocks, verification and the organisation and inspection of that verification showed a considerable difference between the East and West.
  The Soviets would accept on-site inspection, but they would not accept inspection of the destruction of production facilities or the American challenge system, according to which the Americans can say that they want to send in an inspector, because they believe that a Soviet factory, for example, is reproducing chemical weapons. It seemed that we might obtain a reasonable result in that area in about three years hence.
  But it was also felt that unless the Americans produced binary weapons, the problems would not be resolved. After all, the Russians always respond to strength. The Russians know that they have far greater stocks of chemical and bacteriological weapons, and that the Americans only have old stocks in Germany, which they propose to move from Germany when they have produced new binary weapons. This American production may give the Soviets the nudge required to an agreement on the prohibition of chemical and bacteriological warfare.
  The Chernobyl disaster is important. I believe that many more people will die of radiation sickness than have been annouced so far. About 40,000 people in a town called Pripyat, only a few miles from the reactor, were there for three days. I cannot imagine that any of them could survive. Kiev was only 80 miles away. We hear about radioactivity in Welsh lambs. What about the Ukraine, the bread basket of the USSR? There must be much more contamination there than the contamination about which we hear today.
  I believe that the Russians are dispersing the population throughout the Soviet Union to prevent the knowledge of casualties leaking to the West. If that knowledge leaks out and shows that large numbers of people are suffering from radiation sickness, it might be possible to persuade the Soviet Union to agree to the international inspection of reactors. If we achieve that throughout the world the problem of the verification of arms control would be much easier, particularly in relation to bacteriological and chemical weapons. That might be the breakthrough for which we have been looking in arms control.
  A committee of the North Atlantic Assembly visited the United States and found a complete difference of opinion

  747
  between the academics over the strategic defence initiative. One side believed that the SDI would work and was in favour of it and the other that it could not work and was against it. That happened in each place that we went to. The Right wing was for it and the Left wing was against it. I am impressed by and in favour of SDI.
  I am glad that this country has signed the MOU. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has set up an office in the MOD. I am glad that the Federal Republic of Germany has followed our example and that Japan and Italy are likely to do so. The subsequent research and development is vital to our future. It must be extremely important to the West, otherwise the Soviet Union would not continue to make every effort to stop this research and development.
  I should now like to discuss American policy. I was with my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) in the United States. We were told that the United States conducted 25 per cent. more trade in the Pacific basin than in Europe. The Pacific basin is regarded as the most dynamic area in the world today. That is probably right. The United States is fed up that Europe does not spend more on its own defence. The average expenditure on defence is 3·5 per cent. of GDP in Europe, with Britain contributing 5·2 per cent. That is above the average, but the United States always talks about Europe as a whole. The United States contributes 6·9 per cent. and the Soviet Union over 14 per cent. of GDP. The United States obviously thinks that we in Europe should do more and I think that it is right.
  The concept of isolationism and fortress America is growing. The Prime Minister's action in the Libyan raid was 100 per cent. successful and changed American opinion towards the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, towards Europe. Events have proved that my right hon. Friend was wholly right in what she did.
  I warn the House of two dangers. The first is in decreasing British defence expenditure by 1·5 per cent. a year for the next three years. Under the Gramal-Rudman-Hollings Act in the United States there is a 4·9 per cent. cut this year and next year it will be as much as 20 per cent., of which 50 per cent. must come from defence. Thus the door is opened to all sorts of problems with the Soviet Union, which will see that the two major NATO nations are reducing defence expenditure drastically and that Mr. Gorbachev may be able to take over Europe without a war.
  The Supreme Court is considering the Act to see whether it is constitutional. A decision is expected next month. I hope that it is declared unconstitutional because to eliminate the American deficit by 1991 requires a 10 per cent. reduction in defence expenditure in each year between now and then. This has to be done by law unless taxation in America is increased.
  The two decisions taken together could have a drastic effect upon our European allies, who already do not contribute enough. If the Europeans consider our reductions and the American reductions they will contribute even less.
  I turn to specific issues. It became clear at the recent symposium in Annapolis that if there were a third battle of the Atlantic it would be fought in the north Norwegian
  748
  sea and the Baltic approaches to the Giuk gap. The need is therefore, for additional anti-submarine vessels and helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft and amphibious warfare vessels. The Secretary of State today accepted the need for 50 destroyers and frigates. I am also glad that the Government intend to put the Goalkeeper on the type 42 because air defence is badly needed.
  If we went American, what would happen to the existing Nimrods selected for AEW? Will they be returned to the RAF, because it is important to have maritime patrol aircraft. We built 14 SSNs and are building four more and one SSK with another three being built. That is not bad for a country of this size. It certainly outbuilds the French.
  In connection with amphibious warfare, if we are to hold northern Norway, which might be the target for Soviet attack should they believe that NATO is weakening, we must have amphibious vessels. There are only three places in northern Norway in which the roll-on/roll-off car ferries could land.
  I am glad that we shall have a statement on the future of Fearless and Intrepid. I hope that they are to be refitted because we need their facilities of command as well as a helicopter landing deck and a deck for landing craft. I hope that they will be reinforced by adapted merchant ships which can provide the helicopter decks if they cannot provide the command facilities.
  Sir Antony BuckI agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) about the need for the replacement of amphibious capability. Does he agree that there has been one breakthrough in relation to northern Norway in the prepositioning of heavy supplies, which will result in an important strengthening of the position on the northern flank and which will make a considerable difference?
  Sir Patrick Wall: That is right. My hon. and learned Friend is right. The Anglo-Dutch commando force has been there for about three or four years. Now the United States Marine Corps will have similar stocks positioned halfway down Norway which will be very effective. However, amphibious forces must be backed up by shipping. Since 1975 NATO shipping has declined by 36 per cent. I am told — and I believe it — that there is enough shipping to meet all NATO's commitments today. There are two problems. First, one third of that shipping is under flags of convenience. We might be able to get the ships back, but can we rely on the crews if they are Greek or Filipino? I have my doubts. Secondly, the reduction of shipping is continuing and within the next four years we may lose much more shipping. We need 2,800 shiploads a month for reinforcement and re-supply of economic shipping in war. They will not be available if the present reductions continue. The Government talk about this a great deal, but I should like to hear a definitive statement, not that things are all right now, but about what they intend to do if the number of merchant ships continue, to decline.
  Perhaps the most important defence consideration of all is the Labour party's defence policy. In the past, the Labour party has taken one line when in opposition and another when in government. The line that it has taken in opposition has been changed rapidly when the Labour party has formed an Administration, to the relief of most people in Britain. But the next Parliament will be very

  749
  different from the Parliaments of Gaitskell, Wilson or Callaghan. Opposition Members know that. The United States has made it clear — the hon. Member for Attercliffe knows this as well as I do because he has heard it said—that if the Labour party came into power and carried out its threats to remove all American nuclear weapons from this country fortress America and isolationism would increase. I do not believe that we could remain in NATO if the Labour party carried out that policy. Not only that, the Left-wing of the Labour party is bound to want to close American bases in this country, nuclear or not. I do not believe that we can remain in the club if the main membership is chucked out of it.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about what will happen if Britain has a Left-wing Labour Government and we get rid of the American nuclear bases. After the visit of the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, to this country recently, there was no change in Canada's non-nuclear policy. Canada is a member of NATO and it has no nuclear weapons on its soil.
  Sir Patrick Wall: The same can be said of Norway and Denmark, but they are non-nuclear powers. We are a nuclear power. There are only two nuclear powers in Europe, France and Britain. Does the hon. Gentleman want France to take the lead in Europe? If Britain, as a nuclear power, throws out not only its own weapons but those of its main ally as well, how can it possibly remain a member of NATO? The answer is that it cannot. This is why the Labour party will not take power after the next general election. The British people have more sense than to turn againt their main ally and towards Moscow, and that is what the Labour party's policy would mean.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I am glad to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall). If the Labour party is elected at the next general election—that will become increasingly likely during the next 18 months or so—we shall almost certainly see a change in the bipartisan policy which has applied to defence matters since the second world war. The Labour party is committed firmly to cancelling Trident and decommissioning Polaris. Much more significant, it is committed to the removal of all American nuclear bases from Britain.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman has answered the question that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did not answer which is directed to the Labour party's policy on the decommissioning of Polaris. It appears that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) takes a different view. In a recent article he stated:
  "this is the big question, do we unilaterally get rid of Polaris whatever happens, or do we accept the Soviet proposals to negotiate about its future in the second stage of the arms negotiations? And this will have to be resolved before the next election".
  When reminded that this was Labour party policy, he said:
  "Yes, but … a lot has happened since then … And this produces a situation which we can't ignore and which I'm sure we will address in a satisfactory way before the next election comes".
  That is clearly opposed to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said. What is the Labour party policy on this matter, or is it split upon it?
  Mr. Strang: The Labour party's policy is quite clear.
  Mr. Ashdown: What is it?
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Labour party will have to be clear on this issue in its next manifesto. I accept that it was not clear in 1983. I did not rise, however, to participate in the debate with the intention of confining myself to responding to interventions made by alliance Members. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) knows that the alliance is split on replacing Polaris and on cruise missiles. When there was a vote on cruise, it was revealed that the alliance was split on the entire issue of defence policy.
  Mr. Hind: The article to which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred appeared in The Observer. When the issue of Labour party policy was put to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he said:
  "Denis will have to shut up about this."
  That was his comment.
  Mr. Strang: I shall not give way again if that is the level to which the debate is to be reduced.
  Fundamental to the debate is the "Soviet threat". I do not believe that western Europe should assume that the Soviet Union will not attack it militarily. I do not believe, however, that it has any intention of attacking us. I accept that, regardless of the motives of the Soviet Union, we in western Europe must recognise the power of the Soviet war machine. That is common ground.
  The evidence of the past few years shows that the leadership of the Soviet Union genuinely wants progress on peace in world terms. It genuinely wants real reductions in its nuclear arsenal, the removal of nuclear weapons from central Europe and progress made in reducing the level of conventional forces in Europe, primarily because it wishes to devote more of the Soviet Union's resources to increasing the living standards of the people of the Soviet Union. I say "primarily", but I may be wrong about that. Given the developments that have taken place over the years, the Soviet Union no longer intends to try to spread its form of government — what it calls Communism—by military means, if it ever did.
  It is interesting to read the first page of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". There is a quote from Lenin, who said:
  "As long as capitalism and socialism exist we cannot live in peace. One or the other will triumph in the end"
  That was said in 1920, and that probably was the position in the times of Lenin and Stalin. There was the belief that they might extend Soviet domination, and thus Communism, through the use of military means. There is a quote from Brezhnev and lastly one from Gorbachev, which reads:
  "We state again and again that the outcome of the historical competition between the two systems must not be solved by military means. Our commitment to the policy of peaceful coexistence is evidence of the strength of the new social system and faith in its historical possibilities."
  All the evidence points in that direction. I accept that, like any other leader, Mr. Gorbachev has his hawks and his doves, but all the evidence is that the Soviet Union genuinely wants progress.
  What is the position of the United States Administration? At best it can be described as confused. I would not say that there is confusion. The hawks are clearly in the ascendency. These are people who are opposed to arms control. They are open about that. There

  751
  were those who used to speak in terms of winning a nuclear war. We had the Haig statement on a limited nuclear war in Europe.
  I think that certain members of the United States Administration have educated themselves since then and that there are few in the Reagan Administration who would talk in terms of winning a nuclear war. There is, however, a strong body of opinion—I believe that it is still in the ascendancy— which believes that competition between the United States and the Soviet Union will move more and more in the United States' favour as it forces the Soviet Union to compete with its expenditure on arms. It thinks that it will be able to force the Soviet Union to divert more and more of its resources to military spending, but I think that that is profoundly wrong. I happen to think that the Soviet system—I do not support it— is probably better designed to carry a high-spending military programme than the American system. We know that the people of the Soviet Union are unable to elect an alternative Government.
  There is a gulf between European and United States thinking on the issues. It is an insult to our intelligence to suggest—it is repeated many times—that the new, slick Gorbachev approach has driven a wedge between western Europe and the United States. What about the strategic defence initiative? The British Government have been subservient to the American Government on almost every issue. Europe, and even the substantial Right-wing elements in western Europe, were unhappy about the SDI.
  Reference has been made to the NATO force goal in terms of chemical weapons. We know that, in military terms, it would make sense to have new binary chemical weapons in Europe. But why are they confined only to the United States? Of course, it is in deference to the different European attitudes. We have read that European Governments—I think that, for once, we can count the British Government in on it—were prepared to amount a campaign against the United States' intention to breach SALT 2 later this year. Libya has had a profound effect on European attitudes. It has certainly had a big impact on me. The Libyan bombing has made a big impact on many people in this country and Europe.
  It is alleged that there is a plan to give NATO an out-of-area role. It is not just a question of American F111s and planes in Europe being used to bomb Libya. NATO may actually embark on a policy of policing the world. That policy has been proposed by Mr. Weinberger. The role of the American Administration in South America and their recent decision to commit themselves to massive additional funding of the Contras against the Government of Nicaragua are crucial to European attitudes to NATO. These represent real developments and a divergence between the attitudes of American people and the policies pursued by the American Administration, and the attitudes of European people, and even European Right-wing Governments.
  Hopefully, we will soon see a change of Government in West Germany and Britain. We will see a change in our position and Governments in western Europe which are more representative of the aspirations of the vast majority of the people of Europe. All hon. Members must recognise that the divergence between Europe and the United States is a reflection of our different history, perspective and attitude to the Soviet Union.
  752
  I turn to some of the initiatives taken in respect of nuclear disarmament. I make no apology for concentrating my remarks on that. I recognise the importance of our defences, but I also recognise that things have changed completely since debates of 50 years ago or more. The overriding responsibility facing all Governments is to avoid a nuclear holocaust. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate for the Labour party, pointed out that the Chernobyl incident was tiny compared with even a nuclear weapon battlefield in central Europe.
  During the Secretary of State's speech I intervened regarding the comprehensive test ban treaty. The evidence is that the British Government are moving position. The British Government have argued, as did the then Foreign Office Minister in reply to an Adjournment debate over a year ago, that the only objection they have to progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty is the need for adequate verification. They wanted a comprehensive test ban treaty. That was their position at the non-proliferation review conference last year. That is different from the American position. The Americans stopped the talks on a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1980 because they wanted to continue testing. They made no bones about that.
  Tremendous scientific progress has been made on verification. Leading United States scientists—I say this without fear of challenge — believe that we can have adequate verification. The Soviet Union has agreed to the installation of seismological centres in the Soviet Union to make verification effective. Only a few months ago American scientists agreed with Soviet scientists on the seismological centres which could be established in the Soviet Union. That is why the Secretary of State, in reply to my intervention this afternoon, left himself a cop out. He said that verification is the most important objection. The verification argument is becoming less tenable.
  I believe that the Government were hypocritical when they replied to my Adjournment debate last year. Now that verification is becoming less tenable, they will adopt the American argument that they want to keep testing the weapons for storage reasons, and so on. The Americans want to test for SDI. They plan a nuclear pump for the X-ray lasers. We want to test the Trident warheads. It is fitting that the Government initiated a test last week, just before this debate.
  A comprehensive test ban treaty is important because it will help to put the brake on the development of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world. It is tragic that the Government, who were one of the three signatories—the others were the Soviet Union and the United States—to the agreement on the initial partial test ban treaty have adopted such a negative stance at the conference on disarmament in Geneva.
  I remind the House that the Soviet Union announced a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing — just as Kennedy did—which led to the partial test ban treaty. Instead of Britain responding to the moratorium and saying, "Let us see if we can make some progress on the basis of the Soviet moratorium", we are adopting a completely negative attitude. Mr. Gorbachev's proposals of 15 January are crucially important. They are probably the most important proposals to come out of the Soviet Union in 10 years. They attempt to make progress towards nuclear disarmament. They are so good that the Prime

  753
  Minister did not understand them. She said in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that they did not involve the zero option.
  There are three stages in the Gorbachev proposals. I shall concentrate on the first stage because it is designed to take us into the 1990s. The proposal involves the 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear weapons on which it is hoped the United States will negotiate seriously, and the removal of all intermediate range weapons from Europe—but not their transfer to Asia. The West used to put forward the zero option, that is, before it went ahead with the deployment of cruise and Pershing. The Prime Minister did not understand that. I do not think that she deliberately misled the House. I think that she genuinely did not realise how good the Soviet proposal was.
  I do not suggest that President Reagan should immediately say, "We shall accept the proposals". The Soviet proposals have been improved since 15 January. They provide an excellent basis for progress. They have further developed the SDI proposals. They confirm that the United States can continue with research into SDI provided it negotiates a reasonable deal regarding the maintenance of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, and provided it avoids taking SDI further than the laboratory stage. Soviet scientists agree with leading American scientists that there is no way that SDI will work. It is backed by a huge military industrial complex, and I believe that it will be difficult to stop it.
  I turn to the Vienna talks on mutually balanced force reductions. To hear some hon. Members speak, it would seem that they want to have American troops in Europe for ever. Labour party policy is for the mutual dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw pact. We hope that progress will be made, and that there will be real reductions in Soviet forces. We hope to reduce our forces also. Perhaps one day the American forces will return to America. Some hon. Members think that that is a terrible option in the future. It may be that progress can be made in Vienna. It may be that the proposals which the Soviet Union has put forward will be taken in a wider arena.
  All the evidence points in the direction of the Soviet leadership wanting real progress. I urge the British Government to change their attitude. When the Prime Minister visited America to set the seal on her support for the strategic defence initiative I think that she described herself as Mr. Reagan's biggest fan in Europe. I thought that that summed up the relationship of the British Government with the American Administration. The relationship has been one—I say this on the basis of the Government's policy in the past six years— of supine subservience in every area of defence.
  The Government may be in office for another 18 months. For goodness sake, let them stand up for the future of our people. Let them take an independent view. Let them be prepared to consider Europe's position. We do not want an anti-American policy. However, we want a British Government who are prepared to stand up for Britain. We want a Government who are prepared to argue for progress. If it is the case—I believe that it is—that the Soviet Union wants progress, let the British Government speak out.
  6.59 pm
  Sir Antony Buck: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. He spoke with
  754
  such rapidity that I could not follow much of what he said. I think that at the end of his speech he was suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was subservient to the American President. How little he knows our Prime Minister if he thinks that she is subservient to anyone. Like all of us, my right hon. Friend is a loyal ally. She has proved that in relation to Libya, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred en passant. What would have happened if we had not agreed to the Americans using the F111s from our bases?
  Mr. Wareing: What might have happened?
  Sir Antony Buck: Undoubtedly, the Americans would have used less accurate and less appropriate aircraft from the American sixth fleet in the Mediterranean; there would have been more civilian casualties; and we would rightly have been blamed. They were performing a surgical exercise on an evil regime. It is odd that sometimes the Opposition almost speak in favour of someone like President Gaddafi.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we have not heard much of Gaddafi since that rightly punitive exercise?
  Sir Antony Buck: I respectfully agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he is not tempting fate. It was right for Britain to allow the F111s to be used. Of course, it is easy to be a good, staunch ally when things are going well, but it is in times of difficulty one needs one's friends. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers were right to allow the F111s to be used as they were.
  I shall try to keep my contribution relatively short because many hon. Members wish to contribute. I very much appreciate the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins). I should like to say how nice it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on the Front Bench as Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. I am sure that he wil be happy during his time in the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and I spent some of our happiest times as junior Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, unlike us, go on to be a senior Minister.
  This is a difficult time for all parties in defence matters. We are at the end of a fairly easy period during which defence expenditure increased by 3 per cent. a year in real terms. We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, for the extraordinarily able report which we shall absorb later in greater detail. It will be of inestimable value in the single service debates which I hope will follow in due course. The report contains a great deal of material and is the result of the evidence of a large number of witnesses.
  The more cosy period during which there was a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence expenditure has substantially enhanced our military capability. We have honoured to the full that 3 per cent. increase, and our present level of defence is much more satisfactory than it was.
  I am not sure that we must leave our expenditure at that. Unless we are careful, there will be a decline From now on in real terms in our defence expenditure, as was

  755
  pointed out by the Select Committee. I am not sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will
  "take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them"
  and go to war with the Treasury—pending a possible breakthrough in MBFR talks or a further START round —to ensure that the real value of defence expenditure is kept up. I do not believe that we can continue with a 3 per cent. increase in real terms. That would be unrealistic. However, the Conservative party fought an election rightly emphasising that a Government's first duty is to see that the country is properly protected. I do not view with equanimity the thought of our defence expenditure decreasing in real terms over coming years. There may well be a need for a major exercise by those of us who are keen to maintain our defences to ensure that the Treasury is brought to heel, although that is not the easiest thing to do. If my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench take a robust line, they will find more support than they expect from Conservative Members and from a minority of Opposition Members.
  I pay tribute to the work of our armed forces generally. I have the privilege of representing the northern part of a garrison town and I see a great deal of the armed forces. Last week, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of which I am Chairman, went to Northern Ireland in relation to the duties of the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. I stayed on to see something of the work of our armed forces there. It would be inappropriate if, as chairman of the Conservative party parliamentary defence committee, I were to let any defence debate pass without paying fulsome tribute to the work that our armed forces have been doing for a long time in Northern Ireland. No other force inside or outside NATO could perform that task with such restraint and success over such a long period. We have just had to increase the number of troops because of the uncertainties in the region. Those who call themselves "loyalists" are the ones who are now causing especial difficulties for our armed forces. It is odd to define someone as a "loyalist" when he is causing such great difficulties with respect to law and order. I think that I carry the House with me in paying tribute to our armed forces for the work that they have done and are doing in Northern Ireland.
  Over the past 12 months I have also seen something of the work done by our armed forces in BAOR. They are of the highest quality and match the very best of the armed forces in NATO. I used to think that it was appropriate to cut the number of our armed forces in Germany below our commitment of 55,000. I still have a sneaking suspicion that it might be more appropriate for our German allies to bear a greater share of the defence burden. According to the defence White Paper, the Germans spend only 3·3 per cent. of gross national product on defence, compared with our 5·2 per cent. of GDP. It is hard on us to pay more than the Germans to defend the Western world. It is not practical to reduce the numbers in BAOR, but the Government should consider ways of ensuring that the German Government pay a greater share, as they used to, of the cost of the armed
  756
  forces which are there to defend the whole of NATO, including Germany. I am proud of the high standards maintained by our armed forces in BAOR.
  I had the privilege of leading the first parliamentary delegation to the Falklands. The group included some of my "friends", in the non-Parliamentary sense, in the Opposition. In the Falklands we have a tenable situation. In the long-term we do not need large numbers of forces there. We have now built the second runway and we have a relatively small number of troops over there. Of course that costs a lot of money, but there are some military advantages to troops being there because they can train with a greater freedom than almost anywhere else. Perhaps some parts of Scotland could provide similar facilities, but they receive superb training in the Falklands. I suspect that a very good battalion going out comes back a crack battalion, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, they may learn some fishing as well.
  Therefore, there are spin-offs and it is not an impossible burden for us to maintain. In my view, what we need is one nuclear hunter-killer submarine on patrol off the coast there most of the time. We have 17 or so of those submarines and we might as well have one on patrol there to see whether any foolhardy successor in title to Mr. Galtieri were foolish enough to chance his arm. It would he a severe deterrent to know that there was a nuclear hunter-killer submarine there.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps one of the most overriding advantages of experience in the Falkland Islands, where I, too, visited British troops, is the remarkable nature of tri-service cooperation we have seen? Would he couple with his praise for all our services, whether in Northern Ireland, BAOR or the Falklands, thanks to the wives and families of those service men who have had a difficult time in the past few years?
  Sir Antony Buck: As usual, I agree with every word of my hon. Friend. The families sustain considerable burdens because of the nature of the jobs the troops undertake. I represent Colchester, one of the oldest garrison towns, and I see something of that. Over the quarter of a century that I have had the privilege of being Member of Parliament for that area I have seen a much greater and more sensitive attitude adopted to the problems of what the forces always sweetly call married families. Our boys, to coin a phrase, are sustained by their families who give them tremendous support.
  The Secretary of State mentioned our task force. Going back to my days as a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Navy, one the things that was particularly successful was started then. As we inevitably cannot have a Mediterranean fleet and a fleet in every part of the world, the Navy operates a powerful naval task force which is deployed at any one time and makes sure that our sea presence is known throughout the world. That helps the Navy to maintain a blue seas capability, which has stood us in good stead in the past.
  It is a privilege to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the Government on having maintained our defence posture. They now have difficult decisions to make. My advice is to take on the Treasury and see that there is not a diminution, in real terms, in our defence effort over the coming years. I would not like to enter the next election as a supporter of a Government who had

  757
  seen anything of a decline in our military capability preceding any breakthrough in disarmament across the iron curtain.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his speech. I want to ask more fundamental questions than make a tour of the armed forces.
  I have every sympathy with those who produce the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Each year it becomes much more difficult to make it readable and the 1986 effort looks like one of Mr. Shah's publications—fuzzy, technicoloured and extremely boring. The White Paper is so turgid and stale quite simply because it has nothing new to say.
  The Secretary of State, who is a kind and tolerant man and obviously took no great part in drafting the White Paper, talked about continuity. That is another word for saying that it is quite fossilised. It is a defence statement that looks to the past. Defence statements should look to the future. The generation that grouped together with the United States shortly after the end of the war in order to resist the real threat posed by Stalin's armies has gone— and so has Stalin, over 30 years ago. The world has changed.
  The immediacy of world television has also had its effect. To the young, the neighbours they are enjoined by the Bible to love as themselves can live out their lives 4,000 miles away and still be their neighbours; hence the immediate and heartening response to the appeals for the starving in Africa. The Sport Aid participants, it is well to remember, could be seen on the screens of most countries, including the Soviet Union. To the young, the nuclear world of their parents, which was new and exciting even as late as the 1960s, has become the nightmare of Chernobyl, which perhaps more than any other single event — many hon. Members have referred to it—has shown the need for international co-operation in the area of nuclear power as well as in every other area.
  If ever there was a time to rethink the whole question of defence, including the role of NATO — I do not disagree with that—it is now. If we are going to rethink that role, we must rethink the most important aspect of the situation today, the role of the superpowers. Every hon. Member felt enormous relief when President Reagan consented to meet Mr. Gorbachev in Geneva last year. It was as though a great cloud had been lifted from us. The terrifying fear of the world was the hostility of those two superpowers.
  I am told that a few years ago at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government a senior venerable statesman spoke about the fight of the superpowers in relation to the fight between elephants that took place in his own continent of Africa. He said that when two elephants fight one another they damage not only one another but all the villages within miles. No doubt that is true, and that is what the world was fearing. I am told that another Commonwealth leader, on hearing that story, said that it is even worse when elephants make love.
  A world dominated by two superpowers agreeing among themselves to divide up the world in a new Yalta is something which the rest of us can be frightened of, too. It is not a long way off. They divide the world into zones of influence. Why does not the Soviet Union actively
  758
  intervene in South America? Why does not the United States actively intervene in Afghanistan? The answer is that there are zones of influence and they automatically leave it to one another. A world dominated by those two superpowers is a world in fear.
  If those are the two elephants we are frightened of now, there is another one coming up. I am looking ahead to the next 20 years when China will be a superpower. The House will recall that Napoleon said:
  "Let China sleep for when she wakes the rest of the world will tremble."
  A world dominated by three superpowers will not be a safer world; it will be a much more dangerous world.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State did not boast as much as his predecessor did about the 40 years of peace in Europe. I think that he understands that in the rest of the world there have been about 150 wars since the end of world war 2. That is because the two superpowers fight their wars through their surrogates. They supply arms to countries in the Third world, Africa and Latin America. That is where the danger is coming, above all.
  I do not think that we can do this straight away as I do not believe that one can automatically change the whole attitude to defence, but it must develop over many years. Over the next many years I would rather like to see a looking ahead by this country above all other countries at what will happen. I admit that we live in Britain, not Utopia, but that is no reason why we should not look ahead to the next generation. To the young, we are becoming more irrelevant in our old defence postures. I know because I adopted many of those postures myself. I, too, felt in 1949 that the menace of Stalin and of the Soviets had to be met; hence NATO and the desire for a strong NATO, in which the United States, as the only nuclear power, was essential. But there are new ideas now, and it is our duty to take account of those new ideas.
  We should work together with all other countries that are willing to join us to create a more effective way of obtaining and controlling the peace of the world. It is not that we are short of ideas; there are plenty of them. The most imaginative at the moment is one in the book entitled "Prescription for Peace" by a former hon. Member, Henry Usborne. It looks to a federation of neutral nations with internal weapon limitation and a minimal constitution, independent and free from interference in domestic affairs. The idea is that such a grouping would take its place with the three superpowers as the fourth superpower, in the Security Council, but without the excess of armaments that the other three have or wish to have. That is one possibility.
  The second possibility is dialogue with the non-aligned countries. Only two years ago we had the five-continent initiative, when six countries approached the Soviet Union and the United States and said, "Why can't you get together and talk to one another?" It was the intervention of those six countries that started the dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union, so there is no reason why we should not do that. We have a perfect weapon for peace — it is strange how one always uses military metaphors in defence debates. We have a weapon for peace because we have a Commonwealth, which has a tremendous advantage, in that it has, all over the world, a grouping of nations that understand one another and have a common tradition and history. They can talk to various people in their continents. That is another possibility.

  759
  A third possibility is an increasing dialogue with the individual countries in the Warsaw pact by the NATO countries, because we have a great deal in common with one another. We have a common frontier. We have a common desire for peace. I speak for the countries that are not the superpowers, both here and on the other side of the iron curtain, in the Warsaw pact countries. I believe that there is a common desire to get the superpowers off our backs.
  During the debate we have heard a number of phrases such as, "Let's be careful, chaps, because if we are not, the Americans may get cross with us. They may actually leave NATO. We never know what the Americans will do." Some of us are getting a bit sick of all that. It is about time that the Americans had a little humility, too. There is the emotional blackmail of saying to us, "Unless you agree to United States nuclear bases in Britain, we shall pull out of NATO,"; or, "Unless you agree to help us bomb Libya, we shall pull out of NATO." That is beginning to be a little counter-productive.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the United States there is a large body of public opinion that feels exactly as he does?
  Mr. Silkin: Indeed, I do. I have been careful in talking about the American President and the American Administration. It is not for my hon. Friend or for me to interfere in the domestic policy of the United States, but we are entitled to say that the American Administration have been taking a rather too arrogant view of matters at the moment, just as those in the Warsaw pact are entitled to say the same about the Soviet Union. That is why it would be a bad thing to disband NATO. It would be calamitous. There is a way of talking across that frontier to people who feel very much as we do. That should be encouraged.
  The House knows that I have always taken the view that, whether in the service of the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO or any other grouping, Britain should be capable not only of defending herself but of providing the means to assist the world's defences. That means that her pre-eminence in maritime matters must be preserved.
  The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked the Secretary of State a pertinent question just before he finished his speech. He asked him what the Government intended to do about the decline in the Merchant Navy. The Secretary of State was a sailor, too, and he knows the point. It was implicit in what the right hon. Member for Western Isles said that, without the Merchant Navy, Britain cannot have a Navy. We all know that the Navy in time of war and in time of difficulty relies on its Merchant Navy and on the Royal Naval Reserve. These days, the RNR includes everybody who comes in. Only the other day an RN officer said to me—it was something that we used to say the other way round during the war—"Of course, you chaps who were in the reserve were the people who manned our ships in wartime. We kept them going in peacetime." There would be no manning of ships in wartime if it were not for the Merchant Navy.
  This is where table 1.4 in the second volume of the defence Estimates comes in. I hope that my hon. Friend and shipmate, the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr.
  760
  Duffy), when he winds up, will draw further attention to it. The table is of officers, ratings and cadets in the Merchant Navy. It is interesting to note that it omits the years 1979 and 1986. I do not blame whoever wrote the technicolor version for omitting those years. I would, too, if I wanted to be selective, but I do not. I want to be truthful.
  These are the figures. In 1979, 31,439 officers were registered. In 1986 the figure is 13,371. In 1979 there were 28,942 ratings and in 1986 the figure is 17,680. There were 6,318 cadets in 1979 and today there are 1,016. That is the future of Britain. Earlier we heard a great deal about ships and shipbuilding, and about warships. We did not hear anything, except from the right hon. Member for Western Isles, whose question was not answered, about those who were to man the ships if ever there was a state of emergency. On that basis, and if that trend continued for another five years, there would not be a Merchant Navy left.
  So what does it all amount to? It amounts to this. Two volumes of monotonous writing and selective and partisan statistics do not make up for the mortal blow that is being dealt to the future of our country. They do not make up for the lack of a coherent defence policy, they do not give hope to the young, and, above all, they do not make up for a lost opportunity at a crucial moment in the history of the world.
  7.29 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I enjoyed listening to many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who chose this occasion to make a thoughtful and, on the whole, constructive speech. However, as he would expect, I did not agree with his conclusions.
  I believe that we have a very coherent defence policy. In view of the changing conditions in the world, I believe that, as staunch allies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we should be ever quick to take new initiatives and to seize the opportunities that are presented from time to time to explore the Soviet mind to see how far we can have a mutual reduction in conventional and nuclear arms.
  As a chairman of the military committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, I do not see a need for a fundamental review either of this country's defence policies or of the NATO posture generally. One of the worst things that we can possibly do is from time to time to dig up the roots of the military commanders of NATO. I have no doubt that modifications could be made. I am sure that if progress is made in Geneva and if we can make some progress in the multi-balanced force reduction talks in Vienna — and there are signs of hope in that direction—we will find more fruitful opportunities for exchanging views with the Soviet Union and a more intimate dialogue with other members of the Warsaw pact. As the right hon. Member for Deptford said—and I agree with him on this point—dialogue between the Warsaw pact and NATO countries is not just a matter for the Soviet Union and the United States. The President of the North Atlantic Assembly, a distinguished American senator, persuaded a number of us at a recent meeting in Luxembourg that the time had come for an exchange of views between members of the assembly and, it was hoped, one of the Warsaw pact countries.
  Many of us are alive to the fact that, with the talks going on at Geneva, with the signs that we have had from

  761
  Moscow that Mr. Gorbachev believes that there should be a renewal of disarmament negotiations—although we have yet to get down to some of the more practical details — it would be foolish to assume that our strategy, tactics and attitudes should be locked in the cement of the memory of the creation of NATO some years ago.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Deptford will forgive me if I do not go further down that road. After hearing comments about nuclear philosophy and the apocalyptical statements that have been made today and other wide ranging surveys, I shall confine the main burden of my remarks to a narrower topic. In illustrating this narrow point I may be—though I hope not—a little tedious. This point has a strong bearing on cost, and that, after all, has been one of the features of the debate.
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Deptford did not mean this, but it does not lie well in the mouth of any Opposition Member to criticise the Government for being cost effective in defence after years of considerable increases in real terms in defence expenditure on which we had given the lead in western Europe. The time has come for the Government to consider—and rightly so, in view of the other pressing demands on public expenditure—inviting the armed services to exercise restraint during the next few years.
  I accept the Government's policy, but I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) in making it clear to the Government that, as much as I understand the need for restraint in public expenditure in defence — and we cannot continue increasing defence expenditure in real terms year after year—I hope that, if the Government thought that there was any question of a real diminution in the effectiveness of our armed forces, they would not hesitate to take the appropriate action in Cabinet and argue that course most forcibly. I have no doubt, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the Government would have plenty of friends on the Conservative Benches in support of such a course.
  I want to consider the effects of competition on the costs of procurement. The Government have recently introduced a policy of competitive buying. The White Paper states that in terms of the volume and value of contracts, which amount to £7·5 billion, no less than 64 per cent. by value has been placed
  "as a result of competition or from the competitive environment."
  That is an encouraging figure.
  I have several reservations about applying a competition policy inflexibly, and I would appreciate a comment on these points from my hon. Friend the Minister—and I welcome him to his new post—when he replies to the debate.
  My first point is that in applying a competition policy, I hope that due attention will he paid not simply to short-term cost benefits but to the effects on the companies themselves. I am nal making a bid for a soft, cosy life for defence manufacturers at the taxpayers' expense. A competition policy should be flexible for several reasons. It should be flexible on strategic grounds. We know that to maintain a vital, technical, scientific and manufacturing resource in this country, it is sometimes essential to our national interest to maintain a British source. That is essential in defence terms and also in relation to the impact that such orders can have on the capability of some of our manufacturers to manufacture in the civilian sector.
  762
  There are also cases when, in order to encourage the growth of a specific technology—and the Department of Trade and Industry is aware of this—it will be in our longer term interests to abate short-term cost saving benefits, especially when new emerging companies are struggling to establish a bridgehead in a new technology. The initial procurement costs of buying from such a company, which may gain a contract, may be higher than buying from abroad. However, the long-term financial and strategic benefits may be the better bet.
  It is understandable, in the light of some of the Public Accounts Committee reports, that our sympathy should be a little short when we hear tales of how badly done by the larger companies have been at the hands of the Ministry of Defence, especially when such companies have a monopoly. Those companies which have a monopoly pose a problem. If a large company has a monopoly., we should be prepared to accept that there are ways of building in incentives to keep costs down. To assume that monopoly pricing will take us to the cleaners because there is no other British competitor and the only other source is a foreign competitor may not be the right reason for buying abroad even if the price is less.
  Clearly these are difficult problems. I am not arguing for protectionism. Successive Governments since the war thought it right to buy the best equipment for our armed forces — which are entitled to the best equipment —irrespective of the short-term unpopularity of buying abroad. Clearly the Government have a responsibility to the taxpayer as well as to the defence manufacturers. That is why I and my colleagues welcome the Government's steps to infuse a competitive spirit.
  National competitive buying poses a threat to national frameworks in Europe. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) touched on tips in the nuclear context, but, given time, I do not doubt that he would have gone wider. I do not think that any of us believe that we can achieve economies of scale in defence purchasing if we insist on restricting our purchases on grounds of national need to our national armouries, offsetting any criticism of protectionism by making an occasional foreign purchase. The cost of modern defence technology, and of research and development into it, is escalating so quickly that we must consider the size of the end product's market. None of the European nations' national markets is big enough to support companies such as the ones that I have in mind. The pace of industrial technology is quickening too fast for us.
  The philosophy of aggressive entrepreneurialism is nowhere better epitomised 'than in the United States, but the United States has considerable advantages. We have bought excellent equipment from the United States and will no doubt continue to do so. It is tempting to assume that, with more aggressive entrepreneurial techniques, British defence manufacturers would be able to emulate the United States. I have reservations about that. It is too often assumed that, with a bit more get up and go, we could find a lucrative, permanent and strong base in the American market, so we do not need a European policy. It is especially tempting for us in Britain to assume that we can have the best of both worlds. As was said during the Westland debate, we tend to think that we can dine with the Americans when it suits us and with the French or Germans when that suits us. I do not believe that we have such a luxury. The protectionism and legal devices that impede entry into the American market are stringent and

  763
  formidable. They are also the subject of intense lobbying in Congress. I do not complain about that, but it is a tough, rough market.
  A fundamental difference between us is that the United States has many more substantial companies than we have. Their order books are fatter, their defence budget is more substantial and their internal market, which produces longer production runs, is therefore more profitable. It is quite ludicrous to assume that, if we adopted more aggressive attitudes, we could get more than a toehold in the United States market. We may have some successes from time to time, as with the Rapier or the Harrier—
  Mr. Bill Walker: And the Hawk.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Indeed. Going way back into history, we had some success with the Canberra, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) flew; but the experience of most British and European companies is that, although they may get an initial order, the repeat order—the big one—goes to an American company. I quite understand that. America is 3,000 miles away from the source of production, and that must add to its qualms about pledging itself to buying too much from abroad.
  The European market is more compact, so if British and other European defence manufacturers are to develop expensive and sophisticated technologies of a quality that we want and at a price that we can afford, we must increasingly rely on our ability to collaborate. That is essential, as we cannot assume that we will have a quantitative superiority over the Soviet Union. We have so far had a qualitative superiority, but unless we collaborate more we will not be able to maintain it. That means creating a wider European market.
  I am aware that collaboration does not always cut costs. There have been examples of projects that have been to our benefit and others that have proved tremendously expensive. People think that Tornado is a fine example of collaboration. It is. Technically it is very good, but it is tremendously expensive. At £30 million a copy, it is some aeroplane and the costs of development exceed that of the Trident system. The European defence base has been too fragmented. There are too many different pieces of equipment which are designed to achieve the same purpose. There is still too much national division of the European defence cake at the expense of European NATO agreement about what should be made and by whom. We would say that the biggest offenders are the French. They are extremely difficult to co-operate with. To them, European co-operation means accepting French design, French production, except, perhaps, a bit of the spare wheel. Those who speak to the French will learn that they think that we can be pretty bloody, too. I suspect that all nations have good grounds for criticising each other, but unless we step up the collaboration we shall all go down the sink together.
  The consequences for Europe would be serious. We would lack an industrial defence base from which we could expect a spin-off for civilian demands when the de-industrialisation of western Europe as a whole—we hear much about de-industrialisation in Britain—in the face of competition from the far east becomes an even more serious threat to our livelihood.
  764
  Our growing dependence on the United States is greeted by some with envy and by others with crossness. The right hon. Member for Deptford said that he wanted them off our back, just as he thought that the Warsaw pact countries sometimes want to get the Soviet Union off their backs. I do not share his feeling about the United States. We are all in it together as democracies, and I thank God that America's strength, wisdom and strong political sense and understanding of democracy is with us. I do not believe that it is healthy for our relationship, however, for us to become overdependent on the United States for our military and technical needs.
  America expects Europe to do more for itself and it is puzzled that we do not get our act together. The act will be got together not by knocking the heads of defence manufacturers, but by political will and leadership. With that, the rest will fall into place. I say political leadership because all the companies that I have in mind are extraordinarily dependent — some too dependent — on Government contracts. That is why they look to politicians for a lead.
  I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to give us the assurances that I have asked for: that we shall sustain and strengthen the drive towards shared procurement objectives and reinforce the excellent work of the independent European procurement group. There has been much rubbishing of Trident today, and far more goes on outside the House. It is bound up with the cost of defence equipment. I doubt whether we would hear quite so much about it if we were on a rising tide of expenditure. Criticism that Trident takes up too large a proportion of defence equipment expenditure does not stand up. We must ask whether Trident gives good value for money and whether it will do what it is designed to do.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) said—he is Chairman of the Defence Select Committee which has gone into this matter in more detail than anyone else — if we scrapped Trident tomorrow and instead spent the money on conventional weapons, it would not buy us the equivalent of anything more than three armoured divisions. It would he equivalent to a mere one sixth of the annual expenditure on service pay and allowances. I do not think that three armoured divisions have much of a deterrent value, which is what we are talking about. The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter.
  As we all know, modern conventional weapons are not cheap. In relative terms they are more expensive and add only marginally to our defence capabilities. The arguments against Trident which the Labour party peddles so enthusiastically are that conventional weapons are better and cheaper.
  We did not hear that many years ago. Today the Labour Front Bench pledged that the money saved on Trident would be spent on conventional weapons, although that has been denied by other Labour Members. I shall believe that when I see it. Even if that were done, the money would not be well spent. There is no reason why we should deny ourselves our nuclear deterrent. In reality, the real reason for the Labour party's hostility to a British nuclear deterrent, whatever the cost, is its desire to discredit the Government's commitment to our nuclear defence posture.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Devonport has left his place. He occupied the House for some considerable time—I make no complaint about that—

  765
  with his thoughtful and provoking speech. We all know why the alliance cannot agree. It has nothing to do with the merits of Trident and everything to do with the fact that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) cannot persuade his party to follow him because it cannot agree on a successor to Polaris. Indeed, from time to time we are not even sure what the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
  We all know that it was right to make the decision to replace Polaris when we did because of the long lead time to install a new system. I should like the right hon. Member for Devonport to publish some figures showing the savings we would make if we adopted his solution. He suggested that a cruise alternative would be effective. Many people who have considered alternatives do not believe that a cruise system would be effective as an investment to last well into the next century.
  Obviously, the United States has cruise missile systems launched from submarines and surface vessels and landlock sytems, but it has a much broader canvas for nuclear weapons. We must put our money where it will have the most effect. We have made the right decision, and I congratulate the Government on their courage and, above all, their decisiveness.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) should not be so complacent about the alleged homogeneity of the Conservative party. Certainly the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) gave a warning to his party towards the end of his speech. It may have been rather disguised and some of it may have been in code, but people who think seriously about defence—I am told that there are some in that category in the Conservative party—will be exceedingly worried about what the Conservative party is doing.
  There seems to be euphoria about the fact that Polaris will be replaced by Trident. However, the White Paper has not addressed the question of how to reconcile the Government's aspirations, their commitments, and resources, although the Defence Select Committee has. If the resources available to the Government decline, there is no way that their defence policy will encompass the finest nuclear weapon system available in the West and adequate conventional defence.
  A year ago the Committee made a report on defence commitments and resources, and the Government treated us to a rather soporific reply. Indeed, it was so bland and awful that the Committee, despite its large Government majority, stated:
  "The Government's Observations on our 1985 Report demonstrated either an unacceptable lack of frankness or an unwillingness to come to terms with the problem."
  I do not wish to appear Wilsonian in my "I told you so", but about six years ago myself and some others said that Trident would squeeze a great deal from our conventional defence budget, and many of the chickens are now coming home to roost. If supporters of Trident compare carefully the costings for what the Government hope to do with what they will have the resources to do, they will have far greater anxieties than they have been minded to admit.
  Defence expenditure is Falling. As an hon. Gentleman has said, the White Paper bears the hallmarks of Eddie Shah. I think it bears the hallmarks of Jeffrey Archer because there are elements of sheer fiction, and perhaps
  766
  Alan Ayckbourn contributed an element of farce to it. As the Committee's report stated, defence expenditure of £19 billion will decline in real terms over the next three years, possibly by 7 per cent., yet our commitments are increasing. Over the next few years we must pay for many major items, so the funding gap is growing ever wider.
  When we told the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (M r. Heseltine)— it is hard to keep up with them and it is almost like being a machine gunner in the first world war —that there could well be a 7 per cent. reduction over the next two or three years, he said that it was "unthinkable". The unthinkable has almost happened. The Committee's figures show that defence expenditure could well fall by 7 per cent. Government supporters will say, "But look how wonderfully we have done since 1979. There has been a major increase in defence expenditure". That is true. But when that expenditure is diminished over a period, how long will it be before those gains are dissipated? Not all Conservative Members are as enamoured of Trident as the hon. Member for Wealden. There are major problems and even the Government are now beginning to admit that publicly. They say that difficult decisions must be made, and if ever there was a verbal understatement that phrase shows it.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely. May I remind him that there have always been difficult decisions in defence? The Government are not talking about difficult decisions which are catastrophic.
  Mr. George: Perhaps in two years' time we shall be able to evaluate whether the massaging of the Government—the improvement in contracting out the reorganisation—will suffice. I do not remotely think that it will narrow the funding gap. If Conservative Members would like greater information, they will not get it from the Ministry of Defence. Certainly it is worrying for those who believe in defence. I would not like the public to think that believers and supporters of defence reside only on the Conservative Benches. I have always taken the view, and I have never expressed the slightest divergence from it, that the essential prerequisite of the state is to defend itself. It may be regrettable that large sums must be spent on defence, but it is a fact of life. Any party which ignores that central principle will, rightly, face the wrath of the electorate. The Labour party should listen to what many of its supporters are saying and to what the electorate said in 1983.
  The Labour party has to present to the electorate a viable defence policy, whatever form it takes. We shall pay a heavy price if we fail to convince the electorate that the Labour party is seriously interested in defence.
  I have no shame in saying that I support NATO, or that the United States is not an army of occupation. The United States presence in Europe is central to its own security and that of Europe. I regard with considerable disquiet movements in Europe and the United States that think that there is an alternative to that arrangement. We are told that, since NATO was founded in 1949, circumstances have changed. The Soviet Union is infinitely more powerful now than it was in 1949 when NATO had a nuclear monopoly.
  I have some anxieties. Although I regard many elements within the current United States Administration as being worrying, as they have an exaggerated perception

  767
  of the threat, my worry is balanced by my anxiety about those in my party, in the country, or in Europe who underestimate that threat. One of the essential prerequisites to this Alliance, which I want to see survive until such time—it will not be in the immediate future—that alliances wither away, is that it should be strong. The future of security and detente will not be achieved by posturing and thinking about phoney ideas of neutralism which were dismissed by Attlee and his colleagues in the 1940s, and would be dismissed today by the electorate.
  We must consider how we shall proceed as an Alliance. It is important that there should be a proper definition of the threat, although this is easier said than done. We hear in America of the so-called "realistic" school of international relations, which often exaggerates the threat, as opposed to the Utopian school in some parts of Europe, which thinks that there is no threat. Both views are mistaken.
  The CND sends us briefings. In a recent one, it cited the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which said:
  "Our conclusion remains that the overall balance continues to be such as to make military aggression a highly risky undertaking … there would still appear to be insufficient overall strength on either side to guarantee victory."
  Perhaps it would be appropriate to cite other sections of the report for the sake of completeness. It says:
  "The West has largely lost the technological edge in conventional equipment … there is still sufficient danger in the trend to require remedies in the Western Alliance."
  The threat to NATO is still serious. While some Labour Members and some people outside are quick to point out that there are weapons in NATO pointing towards the Soviet Union, my worry is that there are weapons pointing towards us to which we should also pay attention. For instance, the 22 Yankee class submarines, the 37 Delta class submarines, the three Typhoon class ballistic missile submarines, the 1,398 land-based intercontinental missiles are all worrying, as are the long-range and medium-range bombers, the Bears, the Bisons, the Backfires, and the Badgers, the Blinders and the Fencers carrying nuclear weapons, all of which could threaten the United Kindom.
  It is important to get the threat into perspective. It would be nonsense beyond words to imagine that the Soviet Union is simply waiting at the starting line for the signal to pour into Western Europe. However, it is behaving like that, not because of a change of heart at the Kremlin, but because NATO presents a proper and just about adequate nuclear and conventional weapons deterrent. Should that change, we should be in some difficulties.
  Let us get the threat into a proper perspective, but there must also be a redefinition of Alliance relations. The conditions have changed since 1949. Europe is much stronger economically, so it wants to be taken seriously and has to get its act together institutionally. There are the beginnings of it in the independent European programme group, the Western European Union, and the Eurogroup. Although the EEC does not have a security brief, it has a role in improving defence equipment collaboration.
  Let us redefine the US-European relationship so that we do rather more than we have done in the past. Perhaps then Europe will be taken more seriously. Let us get the East-West relationship better organised. Although I have spent most of my time talking about defence and security,
  768
  we cannot—and I do not include arms control simply for ritualistic purposes—we should not ignore the recent Soviet moves. We must see whether they are real, or simply posturing, with a desire to divide NATO—something for which they are showing an increased sophistication. Let us explore the Soviet offer to see whether it is consistent with our security and, if it is, let us proceed to a decent arms control arrangement. However, we must not seek that simply for the sake of getting an arrangement. That happened before, when détente was not as successful as we should have liked. Let us not forget that we should be getting right not just West-West relationships and the East-West relationship, but the North-South relationship. Tensions emerge from outside the NATO area and we have to do more thinking about relations with the Third world.
  The difficulties that we are experiencing in NATO are not merely the extensions of old differences. There is always a crisis — the neutron bomb, the intermediate nuclear force, the follow on force attack, emerging technologies, the strategic defence initiative, chemical weapons, out-of-area, and this year it is Libya. Is it simply another twist, another crisis, that the organisation can absorb, or are we, as some people fear, in the midst of qualitatively different trends? Are the Europeans and Americans drifting apart? Some would gleefully observe that development, smile, and see it as the fulfilment of all their wildest desires. I can say without fear of contradiction that the future of security is through NATO and the Harmel principles of detente and deterrence. It is only through a strong Alliance working for better cooperation within it and better relations with our potential adversaries that security will be, if not guaranteed, enhanced. I reject out of hand those who argue that pursuing a low defence commitment, a form of unarmed, or even armed, neutralism, will solve all our problems. It will not.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: It is a pleasure to follow the positive speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It was reassuring for some of us on these Benches who greatly fear for the mainstream policy of the Opposition party on defence matters. He referred to the importance of being a member of NATO and to the fact that a proper and adequate nuclear and conventional deterrence is essential to our defence capability. The Estimates address that problem.
  I shall look at some of the basic underlying problems facing us today. The only direction from which we can see a major threat to the Western and British interests is from the Warsaw pact, dominated by the Soviet Union. Any nation that spends 15 per cent. of its gross domestic product on weapons, compared with 5·2 per cent. in Britain and 6·9 per cent. in the United States, clearly shows what it is about. It outnumbers us in nuclear warheads, in conventional troops in Europe and in armed forces. On total troops we are outnumbered four to three, on tanks two to one, on anti-tank weapons four to three, on artillery three to one, and on fixed-wing tactical aircraft two to one. It must not be forgotten that, in addition, 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons are stockpiled in the Soviet Union and that every unit of battalion strength in the Red Army has an offensive chemical warfare unit. It is unfortunate that, because of that and the continuing Soviet advance in the production of chemical weapons, the Americans,

  769
  having not produced any chemical weapons since 1969, are now thinking positively of trying to redress that imbalance.
  The development of that enormous amount of military hardware steins only from a fear on the part of the Soviet Union of attack from the Western nations. We must get inside the thinking and the psyche of the Soviet Union politicians and begin to understand what motivates them. For that, we must consider history. We must consider 1812 and 1941. Few of us who have studied history will forget the famous cartoon of Stalin and Hitler shaking hands over the dead body of Poland. The betrayal of that treaty must be burnt into the pysche of the Soviet Union and its politicians, who reckon that between 1941 and 1945 more than 20 million of its citizens were killed in defence of their country. That event dictates the policy of the Soviet Union, its attitude towards the creation of buffer, states that make up the Warsaw pact and its intervention in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Afghanistan. One way in which a country can defend itself is to dominate the countries around it, accordingly manipulate the world and world opinion to achieve protection for itself and, at the same time, dominate the sphere of activity where it is the major power.
  Fortunately for the Government, the Defence Estimates do not give any comfort to the Soviet Union, either in its obsession with being attacked or its desire to dominate the world in its sphere of activity. Unfortunately, the Liberal party's defence policy and that of the Labour party offer much comfort to the Kremlin in that regard, because unilateral disarmament will do nothing but weaken the position of NATO — that essential part of our defence policy which was rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. He said that he thought that
  "NATO presents a proper, and just about adequate nuclear and conventional weapons deterrent."
  That is what the Defence Estimates are about. As long as that remains the position, we shall have a free Western world, unbullied and not blackmailed by any desire in the Warsaw pact to expand its world domination.
  What about the defence policy and the position of Britain and NATO? We talk about the Soviet Union being a superpower, but it is only a superpower militarily. When it is compared with the EEC and the United States in economic terms, it is not a superpower. It is a superpower only in the number of its troops, its weapons and the amount of money that it continues to pump into its armed forces at the expense of its people's quality of living, housing and basic domestic consumer goods.
  What has brought the recent advances in negotiations on disarmament of conventional and nuclear weapons at all levels? The reason simply is that, through the defence policy pursued by Britain, the United States and NATO, we have shown our determination to defend ourselves from aggression and potential domination by the deployment of cruise missiles, by the introduction of Trident and by the maintenance of our defence commitment by increasing it by 3 per cent. every year during the past five years.
  In addition, the SDI programme— the Secretary of State recently announced the £6 million investment in Britain and the agreement signed between the United States and the British Governments — will defend our way of life and our standard of living. I and many
  770
  Conservative Members believe that only that determination, that belief in the need to protect our way of life and expand our defence capability, if necessary, brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. That has resulted in the offers that have been made for nuclear disarmament of different sorts. The Soviet Union recognises that we shall continue as we have done.
  We tell the Soviet Union that we shall negotiate disarmament, because that is what we want, but we shall negotiate only from strength. That is where the Labour and Liberal policies on defence break down. They can never negotiate from strength. If one does not negotiate from strength — if one has nothing to negotiate — one will achieve nothing. One will merely weaken the NATO Alliance.
  Trident plays an important part in Britain's contribution. The cost of the programme is £7·5 billion but it is spread over 15 years. It amounts to only 6 per cent. of the equipment grant. It is good value for money in defence terms.
  Mr. George: From where does the hon. Gentleman get the figure of £7·5 billion? The Select Committee on Defence seems to differ with him, and I suspect from the grimace on the face of the Minister that he believes that it is not £7·5 billion but more than that.
  Mr. Hind: The £7·5 billion came from the Defence Estimates. If I am wrong, I am ready to be corrected.
  Mr. Lee: To put the record straight, we are talking about a figure of just under £9·9 billion over a 20-year period.
  Mr. Hind: I apologise to the House. My figure is based on what must be spent. I shall return to that point. The Minister corrects me and says that the figure is £9·9 billion, but even on those terms it is still good value for money.
  If we consider the imbalance in conventional forces, what would happen if we were to attempt to bridge the gap? We would obtain for the additional money three divisions of tanks — that is all. Would that be a sufficient replacement for the nuclear deterrent of the United Kingdom? In addition, there has been criticism that the number of warheads will be increased. But that in itself increases the possibility of what we can do with the weapon. It will hit 14 times more targets than our present nuclear deterrent—Polaris.
  Mr. Couchman: Is it not a fact that, although Trident will represent a considerable escalation on our present capability with the Chevaline-based Polaris, we will only be restoring the capability to hit targets that we first had with the V-bomber force and the original bombs? Is it not a fact that there was a reduction when we adopted Polaris and a dramatic reduction in our capability to hit targets when we went to Chevaline?
  Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is clear that we are restoring the capacity that we had in the 1960s.
  The abandonment of Trident would cause a large deficit. The Labour party wishes to negotiate the American nuclear bases out of Britain. Does it not know that that would result in the loss of more than just those nuclear bases? I believe, from comments heard in Washington, that it would result in the withdrawal of 300,000 American troops from Europe, and would put a great deal of pressure upon NATO.

  771
  The Labour party's arguments are intellectually dishonest. It condemns nuclear arms and wishes to withdraw them unilaterally from the United Kingdom, but also wishes to remain in NATO under the umbrella of the American nuclear capacity. Labour Members wish to remain in the club, but do not want to pay the membership fee. The Americans will not stand for that. They will say, "This is an alliance and everyone standing within it pays their way. You cannot be a member unless you are prepared to take the good with the bad."
  We hear talk about the SDP-Liberal alliance forming a Government. Alliance Members constantly push it down our throats. Today, we have seen a classic example from the leader of the SDP of the differences between his party and the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is a member of the council of CND and advocates disarmament. A recent Gallup poll showed that 84 per cent. of Liberal candidates would abandon the Polaris nuclear deterrent. This contrasts with the 51 per cent. of SDP candidates who wish to keep it. The leader of the SDP says that he would replace Polaris with an additional nuclear deterrent, while the leader of the Liberal party says, "No, we shall not replace anything." How could they form a credible Government if the public were not sure of their policies?
  The Labour party suffers from the same problem. It is clear from the outpourings of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—the Labour party's foreign affairs spokesman — that his views differ in many respects from those of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and no doubt those of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is waiting to put his case.
  Trident is so far advanced that it would be foolish to call it off. It has consequences for defence spending far beyond that which we can conceive at present. We should press ahead with a weapon that will be a deterrent and prevent attack from the Soviet Union.
  We should negotiate nuclear disarmament from a position of strength, and Trident would provide us with that strength. The most recent offer from Mr. Gorbachev has come about because we have been negotiating from strength. We should consider his offer carefully because it provides a good basis from which to negotiate sensibly a verifiable mutual nuclear disarmament — not the unilateralism that has been urged upon us, with the hope that neutralism will follow. Britain's history defies neutrality in any respect. It is foolish. We cannot become Switzerland overnight, as many Labour Members seem to believe.
  The Tornado programme is very important to those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the northwest. British Aerospace builds the airframe. We are pleased to see that the Tornado has been recognised in military circles as one of the finest weapons, and as our main line air defence weapon. The announcement of the European fighter aircraft— a five-nation partnership—will be welcomed in the north-west as a sensible development to replace aging aircraft. In the 1990s, we hope to see the result of the Government's foresight in participating in that programme.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State talks about making savings in defence purchasing in relation to the royal ordnance factories. We should not make savings
  772
  by buying inferior equipment. Many of my constituents who work in the royal ordnance factory at Chorley believe that some foreign ammunition is inferior. It might be cheaper, but if it is inferior it is a bad purchase. Saving money on defence spending is fine, provided that it does not increase the DHSS bill through the payment of extra welfare benefits. The Government should examine royal ordnance purchasing policy. The provision of ammunition causes grave concern in Lancashire because many jobs are invested in it.
  Before the Government start to order type 23 frigates, they should consider whether the most effective naval surface weapon will be a long, thin frigate or a short, fat one. That has not yet been resolved. It would be foolish to go ahead and subsequently, after research and investigation, discover that the alternative would have been better.
  We are on the right lines in relation to our policy on Trident. Even if it is never used, it plays an important part in negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and will have been worth every penny spent on it to make the world a safer place.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to voice in the House the point of view of many millions of people, of whom I am one, who believe that Britain's burden of defence expenditure is, in real terms, much too great and contributes to our failure to solve other difficulties, including our economic weakness; and also believe that the nature of our relationship with the United States, through NATO and directly, unfortunately limits Britain's capacity to ease the world tensions most likely to lead to war, and makes it hard for us to provide the urgently needed support for the Third world.
  I wish to put the argument for a major diversion of resources from the means of death to the means of life, and for an independent or non-aligned foreign policy which would allow Britain to play a more constructive role in bridging the East-West gap, and in closing the gulf that separates North and South.
  That view is widely shared. I have taken part in many defence debates for 30 years. I made my maiden speech from the Front Bench in 1957 as Opposition spokesman on defence. The arguments advanced by the Government today and some hon. Members do not reflect in any real way the changes that have taken place in the world and in public opinion in Britain. That is why there is a wider gulf now between the view of the current Government and that of the Opposition—the next Government—than I can recall since I have been a Member of Parliament.
  The Government and the SDP are having marginal, managerial arguments about what is the best weapon to fire from the Trident submarine. The Opposition view on defence, as put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), of closing all United States nuclear bases, cancelling Trident, decommissioning Polaris—we all know that there have been discussions with the Soviet Union on that—and of a wholly nonnuclear defence policy, represents a clear alternative to the views put forward by the Minister. I shall be very proud to advocate it during the next general election campaign. It is the product of many years of discussion. I was on the national executive committee of the Labour party when

  773
  Hugh Gaitskell said that he would fight and fight and fight again against such a policy. There is great support for it within the country, as I hope to show.
  I should now like to put into Hansard, if I may put it like that, some of the factors that are changing public perception about what is happening. The first is in respect of the Soviet threat. I do not believe—and I think that millions of other people do not believe—that the reason we have had peace in Europe since the war is because the West first had a monopoly of the bomb and since then has had superiority in nuclear weapons.
  Many people of my generation, remembering the war years, believe that one of the major reasons why the Soviet Union never intends to invade western Europe is because it lost 20 million people in the last war. They also remember that, far from Russia ever invading Britain, Britain sent an army into Russia to crush the revolution. There is no evidence — and there never has been, other than its armed strength — to suggest that Russia ever intended to move into western Europe, nor is there any evidence that it would succeed.
  Does any hon. Member believe that the Russian army could go through eastern Europe, where it might meet some resistance, and then occupy West Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Denmark and then come to Britain, after which it would go on to Northern Ireland, there to deal with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)? Does anybody honestly believe that that has ever been Russia's intention? Does anybody believe that the only reason for Gorbachev not addressing the Supreme Soviet in Westminster tonight is because the Government have an order form for Trident? Nobody believes that any more. The reason for people believing Gorbachev now—and they do —is because his argument is consistent with the true interests of the Soviet Union: to develop its economy after years of bureaucracy under a centralised system. Any hon. Member who speaks in the House tonight—we have already had a bit of it from both sides—as though we were still living during the time when Stalin was still in command is misreading the situation.
  Secondly, there has been a reassessment of the position of the United States. I greatly admire the American people, who have strongly resisted Reagan's policy in central America. I do not wish to identify American opinion with Reagan, any more than I wish to be identified with the present Government in Britain. Many people realise that we are now living in the age of the America empire. We had an empire for a long time and then we lost it. When I was born I think that we governed a sixth of the world. The Americans have 3,000 bases around the world. They have imperial interests around the world. Anybody who seriously believes that the United States stands for democracy and peace is living in a fool's paradise.
  The Americans toppled. Allende in Chile and they backed Franco. They also backed the Turkish dictator and the Greek generals. They supported Marcos until he became impossible and they went along with Papa Doc. They also invaded Grenada and they may invade Nicaragua. The House should not think that the British people any longer believe, if they ever did, that the United States is more than an empire in decline, and an empire in decline is more dangerous than an empire that is nascent and growing in strength.
  We have American bases in Britain. Nobody honestly believes that we have a veto, because the American
  774
  President takes an oath of allegiance as President and as commander-in-chief of the American armed forces which prohibits him from sharing his discretion with any Government, however friendly. The bombing of Libya undoubtedly had an effect, because non-nuclear weapons and non-nuclear bases were used. The Americans may be impatient with us. It may be true that one only has to say that we want the Americans to go and they will pull out of the whole of Europe, but I doubt whether that is the case. We are entitled to self-government. The old saying was "no taxation without representation." There should also be "No annihilation without representation." We as a nation are not defending ourselves properly if we put our future under the control of a foreign president whom we did not elect and whom we cannot remove.
  The third matter that has changed public opinion is the growing doubt about nuclear weapons. Chernobyl played a significant part in that. If the Russians never dropped a single bomb on western Europe but we dropped a single bomb on Russia, it would destroy us. People have failed to take on board the real message of Chernobyl, that through an accident in a nuclear power station the use of nuclear weapons becomes impossible. But that opinion is changing. Also we know, although I learned it only after having been the Minister with responsibility for nuclear power for eight years, because the Civil Service did not convey it either to the Cabinet or to me, that plutonium from our civil power stations goes into American weapons. Many people are now connecting nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
  The fourth point, which is very obvious, is that people are beginning to realise that there is a crushing burden of defence expenditure. I do not intend to go into the billions because billions do not register with the public, in their household budgets. Last year, every man, woman and child in Britain had £6·16 a week taken off them for defence. That is three times as much as is spent on the fire, ambulance and police services. We spend three times as much on keeping the Russians out as we do on protecting ourselves.
  Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: May I finish this point first? The amount of defence expenditure, compared with Japan, is one of the explanations why the Japanese are doing so well. We spend 5 or 6 per cent. of our national income on defence, whereas the Japanese spend only 1 per cent. on defence. Is it any wonder that Japanese cars, videos and cameras are to be found all over the world? Last week we held a big arms sales exhibition at which we boasted about the number of weapons that we sell. We are crushing ourselves with the arms burden. The skill that ought to be available to help the disabled and the Third world to deal with the problems that lead to discontent at home and abroad is being wasted upon weapons of war. The burden is enormous.
  I asked for the national figures to be divided by the number of constituencies. Chesterfield is having to pay £16 million for Trident. That is Chesterfield's share of Trident. Derbyshire county council's rates each year amount to only £36 million. I know that one figure is spread over a period while the other is for only a year. The Falklands war cost Chesterfield £6 million. Perhaps that is appropriate, since Coalite is in Chesterfield. However, the

  775
  borough council spends only £7 million. If one relates the defence burden to the budget of the ordinary family, it is a crushing burden.
  Mr. Lee rose—
  Mr. Benn: People feel that as well. If the Minister wants to intervene, although I would rather he did not do so, because I do not want to take too long, I shall give way.
  Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that defence expenditure in this country sustains around 1·2 million jobs?
  Mr. Benn: It sustains far fewer jobs than if the same amount of money went into civil production. We may be able to produce a nuclear missile with a microchip but we cannot give 24-hour-a-day care to old people with a microchip. We have learned that we may get more bangs per buck with Trident but we get more jobs per pound if we spend the money on civil needs.
  My fifth point—this is perhaps where Bob Geldof has done us a good turn—is the link that people make between the arms race and world poverty. It is obscene that people should be dying by their millions for lack of a dirt road, a tractor, a pipe and a pump when the United States—and we are a part of it now—is to spend a billion dollars on another sophisticated weapons system. It is obscene and it is wrong, if I may use a word that has fallen out of favour. The world debt crisis, much of which has been accumulated because dictators have bought weapons with which to crush their own people, not to fight the Russians, could be a factor in that.
  My sixth point is the effect of militarisation on our domestic democracy — the effect on civil liberties of having 30,000 American troops here and police trying to arrest and chase the Greenham common women. We were told that the hippy convoy consisted of people who were like "armed brigands". I am more frightened of the cruise missile convoys going around the country and their capacity to destroy than I am of a few people who are in favour of trying to work for peace, whatever strange festivals they may attend. I am also more frightened of the destruction of Cabinet responsibility and parliamentary accountability because of failure to tell the truth, and of the fact that we have a standing army in Britain, which, since 1688, this Parliament has always rejected.
  These factors are well reflected in public opinion. For some reason the Gallup poll figures are sent to me free every month and I have just received the latest ones. The figures I shall quote are figures that we will never see in the newspapers and when hon. Members hear them they will know immediately why that is. On page 36 there appear the questions:
  "Some people say the United States is antagonising allies by her foreign policy. Do you agree?
  Yes: 70 per cent.
  How much confidence do you have in the ability of the United States to deal wisely with world problems?
  A little: 26 per cent.; very little: 31 per cent.; none at all: 18 per cent."
  Three quarters of the people asked that second question have little, very little or no confidence at all. One can contrast those figures with the speeches that are made. There are also some significant questions about comparing
  776
  the British attitude to America with the British attitude to Russia. The figures are quite staggering. The question is asked:
  "Do you approve or disapprove of the role of the United States in the world?
  Approve: 28 per cent.; disapprove: 57 per cent."
  The same question asked about Russia revealed that 22 per cent. approved and 52 per cent. disapproved. There is not much difference in those perceptions and that comes out in the final question I shall quote. It reads:
  "Do you think the United States has done everything reasonable to reach agreement with the Soviet Union?
  Has done everything: 14 per cent.; should do more: 79 per cent."
  When the same question was asked about the Soviet Union the figures were almost identical. Some 14 per cent. thought the Soviet Union has done everything possible while 78 per cent. thought it should do more, a marginally lower percentage.
  When we consider the weight of political and media opinion which never says a good word about the Soviet Union, it is interesting to see that such figures should come out of the deep memory of the war or some deep understanding of what is happening.
  In considering the next step I should like to look first at the Labour policy. Labour policy will mark an important change and the Conservative party should not think that it is going td run away with the election on polling day because, as I have shown, there is a lot of support for the ideas that underpin our policy.
  Next we must look for some alternative security systems in Europe because I am sure that the Poles, the Hungarians and the Czechs would like to have a little bit more elbow room just as we would vis a vis their alliance.
  There must be a major diversion of resources from weapons to meet need. We must remove all American bases and not just the nuclear ones. We must disengage from NATO. It may be that if we were to try to remove the nuclear weapons to which we are committed we might get into the same problems as New Zealand where the Americans have applied heavy pressure through ANZUS.
  We must realign our policy in order to direct it in the way in which people want it directed, to try to break down the barriers between east, west, north and south. I recognise that that is a long-term strategy, which will take time and need discussion, but it offers the best hope for mankind. It is in contrast to a Government who are going for reckless expenditure and subservience to an American Administration that has nothing to do with our interests. It threatens our security, increases the risk of war and costs millions of lives in the developing world for lack of the aid that we do not give because we criminally divert resources to weapons that we do not need.
  We live in a time of great danger, when war could occur by accident. I do not believe that either of the major powers wants war, but war by accident is possible. A nuclear accident could happen in any country, and a Trident missile could explode in Britain just as Chernobyl exploded in Russia. We live in a time of the bankruptcy of countries brought about by the weapons they have to buy—especially countries in the Third world—and we live in a time when there could be some tragedy on a massive scale.
  But we also live at a time when the technology is available to mankind to end every problem of poverty and disease if only we are prepared to devote our skill and our resources in that direction. I have enough confidence in

  777
  Britain and British common sense to believe that public opinion is well ahead of the Government of the day in wishing that that initiative could somehow be taken.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bonn) because he concentrates the mind wonderfully upon the proposition that a Labour Government should come to power and what it would do for our defence policy. I have no doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman has said would form a main theme of what such a Labour Government would give to the British people by way of a defence policy.
  I used time in previous defence debates to talk about constituency matters, constituency defence or defence procurement matters. The level of debate has risen today and I suspect that that is because we are moving inexorably towards a general election and people have raised their eyes above their own mean constituency interests. I shall have to mention one such matter, but I shall leave it until much later.
  The next 12 months will see a major change nationally and internationally about the defence of the West and of the East. Within the last few weeks we have taken'a step forward with the ordering of the first Trident submarine. That is a major step to having a successor to Polaris. Internationally, President Reagan has said that he no longer feels bound by the SALT 2 agreement. That is an unratified and much compromised agreement but he has shown his goodwill by scrapping two Poseidon submarines in order to commission a Trident vessel. President Reagan's coming away from SALT 2 will concentrate the minds of arms limitation negotiators at the various arms control conferences that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech.
  In his foreword to the excellent booklet "British Defence Policy" my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
  "it is the first duty of any British Government to safeguard its people in peace and freedom."
  He went on to restate the Government's high commitment and priority to defence. That was reinforced in his speech, and that is as it should be. However, I am not entirely convinced that Opposition Members are as convinced that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. That is a duty which must not be compromised by reductions to fund some other programmes.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) delivered an excellent and robust speech. Obviously we disagree with him on the question of a nuclear deterrent but his was one of the most refreshing speeches I have heard from the Opposition in defence debates since I came to the House. If they were convinced, Opposition Members would cease to talk in terms such as those used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who, when we shared a platform recently, as I said in my intervention during the speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), said that the funding of his aspirations for the Health Service would in no small way be due to the cancellation of Trident. On that platform he conceded that there would be a need to strengthen somewhat our conventional forces in the event of that cancellation, but there was a clear implication that there
  778
  would be a gap and money from the Trident saving would go to other non-defence programmes. That needs to be hammered home and to be said time and again.
  That lack of commitment to defence, which played such a demonstrable part in the electoral eclipse of the Labour party in 1983, betrays the memory of some former Labour leaders. That lack of commitment will split the so-called alliance and reveal just how big a split exists between the parties of the alliance and what a sham is the present collusion between those two parties.
  It is, of course, the Government's commitment to Trident, and specifically Trident D5, which distinguishes the Conservative Government from the three other parties which aspire to government. In considering the present posture of the Labour party to Trident and, indeed, nuclear weapons in general—and we have heard much about that in the debate—it is worth remembering the part Labour Governments have played in shaping Britain's nuclear deterrent since world war 2. Partly because of the unhappy early rivalry and also because of the McMahon Act, the post-war Government of Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin committed Britain to building its own atomic bomb. Mr. Attlee allowed the B24s of the United States to have bases in Britain. It is that first commitment to Europe and to NATO that survives today.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the B29 was capable of striking Libya from United Kingdom bases?
  Mr. Couchman: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge of the capabilities of the B29, which he probably remembers better than I do. There is certainly a distinct irony in the fact that a putative Labour Government would now deprive the United States of the bases which it has in the United Kingdom.
  Of course, Attlee's steadfastness did not extend to telling the British public of the decision to build the British bomb. The funds voted were hidden in the euphemism "repairs to public buildings." That secrecy, by ambivalent Labour Administrations, has surfaced from time to time.
  We were reminded that in 1964 the first Wilson Government made much of wanting to renegotiate the Nassau agreement of my noble Friend the Earl of Stockton and the splendid deal that he obtained for Polaris, but they wanted to do so only to strengthen the impression of an effective collaboration. What Lord Wilson did not appear to want was to cancel Polaris. He justified the decision to continue on the improbable premise that too much money had been committed already. Actually, only about £40 million had been spent on the beginnings of the hulls of two Polaris submarines.
  However, what the Wilson Government did at that time was to compromise the programme by the decision of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to cancel the fifth SSBN and so jeopardise the credibility of our Polaris fleet.
  In 1974, as we were reminded by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the Wilson Government took on the decision of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to allow the Chevaline upgrade to Polaris to proceed. But, again, everything had to be secret. We were told this evening that that had been taken to Cabinet. I understand that there is some discussion whether all Cabinet members were aware of the Chevaline

  779
  upgrade in 1974. By 1977 the cost of Chevaline had reached £800 million, as we were reminded by the right hon. Gentleman, and cancellation was considered. However, by that time Britain's deterrent was much too important to our relationship within NATO and our relationship with the United States.
  Before the end of his premiership, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) had the courage and foresight to recognise, on advice, that the Polaris fleet was aging, that even the Chevaline upgrade would not last for ever, and that it would be necessary to consider a possible successor. Studies were commissioned to examine the need and feasibility to replace Polaris with a new independent deterrent. Again, the studies were carried out in a deeply secretive way with Ministers able to disavow their part.
  By November 1978 those studies were ready for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the then Prime Minister, together with the right hon. Members for Devonport and for Leeds, East and Lord Mulley to consider.
  The outcome of the studies was that the replacement of Polaris by Trident C4 should be explored. The right hon. Gentlemen explored that possibility with President Carter, and the signs were favourable. But by then the Labour Government were at war with their trade union paymasters and were in their death throes. Two months later its Liberal collaborators pulled the plug and Labour's influence on Britain's nuclear policy was reduced to that of a dispirited Opposition. Up to that time, in their Own secretive and somewhat ambivalent way, Labour Prime Ministers had acted in favour of the continuance of an independent British deterrent. They had maintained a bipartisan policy.
  The year 1980 saw that bipartisanship shattered when the fact and cost of Chevaline was revealed to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym). Labour outrage and the accession of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) as Leader of the Opposition led inexorably to Labour's unilateralism and its political catastrophe in 1983.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli never comes to the Dispatch Box but that he blames all the nation's ills on the Government's decision to buy Trident C4 and subsequently to replace that with a decision to buy D5. Labour, in thrall to its Left wing, aspires to cancel Trident, to recall the SSBNs and to decommission the Polaris missiles as soon as it takes power — perhaps I should say, if it takes power. Labour aspires to throw out American nuclear forces from their bases. We have heard that repeated time and again this evening. Labour also aspires to throw out the cruise missiles which are dedicated to NATO and are under the joint control of ourselves and the Americans.
  Those Labour aspirations will lead to the "Finlandisation" of the United Kingdom and the break up of NATO, because it would be the biggest wedge to have been driven into the belly of NATO. That will drive the Americans back across the Atlantic, which, to judge from their present naked and constant anti-Americanism, will delight most members of the Labour party. The abrogation of our nuclear policy and the consequences
  780
  that I foresee will leave Britain peculiarly vulnerable to any threat from a potential adversary who has nuclear weapons.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli has said that Labour will strengthen our conventional forces. I must advise him to talk to his right hon. Friends about their various spending ambitions. There will be no money left from the cancellation of Trident to do anything about strengthening our conventional forces. In any case, it really would not matter what increase in conventional defence Labour commissioned because, in the face of an aggressor with a nuclear capability, we would be helpless to resist. That, of course, is why Soviet offers to reduce by a small proportion its missile stock in return for the elimination of the British and French deterrents are completely cynical and are to be resisted. Labour's appeasement will be its Achilles heel, and when we reach the next general election it will have just as much success as it had in 1983.
  Let me deal briefly with the defence policies-of the so-called alliance. In this most vital of all Government responsibilities, the conspiracy of power hungry but disparate parties resembles a pantomime horse—lnot the friendly creature with one participant leading and the other with his head stuck into his leader's nether regions, but a two-headed pantomime horse with the two heads facing in opposite directions. We have heard much about their various and disparate policies this evening.
  When one compares the Liberal party's defence policy with that of the Labour party, there really is not a fag paper to put between them. However, the Liberal party's SDP partner, if one accepts that the right hon. Member for Devonport speaks with the authority that that office should have, appears to believe that Britain should retain an independent deterrent beyond Polaris, but that that should not be Trident. The SDP would support the retention of cruise, but the unilateralist Liberals are opposed to the retention of those weapons.
  We have all been somewhat amused over recent weeks by what I was going to refer to as the vituperative pillow talk of the leaders of those two parties. As lovers, the Social Democrat and Liberal parties make a most unprepossessing match.
  I have spoken at some length about the policies and postures of the Opposition parties, particularly with regard to our independent deterrent. Only the Conservative Government offer the nation properlyresourced balanced nuclear and conventional forces to defend Britain's integrity. The key to that balance, certainly on the nuclear side, is, without any doubt, the powerful and convincing Trident D5 weapon. It will be a long time before any system that might be deployed could possibly render Trident an ineffective deterrent. Only this Government, with their policy, will retain a commitment to that deterrent and all that that symbolises.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I shall not take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). He gave us a uniquely unoriginal and unenlightening tour through history, which ended up with some remarks whose inacccuracy was only exceeded by the boring nature of what went before.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but there is a limited time—
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not even been in the Chamber for most of the debate and then comments on—
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. I have been in the Chamber for all but about 40 minutes of the debate. I apologise for having been absent then, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we all have other calls on the time.
  I wish briefly to mention three items. The first is a constituency item, and let me say that I am glad that it is so, since not long ago it was a national item. It was then a matter of frustration to me that I could never get "Westland" into the problem of the so-called Westland crisis. The Minister will know that more than a year ago, and about eight months before the crisis broke, I warned the Government of the impending Westland crisis, as did many . hon. Members on both sides of the House. Unhappily, those warnings were ignored. As a result, terrible damage was done to a major defence contractor and to a major part of our defence industry. Moreover, terrible damage was done to the Government. The Westland crisis nearly swamped them. Westland came through that period, and it was great testimony to its quality and strength and to the quality and strength-of its work force and management that it did so. We owe a great debt to the company and, in particular, to Sir John Cuckney for having taken us through that turbulent period. Such pressures would have broken lesser companies but uniquely in the case of Westland it bonded together the management and the work force.
  I know that there is much discussion and recognition of these issues behind the scenes. So I say quietly, but nevertheless insistently, that there is another crisis in the making unless the Government can soon clear up some of the uncertainties about the future of helicopter procurement. Westland is going through a crucial restructuring period, and the uncertainties that lie ahead make it almost impossible for it to plan effectively.
  I issue that warning, and I hope that on this Occasion, the Government will listen. Apparently 15 Sea King orders are in the pipeline somewhere, but they have not yet been delivered and we do not know when they will come. Let us hope that it will be soon. It is vital also to clarify the policy on light and medium support helicopters for the Army. That has not been done and the inference to be drawn from the most recent questions on defence is that that may not happen until the end of the year. That is too late by several months if one is to allow proper planning ahead within Westland. We also need to know when the commitment to EH 101 production will be made. It must be made soon. If it is not made in the next month or two, it must be made as soon as possible.
  Westland is trying to restructure and is going through a difficult period. Frankly, its task will become impossible if the company has to deal with all the variables attendant on the Government's uncertainty. I implore the Government to pay heed to this warning. There is, I say again, a crisis in the making unless some of those uncertainties are cleared up.
  Let me outline the problem in starker terms. Apart from aircraft in the pipeline, those 15 Sea Kings referred
  782
  to earlier will provide 750,000 man hours of work —when the order is confirmed. Add this to the man hours provided by Sikorski, over a period of five years some 2 million man hours in all, and a total of 2·75 million man hours is needed. Westland produces 2·8 million man hours in a single year. That is the measure of the problem ahead.
  We do not ask, as we did not ask before, for charity. We merely ask for some clarity and certainty against which we can plan the future of that great company. In the light of what has happened in the past, it is incumbent on the Government to do everything possible to make sure that that is provided for the company.
  It is a matter of some encouragement to us that during the RAF debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said:
  "we shall be doing all that we can to ensure that Westland's position and capabilities continue to be recognised fully in the international market place."—[Official Report, 26 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1035.]
  Those are encouraging words from which many of us take comfort. We know the Minister to be a man of his word, and to be working behind the scenes to ensure that that happens. But the time has now arrived for that statement to be turned into action. I implore the Government to ensure that that happens soon.
  My second point springs out of the first. Helicopter policy in general is a mess, and the Secretary of State should recognise that. The tactical concept of splitting helicopter control on the battlefield between the Army and the RAF makes no sense in battlefield, tactical, defence or procurement terms. I hope that the Secretary of State will note that I am receiving nods of assent from Conservative Members.
  That policy is wasteful, inefficient, costly and potentially militarily dangerous. I hope that the Secretary of State will bend his mind and that of the Ministry of Defence towards a full review of tactical helicopters policy in terms of control on the battlefield and of procurement. I hope that he will take into account the fact that we are behind most other armies in this respect. According to calculations made by the United States, we are 100 helicopters short of what we need in the central plain of Europe. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take account of the advances in the United States and the USSR in helicopter policy. I hope that he will recognise the importance of helicopters as a force multiplier, especially in an army which is smaller than we would like it to be.
  I turn to the central issue—the Defence Estimates. I believe that at its best the White Paper is, and I use the words of the Select Committee, a defence review by stealth without Parliament having the proper capacity to be able to examine it. At worst it is nothing less than a fudge. The word "fudge" has been used a great deal. It has been used in connection with the Liberal/SDP alliance defence commission on which I sat. The real fudge, however, lies in this White Paper. The Government know that what they claimed that they would deliver with Trident makes it impossible to deliver what they say that they want to deliver in terms of conventional weapons. Contrary to the Secretary of State's claim, the evidence is that no longterm planning has been done. His predecessor told us last year that there were no plans or discussions on the defence cuts which he has now announced.
  One must believe either that that statement by his predecessor was a deceit — which I reject — or that

  783
  Ministers had no idea of what was happening. I am unclear about which is worse for the nation and its future defence planning.
  The figures are clear and their conclusions are irresistible. When we talk about a cut of 4 or 5 per cent. in the overall defence budget over the next four or five years, we mean a cut in the equipment budget of from £800 million to £700 million, or 11 per cent., over the same period. Trident expenditure in this period will rise from £150 million in 1984–85 to £850 million in 1988–89. That means an increase in expenditure of 470 per cent. for Trident. Allowing for other fixed costs, that means that the repair and maintenance budget will have to drop by 11 per cent. and the non-Trident equipment budget by 24 per cent. to accommodate it. The effect on new conventional equipment will be devastating.
  If my figures are incorrect, I hope that the Secretary of State will at least give us the benefit of the true figures because he has provided none of his own. I have quoted the best figures available on which to make these judgments. It is essential that the Secretary of State and the MoD come clean. It is impossible for our defence industries to plan unless they know what is ahead. It is impossible for the House to plan and debate such vital issues unless we are clear about the choices open to us. The Defence Estimates paper over increasingly widening gaps and caverns.
  I have only a few minutes in which to deal with the criticisms levelled at my party by the Secretary of State and others. It is strange that the Government should accuse us of splits. The Government have been split down the middle of their economic policy. Their Cabinet was nearly blown apart by splits on the Westland crisis. It was split over Libya, over Leyland, over South Africa, and even on defence matters. There was a split over the key SDI issue. The Foreign Secretary said something entirely different from that which the Prime Minister now insists is the Government's policy. In the last six or seven months the Government have been split on national issue after national issue.
  Nor can we absolve the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that the Labour Government would wish to cancel or decommission Polaris, as has been said before. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), on the other hand, has said that that is a matter yet to be resolved and which must be considered before the next election. I refer to his interview in Marxism Today of April 1986. The right hon. Member for Llanelli said that the Labour party would throw out United States nuclear bases as soon as it is elected. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said:
  "we haven't yet addressed ourselves too adequately"
  to these problems.
  "We are beginning to do that".
  He said that there was a problem over United States bases but that, no doubt, the Labour party would have a policy before the next election.
  I say to Labour Members that their policy of throwing out the American bases is the great weakness in their argument. It points to a series of major inconsistencies in their position. It makes it impossible for them to claim to support NATO when they say that they will not play their part in ensuring that the deterrent under which they rest and are protected is properly serviced, if necessary, from
  784
  the shores of this island. It is a position that is morally inconsistent and, frankly, downright cowardly. If we are to benefit from the deterrent, we must be prepared to face the necessity to provide the procedures, bases and facilities that are required.
  The alliance defence commission, on which I had the pleasure to sit, produced a policy that was significant in the sense that it was coherent from one end to the other. What was said at one point did not cause what was said at another to be nonsensical. It faced some of the major issues that are approaching us. Its unique achievement was to take debate out of the ideological bunkers into which it has been put by the Conservative and Labour parties. It brought the issues into the open and we were able to discuss them realistically. It does no good to democracy or politics to treat defence with the closed mind of the religious fanatic. Defence is something that must be brought out into the open so that we can take full account of the real options that are ahead of us.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I do not agree with him on every issue and there are differences of emphasis between us, but it is better for the public and for defence generally that the differences of emphasis are publicly and openly debated, minor though they are. It would be an achievement if the Government were now to produce a defence expenditure White Paper which showed the options rather than hiding them and did not opt for the fudge that has been inflicted upon us in the Defence Estimates. The Government know that what they propose in their obsession with Trident makes no sense of what they claim to be their policies for conventional weapons. The result will be a reduction in the efficiency of NATO and a weakening of the defence of this nation.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: First, I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on his ministerial appointment to the Ministry of Defence. I wish him well in his first defence debate as a Minister and in his reply this evening.
  The Defence White Paper is becoming glossier, as some hon. Members have observed, longer and no doubt more expensive. There are some interesting changes in its format, if not in its basic priorities. More attention is being paid to Labour party priorities, such as arms control, disarmament, conventional defence improvements, defence co-operation and equipment collaboration. When this year's White Paper is compared with those for 1982 and 1981, for example, we realise how much headway has been made with some of the priorities that the Labour party has established and promoted in recent years. For example, in 1984 arms control was given two pages in the White Paper. It was given just under three pages in last year's White Paper. It has been given six pages this year and an entire chapter to itself, with related passages elsewhere.
  As I listened to the Secretary of State this afternoon — he spent the last 15 minutes of his speech talking about arms control—I found myself wondering whether a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence could have spoken at such length and with such apparent sincerity, and perhaps growing conviction, on arms control three or four years ago.
  East-West relations are of supreme concern to us all. NATO is concerned with defence and political issues.

  785
  Eighteen months ago, the superpowers were not talking to each other, and there was no thought of an East-West summit or even the renewal of contacts. There have been considerable contacts over the past year. Both sides put forward constructive proposals in Geneva. That was an important start to better relations.
  Mr. Gorbachev's proposals reflect a different syle of Soviet leadership than heretofore, and present the West with questions and difficulties. They also present the West with opportunities for agreement, which we cannot neglect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) reminded the House, the recent renewal of contacts has had an enormous impact on the public perception of the Western position. All the more welcome in chapter 1 is the acknowledgement that Soviet leaders have ceased to regard war with the West as inevitable.
  It is on that recognition that we must seek constantly to build. An essential step is to ascertain an accurate picture of military balance between NATO and the Warsaw pact. It will not be easy, however confidently it is approached in annexe A of the defence statement. Comparing quantitative factors, such as manpower and equipment, is relatively straightforward, but even that exercise can be unexpectedly difficult—a fact which may explain why no new NATO-Warsaw pact force comparisons have been published by NATO since 1984.
  In addition to static indicators, a number of dynamic measures bear significantly on the relative effectiveness of the forces. A much neglected but increasingly important variable is electronic warfare capabilities. Some say that the whole character of modern warfare is being changed by electronic warfare capabilities, with astonishing speed. Yet there is no mention of that in the defence statement.
  Labour Members welcome the assurance in paragraph 315 that the past 12 months have seen further significant steps towards conventional defence improvements within the Alliance. One of the effects of the public debate over the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy has been the emergence of broad-based support for the conventionalisation of NATO strategy. As doubts about the moral legitimacy and military utility of the threat of first use of nuclear weapons have grown—from which side of the House has that argument come consistently in recent years?—so has the interest in reducing NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons through improving non-nuclear forces. Yet how much and in what way NATO's conventional forces could and should be strengthened remains an open question.
  We welcome the attention that conventional weapons improvement received in this year's defence statement, but by next year we shall be looking for some guidance as to how much and in what form. The search for financially feasible and politically sustainable options for enhancing conventional deterrence constitutes perhaps the most critical Alliance challenge of 1986. Not so welcome is the section on chemical weapons at paragraph 323, which is truly frightening—and not just because of the nastiness of the beast. Does the House really accept the presumption that one must be able to retaliate in kind?
  In view of European sensitivity on arms issues, and because of the distaste in which nerve gases are held, I regret the proposed United States modernisation of its chemical weapons stockpile. In the light of our experience of, first, the modernisation of intermediate nuclear forces and, secondly, SDI, and the divisiveness they both threatened, surely it was vital that both the political and
  786
  presentational aspects of chemical weapons modernisation should have received more careful attention and should have been set in the context of arms control. Instead, they have scarcely received any emphasis.
  The most significant passage in the White Paper is in paragraph 503:
  "Although the budget for 1986–87 and the two subsequent years … is planned to rise in cash terms, its value in real terms will decrease by about 6 per cent. over the three-year period … Some difficult decisions will have to be taken but there will be no need for any change in our main defence posture."
  Clearly, the defence statement's message is that the seven fat years are over. Although the Secretary of State For Defence insists that he sees no need for a full-scale defence review, he must be well aware that he is taking a calculated political risk. He clearly believes that a programme involving selective cuts and delays in programmes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) argued, can square the circle without serious effects on the forces' fighting capability and morale or on Britain's contribution to NATO. But on the central issue of how the Government intend to match the increasing demands on the defence budget with diminishing resources he is silent. His suggested cuts were small beside those difficult decisions which every hon. Member must know are now exercising his mind.
  The reaction of the Government's supporters to the Defence Estimates, for example, is one of alarm. On 13 May, the Daily Mail, looking at the figures, concluded that they would not work and wanted the cancellation of Trident. The Times on the same day was similarly alarmed and wanted the Rhine Army to be brought home. The Daily Telegraph —[Interruption.] These are the newspapers that normally, conventionally and historically have supported the Conservative party. The Daily Telegraph wants the Ministry of Defence budget slashed. Apparently, none believes that British defence spending, even in its newly trimmed state, can carry on indefinitely as the highest percentage in Western Europe.
  The situation, argued Lord Carver in the other place last week, is aggravated by the Government's
  "stubborn refusal to deviate from their belief in the need for an independent British strategic strike force, an expensive luxury that merely adds to the superfluity of nuclear weapons — and is irrelevant to the real needs of NATO which is our first line of defence.
  For several years now there has been near unanimity among those qualified to judge these matters that NATO's primary need is not to increase its arsenal of nuclear weapons, but to improve its conventional capability." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 1986; Vol. 477, c. 324.]
  The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) referred to the same debate and mentioned Lord Glenarthur, who wound up the debate for the Government. Would the right hon. Gentleman, in his distinguished role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence whose work is valued by every hon. Member, seriously set the judgment of Lord Glenarthur— I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Lord—against the professional judgment of Lord Carver? Yet the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said that he could not follow the logic of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli against the need for an independent strategic deterrent.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: I quoted the words of Lord Glenarthur who was speaking on behalf of the

  787
  Government. I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government carries more weight with me than even Lord Carver.
  Mr. Duffy: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman said that in the presence of his hon. Friends. If he really believed that, his Committee would not undertake the rigorous work of cross-examination of professional witnesses which is a feature of its sittings.
  After examining the latest budget forecasts, the Select Committee on Defence believes that official talk of defence spending having reached a more or less stable plateau is no longer valid. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made the same point. While the Ministry of Defence has attempted to cloud the full scale of cash cuts, the Select Committee says that they could reach 7 per cent. in real terms by 1988–89 and threaten the operational capability of Britain's armed forces. The defence statement hints at where the axe might fall most heavily in its reference to the warship building programme and it is on that that I especially want to address the Secretary of State. Last year's document confidently claimed not only the first order of the new class of type 23 frigate, but spoke of future orders, naming at least one company expected to benefit. There are no such references this year and there is no new order announced today.
  There is a similar absence of information on many Army and Air Force programmes. However, the right hon. Gentleman will soon have to bite the bullet and make choices. Big new programmes, in addition to Trident, a new fighter for the RAF, new tanks and artillery for the Army, new helicopters for the Navy and the ground forces are all clamouring for slices of a cake that will soon start to shrink.
  The blows must fall somewhere on the conventional forces. Again, the speculation is that the main squeeze will fall on the Navy. In 1985–86 the Navy brought into service one nuclear-driven submarine, a carrier, two destroyers, a frigate and eight minesweepers. This year it can expect one submarine, one frigate and three minesweepers. The Navy is already on the slippery slope. Order books have never been so thin — four submarines last year and no new surface vessels except three minesweepers.
  Thanks to the Falklands war, the Navy escaped the swingeing cuts intended under the 1981 review. The Secretary of State is now contemplating the position adopted by Sir John Nott, his predecessor but one, whose determination to cut the Royal Navy was quelled only by that war.
  Slippage can be seen in the rate of ordering not only of frigates but of diesel-operated submarines, mine-counter measures and the replacement of the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid, about which the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) was so rightly concerned.
  In the light of their Falklands experience, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) must know that the Royal Marines, the old corps of the hon. Member for Beverley, are also concerned about the lack of an area defence weapon, the need for an additional artillery battery, more engineering support and possibly some armoured reconnaisance vehicles. However, while the Navy confronts an uncertain future on the size and effectiveness of its surface fleet, it is already having to struggle to meet its present commitments. For example,
  788
  the number of frigates in the United Kingdom area held in readiness to meet unexpected contingencies has been reduced from two to one. Time devoted to evaluating equipment, local exercises and routine maintenance have all been trimmed. The British contribution of destroyers and frigates to NATO exercises over the past 10 years has declined by nearly one third. The amount of time that a frigate spends at sea has risen. The Navy's ships are now spending 50 per cent. of their time at sea, 10 per cent. more than in the war years and three times the 1930s level.
  There is concern that in the long run present levels of activity may lead to a decline in the fighting efficiency of ships and their crews. In recognition of that and recruiting levels for officers in recent years that are too low, the manpower cuts ordered in the 1981 defence review are now being revised. Increased time at sea with frequent separation from wives and families must be affecting older married officers particularly and goes some way to explaining why far fewer now join the service with the idea of making it a career.
  The growing problem of recruitment and retention of officers in the three services is, despite the manner in which the Secretary of State glossed over it this afternoon, the subject of a current detailed study by the service chiefs. Most of Britain's armed forces and 95 per cent. of their budgets are now committed to the Alliance. The survival of western Europe in wartime would depend upon American reinforcements getting through. In wartime the United Kingdom would provide vital port reception facilities. That role inevitably impinges upon the shape of the fleet. For example, it means the Navy simply has to have a balanced fleet. It needs carriers to provide antisubmarine warfare protection for the Atlantic strike fleet, Sea Harriers to protect against enemy attack and support amphibious landings.
  The Atlantic link is of crucial strategic importance to the defence of western Europe. Since so few people travel by sea any longer, the public often fail to realise the extent to which Europe is dependent on routes across that vast ocean.
  The sea bed provides oil and gas resources which account for more than 25 per cent. of western Europe's energy consumption. The north and central Atlantic also provide one quarter of the world's fishing catch. Despite the decline of the merchant and fishing fleets of the NATO nations, the quantity of seaborne trade has tripled in the past 20 years, although an increasing proportion of the trade involving NATO nations is carried in hulls under the flags of other countries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) pointed out, that deplorable and alarming trend is reflected in the decline in the numbers of personnel and ships of the United Kingdom merchant fleet, as may be seen in tables 1·3 and 1·4 in volume 2 of the Estimates.
  The four pillars of defence policy are the strategic nuclear force, the defence of Britain's land airspace, BAOR and the Navy. The defence statement takes the first two roles almost for granted—that is, the strategic force and the defence of Britain's land airspace. However, should they necessarily be taken for granted?
  We have criticised the pre-eminence accorded by the Government to the strategic nuclear deterrent. I should like answers to .questions about the prior commitments that we have entered into in recent years about the manner of the defence of Britain's land airspace. In the previous two debates on the Royal Air Force, I have expressed

  789
  acute anxiety about NATO's need to counter Warsaw pact air superiority in the central region. In view of the increasingly hostile air environment, Tornado will clearly experience a growing difficulty getting over the target and must therefore have the capability to engage it from some distance. Paragraph 4 of the 1983 defence statement claimed that studies were in hand to assess the conventional armed long-range stand-off missile or complementary systems to manned aircraft. There has been no mention of the studies since then, although I understand that a memorandum of understanding exists between the United States and ourselves on long-range stand-off missiles.
  In the light of that development, how far has the Ministry of Defence gone in a comparative assessment of the performance and cost-effectiveness of manned combat fixed-wing aircraft operating from fixed airfields, and missiles or pilotless flying vehicles, whether the task is strike, reconnaissance or air defence?
  In the defence statement BAOR is described as a powerful symbol of our commitment to the security of Europe. However, The Times, again of 13 May, finds it incredible that the Government should really consider the calculated decline of what, in defence terms, remains a unique asset for the Alliance as well as for Britain—the Royal Navy — in order to perform a job which is of symbolic value rather than of military urgency, and which other members of the Alliance are better equipped to carry out.
  I should like to refer once again to the speech by Lord Carver in the other place last week. He expressed the belief that a critical look would have to be taken at the number of regular infantry battalions. With the almost total disappearance of overseas commitments outside Europe, a figure of 56 battalions, of which 31 are stationed in the United Kingdom, is a large number in proportion to units of other arms, bearing in mind that infantry battalions are one of the easiest units to raise from reserves.
  In the defence statement there is an essay entitled "The Seamless Robe". Let me interpose the thought that the original seamless robe was worn by our Lord on Calvary. It is entirely inappropriate to use that expression in this context. The essay entitled "The Seamless Robe" says that
  "the forward defence of the Federal Republic is the forward defence of Britain itself".
  But so is the defence of our sea lines of communication. The essay says that were we to weaken our commitment we would send the wrong signals to friend and foe alike. That is not necessarily so—not if we were to up our contribution to our situation—our island situation.
  Furthermore, our defence expenditure is 5·2 per cent. of gross domestic product, and Germany's is 3·3 per cent. Nor can I resist the temptation to draw the attention of the House to page 52 of part 2 of the defence statement, where I note that there are 20,100 multiple hirings in BAOR while there are 14,000 vacant married quarters in the United Kingdom.
  The defence statement significantly reflects the multitude of challenges which face the Alliance. It scans the entire range of Alliance economic, political and military difficulties. If the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident raises serious questions about Soviet international behaviour, NATO, for its part, has yet decisively to raise the nuclear threshold by increasing its conventional defence posture.
  790
  The time for talking is over. We are now looking for results from the Alliance in relation to conventional defence improvement. Nevertheless, there is room for optimism. The United States and the Soviet Union have demonstrated a renewed willingness to improve relations. There are signs that Atlantic defence co-operation is improving, and there is increased emphasis, as I have argued again and again, on conventional arms improvement. My right hon. and hon. Friends are in no doubt that it is Labour's distinct approach in recent years to defence thinking that has provided the climate within which such hopeful developments have been possible.
  9.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) for his kind comments and welcome, and I also thank my hon. Friends who have made kind remarks. It is a daunting experience to speak in my first defence debate, not least because of the relatively high proportion of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have held office in the Ministry of Defence. It is an unusual experience to have a little more time than the usual 10 minutes which a Back Bencher would be allowed to make a speech. I know that on this occasion I will not incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I exceed 10 minutes, but I will be cut off sharply at 10 o'clock.
  Many interesting points have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members and I will try to answer as many as possible tonight. Before doing so, I would like to make one or two brief remarks about those aspects of the Government's defence policy which fall within my direct responsibility.
  The most important asset of our defence effort is the people who provide its backbone. It is fundamental that we should have the people of the right quality in the right numbers who are properly motivated and trained. It is for that reason that the Government have given a high priority to the terms and conditions of service under which the armed forces operate. We have accepted and implemented the findings in each and every report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, although it was necessary to stage the 1984 and 1986 awards. I must stress that the increases, averaging 7·5 per cent., will be effective tomorrow and will be of permanent benefit to our armed forces.
  We have made a number of improvements to specific allowances designed to compensate for the special demands of service life — for example, improved arrangements for those serving on full tours in Northern Ireland and abolition of the parental contribution to the third visit home each year by the eldest child at boarding school. We will continue to keep conditions of service under review and make any further changes that are justified. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee, we are studying the adequacy and cost effectiveness of the range of allowances payable to service men to see whether any changes ought to be made.
  The positive results of this policy are evident both in the high quality of our service men—we would all recognise the professionalism and skill which they bring to their task — and in our record of recruiting and retention. Although there are one or two specialist areas where we would like to do better — such as skilled trades and technicians where competition is traditionally strong —

  791
  our recruiting targets are largely being met and the rate of voluntary outflow is well below that experienced by the armed forces in the late 1970s under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend told the Committee, there is some evidence that the rate of outflow is steadying and the Government will, of course, continue to give the position close attention. We are treating service men fairly, and they know and appreciate that.
  I ought to say a few words about the support given by the armed forces to young people as this interests me especially. More than 80 per cent. of recruits to the armed forces are aged under 20, and within the forces we teach a wide range of skills from heavy goods vehicle driving to electronics and advanced mechanics. These skills are, of course, needed by our defence requirements, but they equally provide people with skills which stand them in good stead when they leave the armed forces.
  I should also say something about the support given by the Ministry of Defence to young people through the cadet movement. The sheer scale of the movement is not always appreciated. It involves about 45,000 Army cadets, 35,000 air training corps cadets, 22,000 sea cadets, and 42,000 members of school combined cadet forces. I was pleased today to have had the pleasure of entertaining a party of sea cadets from my constituency who were visiting Parliament.
  Each cadet service aims to develop in young people a sense of responsibility and awareness of the needs of others, self-discipline and initiative—in short, to develop the qualities of good citizenship. To realise those aims, the cadets take part in training and activities which draw on the spirit of adventure and develop qualities of organisation, discipline and dedication. The Ministry of Defence is able to support that programme with assistance on training equipment and facilities.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the air cadets now have the finest fleet of modern sailplanes anywhere in the world, thanks to the Government's procurement policy?
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to add that, in Northern Ireland, air cadets will shortly be able to use some new gliders. I am proud to be able to report that to the House.
  All of these activities are well appreciated by the cadets concerned as exciting, challenging and worth while. None would be possible, however, without the enormous dedication and hard work of the unit officers and adult instructors who turn out in fair weather and foul to help them. I pay a special tribute to them.
  Efficiency is about doing things better. In that respect, I commend to the House the financial and management information system which is being developed in the Quartermaster General's area with the assistance of outside consultants, but no doubt the House will wish to come back to that at the appropriate time, perhaps during the Army debate next year.
  We are adopting an imaginative approach to the disposal of some of our high value sites in the defence estate. We are developing a rolling programme of land disposals using the proceeds to reprovide facilities elsewhere. The scheme is self-financing, and we expect to generate funds to support the defence budget and achieve major savings in maintenance expenditure. The first batch
  792
  of proposals to be developed will be the rationalisation of defence holdings in north and west London. Our purpose is to reduce the estate to the minimum, consistent with defence needs, and to release land for other productive uses.
  This year has witnessed the creation of a heritage area in the historic south-west corner of the Portsmouth naval base, which is no longer required for defence purposes. With several important listed buildings and docks, HMS Victory, the Mary Rose, the Royal Naval museum, Portsmouth, and the magnificently restored HMS Warrior, which is due to arrive in 1987, it has the potential, with suitable development, to become a unique monument to Britain's maritime heritage and a major tourist attraction on the south coast.
  The project is very much a joint effort. I have just visited Portsmouth, and I should like to pay tribute to all of those who have played a role in the heritage area's creation. The Ministry of Defence has provided the site and HMS Victory, the Heritage Trust Partners its ships and museums, the Property Trust its expertise and Portsmouth city council has built a jetty for HMS Warrior and provided money and support in other areas. The Property Services Agency, the English Tourist Board and English Heritage have all played a part. Although it is at its early stages and will no doubt have teething troubles, which is usual with a project of such complexity, this is an exciting project. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing everybody who is associated with the venture a successful future.
  Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the McCarthy museum will feature, in view of the very generous gesture of Mrs. McCarthy, who gave our nation her magnificent collection of Nelsonia, built around the early portrait of Nelson, which, at the moment, is near the bottom of the gangway? I hope that that collection will be absorbed into the complex.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall look into the matter and write to him.
  I now turn to the specific matters raised in the debate, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not cover all of them. Some issues will be more properly dealt with tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) addressed his remarks mainly to the nuclear deterrent. He said that the Labour party would cancel Trident, but he failed to answer two specific questions. The first was about the timing of any decision to cancel Polaris, and the second was how he could reconcile kicking the Americans off their bases in the United Kingdom and at the same time relying on United States nuclear support for NATO. That inherent contradiction was not dealt with properly.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Trident squeezing our conventional capabilities. Mathematically it must be true that non-Trident costs will fall as expenditure on Trident rises, but that is a negative approach. Rather like much of the philosophy of the Labour party, he is looking purely at the sums contributed, not at the value that one can get from a specific block of money. As an accountant I would say that it was the difference between looking purely at an input analysis as opposed also to

  793
  considering the output analysis. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but part of my job is to ensure that we get better value for money.
  Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: I am dealing with a point raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli. It is appropriate to consider the value from a certain amount of defence expenditure, as well as the sum committed in pounds and pence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) asked about allowances in particular. That is dealt with by the Defence Select Committee, and obviously the Government will review the whole Select Committee report carefully. I am paying particular attention to paragraphs 79 to 93 which deal with training, allowances and manpower. I remind him that a review of allowances is under way, and I emphasise that there is some statistical evidence that the recent increase in the premature voluntary retirement rate is slowing down. It has certainly not reached the high level from which the armed forces suffered under the Labour Government. We shall certainly keep the position under close review.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked two specific questions about Trident. It was interesting that he said that his alternative, the minimum deterrent, was not as effective as Trident. That is a fair record of his speech and a fair summary of the alternative. I am sorry that I was not present for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) who strongly supported our policy on Trident rather than the alternative deterrent advocated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport asked about Trident's spending commitments. To date £2,400 million has been committed and £620 million has been spent. He also asked about the penalty clause— the provision in the contract with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. which provides compensation for VSEL in the event of the cancellation of the contract for HMS Vanguard. There is no mystery about the clause, and the right hon. Gentleman will find a copy of it in the Library. I assure him that this is a straightforward commercial arrangement which is intended to provide VSEL with compensation for costs, not profits, properly and legitimately incurred in fulfilment of the contract. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne referred to the Merchant Navy. I am sure that they have had the opportunity of studying the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" with great care, but it might he for the convenience of the House if I quote two sentences that accurately summarise the Government's view on merchant shipping. They are on page 38 of volume 1. I note that the right hon. Member for Deptford did not think much of the presentation of the statement — a judgment with which I disagree. I draw his attention to this paragraph:
  "There are, however, still sufficient ships of most of the particular types that we need to enable us to meet our foreseen defence requirements for cross-Channel reinforcement and direct support of Royal Navy operations … for the foreseeable future, most of our requirements are likely to be met."
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong table. That is table 1·3. I was drawing his attention to table 1·4, which shows the calamitous loss in officers, ratings and cadets in the Merchant Navy. We can have as many ships as we like, but if we have no one to man them, what good are they?
  Mr. Freeman: I listened carefully to what the right lion. Gentleman said, and during his speech I looked at the table. I am sure that he will accept that the number of officers and men required to man a ship is a statistic that does not remain fixed throughout its life, but can change. There is also productivity in merchant shipping. I repeat the commitment that the Government have made on a number of occasions about merchant shipping.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) raised a question about the balance of power between the Soviet Union and the West's NATO forces. He said that all the evidence is that the Soviet Union genuinely wants to cut defence expenditure. That is a fair summary of the main thrust of his contribution. I hope that he is right, but I draw his attention to annex A, which discusses at sonic length the question of the military threat with which the Alliance is faced. I am sure that he has read this.
  We do not claim that annex A is definitive. It is a complex and difficult task to assess the size and scope of the Soviet forces, but the general situation and trend are clear. The Soviet Union has large, formidable and well-equipped forces and—this is the key point—its rate of expenditure on them has quickened since 1973. The Soviet Union spends 14 to 16 per cent. of its gross domestic product on its defence forces — more than any other NATO country. Those forces will not simply be wished away, nor can they be ignored. The simple fact is that the expenditure, which is one measure of commitment by a country to its defence obligations, has been rising and is still at a high relative level. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is right. The Ministry of Defence has to respond to a clearly perceived threat which is borne out by the financial figures and the proportion of GDP that I have just given.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck)—
  Sir Antony Buck: Well done for remembering ray constituency.
  Mr. Freeman: I can remember the constituency because I wrote it down. I pay tribute to his experience and help He referred to the Falklands, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and paid tribute to the dedication and professionalism of our armed forces overseas, and in particular in the Falkland Islands The topography and climate of the Falklands provide excellent opportunities for training, but stress that the level of our forces is kept under review to ensure that it is at the minimum level necessary to defend the Falklands against aggression. Numbers have been reduced steadily and are set out in the White Paper. The new airport should make it possible to achieve a further reduction in force levels without diminishing our ability to defend the islands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked questions about procurement policy and philosophy. He asked about our policy in relation to individual companies, particularly those with new and emerging technologies. He asked also whether we are still committed to the independent European procurement

  795
  group. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has taken on board his points and will respond to them in tomorrow's debate.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred, rightly, to the importance of our commitment to NATO and emphasised his belief that the United States has a key role to play in it. The Government are grateful for his support for those principal defence policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) visited the Falklands last year. He represents what was formerly an important naval port. I am grateful to him for stating clearly his interpretation of the Labour party's policy. It accords with mine. The policy of the Labour party is that Trident savings will be spent on conventional forces, albeit there would be the equivalent of only three divisions on the central front. None of the money saved would be available for increased spending on the social services. That statement is now clearly on the record.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to helicopter procurement policy. The Government are fully aware of the situation at Westland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may refer to that matter tomorrow. If the hon. Gentleman is able to be present at tomorrow's debate, I hope he will be content when he hears what my hon. Friend has to say.
  I commend to the House the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said when he opened the debate, the theme of this and previous defence statements by this Government is one of steadily improving defences. The improvements in our defence capability have been outlined by my right hon. Friend and they are contained in detail in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". We have improved the organisation of our armed forces and of its civilian support, which is my particular responsibility. We have consistently improved pay and conditions for members of the armed forces. We are increasing the Reserves. As the House knows, the strength of the Territorial Army is to be increased over the next few years to a maximum number that will be in the mid-80,000s. That includes the Home Service Force.
  796
  The services have far better equipment now than they had under previous Governments. The task now is to offset the very modest reduction in the real resources that will be available over the next few years by continuing the improvements in efficiency and the rewards of competition in procurement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there will be no need for any change in our main defence commitments.
  My right hon. Friend said that the message of this White Paper is continuity, consolidation and realism within a sustained effort in support of NATO. As for continuity, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said that in defence policy one cannot chop and change. Since this Government came to office our defence policy has provided continuity. One does not pull up defence policy by the roots. As for consolidation, several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the fact that we are at the end of a period of expenditure that has increased in real terms each year by 3 per cent. and also that we are into a new period of consolidation—
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Reduction.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman says "Reduction." I refer to the point that I made earlier. He is looking only at the amount of money that is voted by the House for defence. There is another dimension to the analysis of our defence capability: our ability on the ground, through better equipment that has been purchased over the last few years, to increase defence expenditure so as to defend this country and make our contribution to NATO.
  In terms of realism, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there will be no major change in our defence commitments. Trident remains the key to our defence policy and we regard it as a cost-effective deterrent. The alternatives suggested by the right hon. Member for Devonport do not commend themselves to the electorate of Britain. Our main policy is to strengthen and sustain NATO. It is vital that the United States—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Mental Health Care Centre, Little Hulton
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
10 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the grave threat to the current and future prospects for providing community care for mentally ill and handicapped people in the city of Salford and elsewhere. This is entirely due to an incredible blunder by the North-Western regional health authority. Before I go into the detail of that, I should like to remind the House of the Government's commitment to providing care in the community through joint funding between local authorities, social services departments and the National Health Service through regional and district health authorities.
When the Government came to power in 1979 they almost immediately nailed their colours to the mast of community care. The then Secretary of State for Social Services commissioned a study to clarify policies for the development of community care in the health and personal social services. The study reported, among other considerations, upon the need for interaction between the National Health Service and the personal social services. As a result of this exercise, Government policy developed along three lines. They were, first, the creation of a local service in those districts that still had little provision; second, provision in every district of enough suitable accommodation for the care of people with mental illness; and, third, the making of satisfactory arrangements for patients and staff locally concerning the closure over the next 10 years or so of mental illness hospitals that were not well placed to provide a service reaching out into the community and that were already near the end of their useful lives.
The Government announced their decisions on care in the community in a written answer on 28 July, 1982 when the present Secretary of State said that he was:
"convinced that it would be right to press ahead with a programme aimed to get out of hospital and into community care as many people as possible who do not require hospital care. My decisions fall into two parts: those which can be acted upon without legislation: and those which require changes in the law when the opportunity can be taken.— —[ Official Report, 28 July 1982: Vol. 28, c. 522–3.]
In the first category, he said that he had three main proposals: first, that health authorities would in future be able to guarantee continuing annual payments to local authorities and voluntary organisations for people moving from hospital to community care; second, that schemes jointly financed from the NHS would be available for extended periods for projects for moving people out of hospital; and, third, that a programme of pilot projects would be promoted and that up to £50 million of joint finance funds would be centrally reserved over the following five years in order to develop and assess the programme.
The initiatives which did not require legislation were launched in a circular on 14 March, 1983. Those which did require legislation were enacted by the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. I remind the House that on Second Reading of that Bill the then Minister for Health again stressed the importance to the Government of community care. He went on to outline four main objectives of the Bill,
798
"The first is to provide more care for the elderly, the mentally ill and the handicapped at the place where the patients and their families would prefer to be, that is, at home or in small units near to home. Too many patients still have to live in large, impersonal institutions, occupying hospital beds for long periods simply because the community services are not there to support them at or near home."
He went on to say:
"Last July"—
Two or three years ago—
"we announced the details or a very important ini titati ve, which we called the 'Care in the Community' programme. The most important change is that for the first time ever district health authorities will be able to offer to local authorities and voluntary organisations guaranteed annual payments without limit of time to provide for people moving out of hospitals into community care. We want to see resources moving with the patient so that the funds go with him to provide him with the right sort of care in or near his home." —[0flicial Report, 17 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 492.]
I think that I have shown conclusively that care in the community and its reliance on the partnership between the National Health Service and the personal social services is the cornerstone of the Government's mental health care strategy.
However, I understand that up to the present time, according to evidence given to the Select Committee on Social Services, only about 20 per cent. of local authorities are committing themselves to the joint financing arrangements that I have mentioned. I am not surprised at that low response, if the recent experience of Salford city council is typical.
Salford city council social services committee has embraced, and is embracing, the policy with energy, inventiveness and, in view of the current financial circumstances, with great courage. Therefore, it is with regret that I am forced to bring the matter of the mental health day care centre at Little Hulton in my constituency to the attention of the House.
In March 1984, the joint care planning team for mental health in my area established a working group on day care to examine the opportunities for a joint day care service in the Little Hulton, Worsley, area and proposed an entirely new facility.
The project was intended to provide the facilities that are needed in the local community. It sought to take advantage of th legislation, to which I have already referred, to provide for the transfer to the local authority of a substantial sum of health revenue to meet recurring costs in a manner designed to achieve the maximum value for money. It offered a model for the redistribution of resources from health to local authority to ensure that appropriate care would be delivered locally and efficiently. The proposal offered the opportunity to establish a new model for the delivery of subacute mental illness care, together with more conventional day care in a jointly managed setting.
Salford city council was to make available a suitable building for the purpose. The NHS was expected to provide the staff since it would function primarily to meet the deficiencies in NHS day care. It was predicted that there would be a reduced demand on in-patient NHS facilities and at the same time improved opportunities for early discharge.
Salford city council responded to the recommendation by enthusiastically endorsing the need for the facility at Little Hulton and there was a clear commitment b) the Salford health authority to accept responsibility for staffing.

799
Imagine, then, the horror with which the Salford social services committee learned at its meeting on 23 April 1986 that the North-Western regional health authority would not, after all, be funding the centre through the Salford health authority as previously agreed. That came after the centre had been built at a cost to the city council of £310,000.
In the interests of making myself absolutely clear, let me quote one or two relevant facts. The social services committee, at its meeting on 22 February 1984, authorised tenders to be invited for the construction of a new mental health day care centre at Little Hulton at an estimated cost of £350,000. Then the finance sub-committee, at its meeting on 1 March 1984, approved the proposals for the construction of the centre, subject to the revenue costs being met by the district health authority. The social services committee, at its meeting on 27 March 1985, accepted a tender for the construction of the centre. The total cost, including provision for furniture and so on, amounted to about £309,000. It was then informed by the director of social services that he had received a letter from Salford health authority indicating that it would meet the revenue costs for starting the centre, amounting to approximately £120,000 per annum.
If the House will bear with me, I shall read some of that letter. It was sent by the general manager of Salford health authority to the director of social services at Salford, and says
"The Policy and Resources Panel of the Authority have agreed to my recommendation that this Authority commit itself to the funding of the staffing revenue implications for the proposed Mental Health Centre in Walkden"—
It is, in fact, in Little Hulton—
"It is my understanding that Salford City Council will make available the building and will meet the costs of running the Centre other than staffing. Salford Health Authority will provide the staffing on the basis that it will function primarily to meet the deficiencies in NHS day care.
The Health Authority will seek money from the following sources:

1 A bid for revenue support to the Regional Health Authority and to the Non-Capital Led Programme for 1986/87.

2. That in the event of the RHA funding not being received, the Authority will, over the period of two years up to completion and commissioning of the Centre, identify staffing resources within Prestwich and Peel Hall for transfer to the Unit."

Thus, there was something of a guarantee in that letter.
I shall not quote that letter further, because the paragraphs that I have read out show the commitment that the district health authority had given to the city council. It was only upon receipt of that notification from Salford health authority that the council finally committed itself to embarking upon the construction of the centre. The building is now completed, and the committee was extremely surprised to hear at the final moment that no finance would be available for running the centre. Consequently, that building, which is desperately needed in order to realise the Government's commitment to care in the community in relation to the transfer of mentally ill persons from hospitals into the community, cannot be opened.
The present position is that despite fulsome praise from Sir John Page, the chairman of the regional health authority, for "the commendable progress" Salford health authority has made on the plans which have been
800
developed for the build-up of community mental handicap and illness places in 1985–1986 and over the next two years, a costly facility will remain closed because the right hand does not seem to know what the left hand is doing at Gateway house in Manchester. The excuse for breaking the staffing agreement is that funds are available for only one of two projects. That should have been apparent before the go-ahead was given to build the centre, and I am amazed at the staggering incompetence shown by the health authorities.
When I met the Minister last week, he made the point —with which I agree—that the NHS rightly devolves decision-making to a local level. He gave the impression that such problems are best resolved locally. Ordinarily, I would concur with that. However, because of the implications for the Government's own committed policies, which I have already explained, I implore the Minister to intervene. He has the power. He is backed by his own Government's stated aims.
Failure to assist will mean that a brand-new facility will remain idle while the patients for whom it was intended will be released from the big institutions into a world that is not ready for them. Those already in the community who are in need of help will be denied it. As long as it remains empty, the centre will stand as a visible condemnation of the blundering bureaucrats at Gateway house, and will be a mockery of the Government's care in the community policy. I urge the Minister to act.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). I recognise his serious interest in the issue. As he said, we had a discussion a few days ago about it. I acknowledge that he recognises that this is a local problem. The National Health Service structure is designed so that local problems and difficulties can be solved locally, between the region and the district.
I shall outline what has happened. Salford health authority has made an agreement with Salford city council that it is now unable to fulfil, because the district considers it must give other needs priority. The district health authority was to staff a day centre for mentally ill people at Little Hulton in Walkden and Worsley, a part of Salford that lacks these facilities. The revenue cost to the health authority would have been up to £150,000 per annum. The local authority was to provide the building. The building cost £310,000. The DHA provided £70,000 of this capital from joint finance moneys allocated by the regional health authority. That is an indication of the Government's and the National Health Service's commitment to funding care in the community projects. The £70,000 was part of the continuing huge investment in Salford's health facilities.
The DHA's agreement was given in a letter dated 26 March 1985 from the district health authority to the director of social services for Salford. In the letter, the general manager described how many would be raised to staff the day centre. An application would be made to the RHAs non-capital led development fund. This is one of four regional development funds against which districts may bid. Districts have to support their case with detailed costed proposals, showing how the bid fits into their overall strategies and how patients will benefit. A recent but very sensible requirement is that a district must show that it can maintain financial discipline and balance its

801
budget. Bidding is competitive and priorities have to be decided. That is in the nature of politics and economics in the National Health Service. In this way the region aims to ensure value for money for patients. If such funds were not forthcoming, the district general manager said, the district health authority would make the necessary staff available from Prestwich and Peel Hall hospitals.
Bids were made for non-capital led funds in 1984 and in 1985. Sir John Page, the regional health authority chairman, discussed the 1985 bid with the Salford chairman at the district's annual accountability review last November. However, this was not the DHA's only bid for development money. An assessment unit for the elderly mentally infirm at Hope hospital was also proposed. When asked to rank its schemes in priority, the DHA put the Hope hospital scheme first.
The RHA was left with the understanding from the district that they could release staff for the day unit by better use of their existing resources. Accordingly, the follow-up letter to the district's accountability review said that the region would not be funding the day centre.
Plans for the day centre emerged from the joint care planning team which brings together the DHA and the local authority. I understand, progress was regularly discussed in this forum. The social services committee discussed the matter in April and last month, on 22 May, the city administrator wrote to the hon. Member.
On 2 June, the district first told the region that staff could not be released after all. On 9 June, the district general manager suggested the solution that the region advance funds committed to certain future developments. Rightly, the region is cautious about mortgaging the future to pay for the present in this way. But the proposal is being examined, although it is too soon to say what solution will be found.
The hon. Gentleman has tried to draw conclusions from all this, but the position is that Salford and the northwest region are better funded now than ever before. Care in the community —the hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friends and their commitment to the concept —is total and genuine, and this has been demonstrated. It is being established in the region on a sound basis.
The Government are proud of their record in the northwest region. The region is better funded and better managed and it is treating more patients than ever before. Since 1979, Health Service spending in the region has increased from £380 million to £807 million in 1984–85. That is growth in real terms of just short of 20 per cent. Taken together with the region's allocation for 1985–86 and 1986–87, real terms expenditure in the region is forecast to rise by about 23 per cent., compared with an average of 19 per cent. for health authorities in England as a whole. This includes the recent increase of £50 million to the NHS to take account of pay review body awards.
This growth comes from real growth in Health Service resources. It comes also from redistribution from historically well-off regions in the south to the north. I invite the House to take note of how under this Government the north-west region has moved towards its resource allocation working party target. In 1977–78, it was 11 per cent. below that target, but this year it is only 0·8 per cent. below it. This also comes from making better use of existing resources. The region estimates that its cost improvements for 1985–86 will be about 2·3 per cent. That includes cash releases through efficiency of £10·7 million.
802
Out of this impressive growth, Salford has clone especially well. Last year the £27 million first phase redevelopment of Hope hospital — the region's third teaching hospital—was opened by Princess Anne. Plans are now being made for the second phase. Last year alone over £2 million in development funds were invested by the region in the district. Discussions are going on about over £400,000 of developments in Salford in this financial year. If these are successful—that is if Salford can meet the region's sensible requirements, which I have already mentioned—examples would include the following: 52 extra renal dialysis places, new consultants in child and adolescent psychiatry, and in neuropathology, and new work on AIDS. No one doubts that Salford has serious health needs. The difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are getting on and doing something instead of just talking about needs.
Day centre staffing has become a problem despite increased investments. For several years the DHA has been overspending its already adequate cash limits. By last year, accumulated over-spending was £2·8 million. In the main, the cause was unplanned growth—in other words, making commitments without ensuring that the resources were available. Even Labour Governments have seen that this is the road to ruin for patients' services, and have required health authorities to live within their cash limits. Last year the region and the district agreed a three-year action plan to balance the DHA's books. Left unchecked, Salford's health authority's overspending — and the entering into of commitments without resources—would inevitably have pre-empted development moneys intended for other less advantaged parts of the region.
That would have been the real risk to care in the community. But, in fact, the region is developing ambitious plans to provide people in the North-Western region with mental illness services in their district hospitals and in the community. Careful plans are being made to move long-stay patients out of institutions to care in the community tailored to their needs. In 1985–86, North-Western region earmarked £492,500 of growth money as development funds specifically for care in the community. A total of 71·5 per cent. of that was spent on nine projects in Salford. This year, £843,000:s earmarked by the region, and already some 50 per cent. is committed to Salford.
What I have described and demonstrated is the Government's fundamental commitment to Salford, their commitment to improving the health provision in the Salford area, and to improving the level of care in the community. I hope that that will provide the basis of continuing collaboration between the district health authority and the local health authority. In that spirit, I am absolutely certain that the particular problem of the day centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be solved.
Following our discussions, I asked the regional health authority to investigate how the problem arose and to confirm that it is considering the district health authority's proposals. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that no one wants to see the new facility standing empty. I emphasise that local priorities must be decided locally — in the region. As I have said, Salford already receives a large proportion of the North-Western's development funds, and the region is absolutely right to ensure that the district health authority lives within its means. More for Salford must inevitably mean less for elsewhere. There is an

803
important lesson here: local collaboration in providing people's health services is too important to risk on poor planning and commitments that cannot be backed up.
I am quite certain that the correct decisions will be taken. I have asked for the regional health authority to report to me in due course following its further consultations with the district health authority. It does so against a background of a continuing and steady real increase in the taxpayers' resources which are being
804
committed and devoted to the North-Western region. Within that commitment to the region, it is perfectly clear from the details I have offered to the House that the Salford district is rightly benefiting. It is now up to those concerned with the decisions in that area to resolve the problem. I am quite convinced and confident that they will do so. When they do so, I shall be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman of the outcome of their deliberations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Faslane Bay
  Faslane Bay
ENVIRONMENT
  Widdicombe Committee
  Widdicombe Committee
  Hampshire Club, Winchester
  Hampshire Club, Winchester
  Satman
  Satman
  River Thames
  River Thames
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Rates
  Rates
  Lime Street Chambers, Liverpool
  Lime Street Chambers, Liverpool
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Birlsbury Wood
  Birlsbury Wood
  Block Grant (Disregards)
  Block Grant (Disregards)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Gillingham Police Station (Firearms)
  Gillingham Police Station (Firearms)
  Liverpool Prison (Shower Facilities)
  Liverpool Prison (Shower Facilities)
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Police Cadets (West Yorkshire)
  Police Cadets (West Yorkshire)
  Police Motorcycles (Noise)
  Police Motorcycles (Noise)
  South Africa (British Nationals)
  South Africa (British Nationals)
  South Africa (Draft Resisters and Conscientious Objectors)
  South Africa (Draft Resisters and Conscientious Objectors)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Hippie Convoy
  Hippie Convoy
  Criminal Damage, Merseyside
  Criminal Damage, Merseyside
  Birmingham (Riot Damage)
  Birmingham (Riot Damage)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Ministerial Visit
  Ministerial Visit
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Books (Canadian Tariff)
  British Books (Canadian Tariff)
  Takeovers and Mergers
  Takeovers and Mergers
  Investment
  Investment
  Television Sets (China)
  Television Sets (China)
  Jaguar
  Jaguar
  Leyland Bus
  Leyland Bus
  Land Rover
  Land Rover
  Brymbo Steelworks
  Brymbo Steelworks
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Disabled 16 and 17-year-olds
  Disabled 16 and 17-year-olds
ENERGY
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Coal (Output)
  Coal (Output)
  Coal Industry (Funding)
  Coal Industry (Funding)
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  South Africa (Products)
  South Africa (Products)
  Summer Recess
  Summer Recess
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers (Computer Training)
  Teachers (Computer Training)
  Primary Schools (North Devon)
  Primary Schools (North Devon)
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Commonwealth Education Ministers (Conference)
  Commonwealth Education Ministers (Conference)
  School Books and Equipment
  School Books and Equipment
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
SCOTLAND
  Visitors (North America)
  Visitors (North America)
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Incontinence Aids
  Incontinence Aids
  Ambulances
  Ambulances
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  A74 (Improvement)
  A74 (Improvement)
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Bracken
  Bracken
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Skoal Bandits
  Skoal Bandits
  Torness Power Station
  Torness Power Station
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Nuclear Arms Limitation
  Nuclear Arms Limitation
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Political Leaders (Exchanges)
  Political Leaders (Exchanges)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
  Bracken
  Bracken
  West Wood
  West Wood
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Lambs
  Lambs
  Plastic Waste
  Plastic Waste
  River Esk
  River Esk
WALES
  Milk Quota Scheme
  Milk Quota Scheme
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Bilingual Education
  Bilingual Education
  National Trust Commons
  National Trust Commons
  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Ambulances (Tourists)
  Ambulances (Tourists)
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  Livestock Compensation Scheme
  Livestock Compensation Scheme
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Beef
  Beef
  Roads
  Roads
  Outgoers Scheme
  Outgoers Scheme
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Disabled Young People
  Disabled Young People
  Bracken
  Bracken
  Brymbo Steelworks
  Brymbo Steelworks
  Kidney Dialysis
  Kidney Dialysis
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Local Authorities (Borrowing)
  Local Authorities (Borrowing)
  Shipping
  Shipping
PRIME MINISTER
  Nuclear Accident (Effects)
  Nuclear Accident (Effects)
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mentally Ill People
  Mentally Ill People
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Hip Replacements (Northern Region)
  Hip Replacements (Northern Region)
  Foster Parents (Sexual Orientation)
  Foster Parents (Sexual Orientation)
  Institute for Motor Disorders, Budapest
  Institute for Motor Disorders, Budapest
  Sugars
  Sugars
  Drug Addiction (Acupuncture)
  Drug Addiction (Acupuncture)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  District Health Authorities (General Managers)
  District Health Authorities (General Managers)
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  NHS (Unemployed Doctors)
  NHS (Unemployed Doctors)
  Benefit Statistics
  Benefit Statistics
  Social Security Recipients
  Social Security Recipients
  Hospital Schemes
  Hospital Schemes
  Competitive Tendering
  Competitive Tendering
  Medicine Labelling
  Medicine Labelling
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Prescribing
  Prescribing
  Review Committee on the Limited List
  Review Committee on the Limited List
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres
  Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres
  Incontinence Aids and Garments
  Incontinence Aids and Garments
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Dual Purpose Ambulances
  Dual Purpose Ambulances
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Blood
  Blood
  In-patient Waiting Lists
  In-patient Waiting Lists
  Registered Homes Tribunal Hearings
  Registered Homes Tribunal Hearings
  New End Hospital, Hampstead
  New End Hospital, Hampstead
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Bolton General Hospital
  Bolton General Hospital
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Casualties (Helicopter Transportation)
  Casualties (Helicopter Transportation)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  YTS (Benefits)
  YTS (Benefits)
  Consultants (Trent Region)
  Consultants (Trent Region)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  NHS Consultants
  NHS Consultants
  Detention Centre Policy, Liverpool
  Detention Centre Policy, Liverpool
  Hospital Beds (Thames Region)
  Hospital Beds (Thames Region)
  London Teaching Hospitals (Bed Closures)
  London Teaching Hospitals (Bed Closures)
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
  Maudsley Hospital
  Maudsley Hospital
DEFENCE
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Mr. James Young
  Mr. James Young
  Blastproof Structures
  Blastproof Structures
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Military Expenditure (NATO)
  Military Expenditure (NATO)
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  HMS Tiger
  HMS Tiger
TRANSPORT
  Tolled Crossings
  Tolled Crossings
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Vehicle Number Plates
  Vehicle Number Plates
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Motor Cycle Noise
  Motor Cycle Noise
  Offshore Supplies
  Offshore Supplies
  Associated British Ports (Redundant Land and Property)
  Associated British Ports (Redundant Land and Property)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Investment Grants (Shipping)
  Investment Grants (Shipping)
  Freckleton Bypass
  Freckleton Bypass
  EC (Vehicle Tests)
  EC (Vehicle Tests)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Leicester Crown Court
  Leicester Crown Court

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

Ripon: City Status
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 records they have of the granting of city status to Ripon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Home Office has records of the granting of city status to the parish of Ripon by Her Majesty the Queen on 1st April 1974 following the abolition of the municipal borough of Ripon under the Local Government Act 1972. This grant enabled Ripon to preserve its prerogative title of city.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether he will persuade the authorities to make those and other authentic historical facts more easily available to tourists? Because of the charter celebrations going on in that district, tourists are becoming increasingly interested in the area—which, as a Yorkshirewoman, I know well has a special charm.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I well appreciate my noble friend's interest in and concern for Yorkshire. I do not think it is really something in which the Home Office has much locus, but I will certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to those who have an interest in the matter.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in addition to what my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox has said, it is the capital of a thriving part of Yorkshire for the farming industry, with monasteries all round, and that it has been a cathedral city since the early twelfth century?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, Ripon was first incorporated 1100 years ago, in 886, but it was not until 1836 that the style "city" was assumed when the collegiate church became a cathedral and Ripon the seat of a bishopric.

Dounreay and Childhood Leukaemia
2.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to new evidence of childhood
582
leukaemia near Dounreay and other nuclear installations, they will phase out nuclear energy and close down reactors.
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I did not expect an immediate affirmative Answer to my Question but I thought he might have vouchsafed a little more than that, and I hope he will do so now, when he considers that the Written Answer given by his Scottish colleague to Mr. John Corrie on 9th June referred to the disquieting results of a preliminary study by the Information Services Division of the Common Services Agency into the incidence of leukaemia in Scotland? Does he recall that that report stated that a further, fuller report was being prepared, or so the Written Answer said? Can he now tell us when this fuller report may be expected? Also, in the meantime, will he suggest to his right honourable friend the Energy Secretary that he controls his unbridled optimism just a little?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry that my first Answer was so succinct. I have a copy of my right honourable friend's statement in another place. He did not in fact use the word "disquieting", but said that results were now available of a preliminary study. That study was the subject of an announcement made by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 9th June, and it identified three specific postcode areas in Scotland where the incidence of leukaemia is higher than expected. One of these is in the vicinity of a nuclear installation, and the report recommends that further case studies should be undertaken to investigate a possible link between the incidence of leukaemia and low-level radiation. The report is to be submitted, after completion of some further work, to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for their information and advice.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the number of cases sampled near Dounreay was in fact very few? Is it not also the case that these indications, so-called, of leukaemia are not matched in Orkney, just across the water?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the study makes it clear that on the basis of the data examined there is no evidence that leukaemia occurs except on a purely random basis. It is well worth noting, however, that West Thurso had no cases for a decade or so before this cluster was identified, although Dounreay was in operation. If there is a link, it is a slender and elusive one which will require a lot of medical and scientific detective work to establish.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Question of this kind must absolutely terrify the parents and do so much harm unless backed by substantial medical evidence? Is it not about time that the Government themselves saw to it that parents in this area had their fears (if they have any) which are raised by Questions like this allayed? Is it not quite a monstrous thing to say that this is happening, especially to children, in such an area when in fact there is no medical proof?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I am grateful to him for his remarks. There is no doubt that the Government are taking it extremely seriously; but we do not want to over-emphasise the problem.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report of the medical officer of health for the county of Sutherland, the late Dr. Lyndsey, who over many years—long before Dounreay was ever built—had to face up to the fact that the diseases prevalent among the communities huddled along the north coast of multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, melancholia and leukaemia were always out of proportion to the rest of Scotland, and even to the county of Sutherland itself? Is he also aware of the opinion of Dr. Lyndsey that in considering this problem one has to bear in mind the historic factors of isolation, inbreeding, and imbibing? Is my noble friend further aware, as I am myself as an employer of labour quite close to Dounreay, that the general wish of the whole population of the county of Sutherland and that part of Caithness is to get a job at Dounreay? Everybody wants more opportunities to work at Dounreay, and they are very grateful for the prosperity that the Atomic Energy Authority has brought to the whole north coast.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Kimball: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that this is a well read and well educated part of the country. People will understand the motives behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, but they will not understand and will resent his deductions.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my noble friend probably knows more about Dounreay than anyone else in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for emphasising the positive benefits which accrue to those who live in and around Dounreay.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the investigation which produced this evidence about Dounreay also disclosed three other clusters of leukaemia in Scotland around Inverness, which were not within 100 miles of a nuclear power station?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely correct. In fact, I understand that there were two other clusters which were identified, and neither of them has any link with any nuclear establishment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as well as the findings of the Medical Officer of Health for Caithness, the local Caithness doctors have just produced a report saying that in their view the health of Caithness is very good, as no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will confirm, and that they can trace no direct relationship between these diseases and Dounreay? But, of course, leukaemia is a very frightening matter and there is some anxiety; so will the Minister undertake that the further inquiries are speeded up as far as possible? Will he also bear in mind that, whatever may be thought in the neighbouring
584
counties, the closing of Dounreay would be an appalling blow for Caithness and, unless something was put in its place to give employment and well-being to the population, it would be a devastating affair for the whole north of Scotland?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. As I have said, the results of the inquiry are being sent to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in various parts of the world where there is no nuclear energy whatsoever there have been surveys which show clusters of leukaemia? Would it not be rather premature to start talking about closing successful nuclear energy plants based on so much inconclusive evidence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the preliminary inquiry would not have been followed by a fuller report, which is to come, unless there were some prima facie evidence for concern? Further, is he aware that there is a substantial local debate going on in the area and that only one side of this has been heard on this side of the House? In these circumstances, does the noble Viscount agree that this matter is one of public concern and one that it is a public service to ventilate?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. I am sure that he will give the noble Lord's words the attention that they deserve.

British Telecom: Supercall Service
2.46 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask Oftel, in the discharge of its duty to safeguard the interests of British Telecom consumers, to suspend its supercall service until the present defects in it are remedied.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, it is for the Director General of Telecommunications to decide whether he needs, or is empowered, to take any particular action to safeguard the interests of British Telecom consumers. I understand that he has recently drawn attention to the high cost of some telephone services, such as supercall, and expressed concern that the public may not be fully aware of these costs; and that he intends to take the matter up with British Telecom.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in the country? First, there is the fact that in its new premium phone-in services the privatised British Telecom is profiting from, among other things, a wide range of pornographic phone-in call-up-a-girl services, which are ever more widely advertised in pornographic magazines? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the new phone-in services are advertised at what are called M rates? Is he aware, further, that people do not understand that M rates, which are the charge rates for these new phone-in services, mean that quite local calls are charged at the same rate as calls to the Republic of Ireland, of all places, which is 10 times the rate of a local call and which is chosen by British Telecom only because it is the most expensive rate it has? Does the noble Lord not think—
Noble Lords: No! Reading!
Lord Young of Dartington: —that British Telecom should come clean about the rates which are being charged?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's first supplementary question is concerned, I can tell him that there was a meeting between the Office of Fair Trading, British Telecom and my honourable friend the Minister responsible in the Department of Trade for the regulation of telephone services to deal with offensive telephone services, which I think embraces the one that the noble Lord mentioned. On 27th June, British Telecom issued a press notice saying that it was setting up a meeting with providers of these services so that a code of practice, so far as content was concerned, could be determined. As regards the noble Lord's second question about the M rate of 40p per minute, which is charged in eight second slots, the Director General of Oftel has, in his press release of 25th June, said that he intends taking up this question with British Telecom, so that the charges are better understood and realised by the users of the telephone services.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am completely innocent about call girls, etc? Will he kindly explain to innocent people like myself what is a supercall?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, a supercall is one of a number of premium products of British Telecom. For example, there is a direct line for one's fortune to be told, there is a direct line for City news, and so on. These are not regulated in terms of price; a free market obtains.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would it not be better if British Telecom concentrated on giving us an efficient and cheap ordinary telephone service instead of going in for all these frills and pornographic ongoings?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should not like the House to believe that British Telecom's premium product service is concerned only with pornography. A number of users require additional
586
information services, such as the City line. Basic services are regulated by the licence issued to British Telecom. All the charges are regulated to a formula of retail price index minus 3 per cent., and in real terms the basic costs have been reduced.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when dealing with a certain type of service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, drew attention, he used the word "embraces"? Would he care to correct the Hansard record in order to save his face?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall certainly check the Hansard record, but as your Lordships know, Hansard does in fact print verbatim what we say. It is very difficult to get Hansard to alter anything at all.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government now put this matter in the balance with what has happened to the Royal Ordnance factories and what apparently is going to happen to British Airways and have a good think about going any further with privatisation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the privatisation of British Telecom has been a great success. The company is profitable, the workpeople are largely shareholders, and the general public have benefited from it. It is an example of what this Government are intending to do to other businesses in the public sector for the benefit of the workpeople, the nation at large and the public.

EC Aid: Prevention of Disability
2.52 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the opportunity afforded by the British presidency of the Council of the EC to ensure that projects in developing countries funded jointly by member states include measures for the prevention of disability.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who will chair the Council of Development Ministers in November, has said that reform of the European Community's food aid programme is his principal objective. We want to see it, and other EC aid programmes, become more effective instruments for improving the conditions which result in disablement, and for making a greater impact on the nutritional standards of developing countries through direct feeding projects and through aid for food production.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful and promising Answer. Is she aware that food aid is very important in

587
the prevention of protein energy malnutrition? But is it not the case that much disablement could be prevented or avoided by including in jointly funded projects not merely food aid but also medical aid, socio-economic aid and environmental aid? Is it not further the case that in some of those areas at least family planning aid could play its part in the prevention during the perinatal period of disabling conditions to both the mother and the child?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I agree with both the points of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. With regard to food aid, one of the major objectives of our presidency will be to improve the effectiveness of the Community food aid programme. On the noble Lord's wider point about help in preventing disablement, we support through our multilateral health assistance the World Health Organisation's special programme for research and training into tropical diseases, the expanded programme on immunisation and the action programme on essential drugs and vaccines.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—and I notice that the Question is not limited to physical disability—that the citizens of this country suffer from a major disability in the exercise of their democratic rights in voting members to the EC? Are the Government intending to use our presidency to alter and remedy this major defect in our democracy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would expect me to say what I am going to say—that the question of PR is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the Minister's response to the noble Lord's supplementary question, would she be prepared to discuss with her right honourable friend in another place the importance of emphasising family planning as a vital ingredient in the prevention of disability?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware of the interest of the noble Baroness in this matter and I much regret that she was unable to have her debate on this important issue a short while ago. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the point she makes.
Lord Oram: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we on this side very much welcomed what the Minister for Overseas Development said in relation to food aid, particularly when he said:
"Europe should provide recipients with food they need, not food we want to dispose of?"
Surely that is the way to release funds for the particular causes that have been called to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Does the noble Baroness recall that on 14th May in the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, initiated, he brought forward some formidable figures about the size of the problem and also some very important figures about the small amount of funds that are needed in individual cases, perhaps to
588
transform a young persons's life? Does not that series of facts indicate that anything we can do through the EDF or in other ways to be more specific in overcoming the problem of disability will be welcome on all sides?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in preparation for this Question I of course looked again at the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in your Lordships' House last month. I accept the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has repeated concernng what my right honourable friend Mr. Raison said about this matter. We believe that the best contribution the Community can make is through its food and financial aid programmes to improve the conditions which lead to disablement. My understanding is that for the Community direct help for the disabled overseas is best carried out through the bilateral aid support of each country, and that of course is how principally we shall be doing it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that not only do we supply financial aid, but that many members of the medical profession in this country go out and help the disabled of many countries in Africa? That is to my certain knowledge, having visited those countries.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. We help through personnel; and I should add that through joint funding with voluntary organisations we have helped a number of specific schemes for the disabled.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 will be taken.

Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Bill
Read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee.
Essex Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.
Housing (Multiple Occupation) Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Protection of Military Remains Bill
3.2. p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and in doing so, I thank the small number of noble Lords who have assisted in the passage of the Bill, and particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench for the amendments that he has introduced while the Bill has been in your Lordships' House. I think particularly of the concept of an advanced general licence and a code of practice, which have produced a much fairer deal for British salvage companies operating in international waters. At the same time, they have safeguarded the concerns of the relatives of men who have gone down in their ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Social Security Bill
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 32 [The social fund and social fund officers]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 41, line 23, leave out ("directions given") and insert ("regulations made")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 90, and to Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 inclusive. That has been agreed as an appropriate course because those amendments taken together seek to provide a framework within which, in the future, single or additional payments should be made out of the social fund.
The present system, as the Committee will know, is that those payments are made to persons on supplementary benefit for exceptional and pressing needs; matters such as maternity expenses, funeral expenses, essential bedding, clothing, footwear, furniture, fuel, or even visits to a sick child in hospital—matters of that nature. Those are precisely the kind of single payments that will be made out of the social fund in the future.
The reason why it is proposed that there should be a structured framework for the payment of those sums is, first, because it is the only way in which to secure consistency. Secondly, because as a matter of constitutional principle, it is right that the regulations should be those approved and passed by Parliament and not simply directions given by the Minister without debate or discussion. Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly—because there should be a right of appeal to an independent body for the aggrieved citizen.
The present system is familiar to many Members of the Committee; but perhaps they will forgive me if I go into a moment's explanation for those who may not be aware of some of the detail. At present, by Act of Parliament and by parliamentary regulation, supplementary benefit amounts are determined by adjudication officers who are appointed by the Secretary of State from among the staff of the DHSS, but who then assume an independent statutory position. They deal with the single payments that will in future come out of the social fund.
Those determinations are then subject to a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal. I believe that is commonly referred to as the SSAT. It is that right of appeal that the Government now propose to abolish and within which -these amendments are primarily determined. The SSAT is a totally indepen-dent tribunal. In very limited circumstances, there can be an appeal from there to social security commissioners. Indeed, in even more limited circumstances there can be an appeal to the courts by way of judicial review. The importance of the appeal tribunal is demonstrated by the figures, because we know how many appeals there have been to those tribunals over the latest four years for which figures are available in respect of single payment adjudications.
The total is large. In 1981 it was more than 21,000; in 1982, 26,000; in 1983, 29,000; and in 1984, 36,000. That means that over those four years there have been 112,000 appeals relating to single payment issues, with which we are today concerned and which are to be paid out of the social fund, to an independent appeal tribunal. It is an extraordinary fact that no fewer than 25,000 of those appeals, one-quarter of them in all, were successful. In other words, 25,000 of our fellow citizens discovered, when they appealed to the independent tribunal, that the original

591
adjudication by the adjudication officer had been inadequate to meet their needs.
Those were, of course, decisions that concerned claimants who were, by definition, poor people in need, vulnerable, and perhaps the least literary in our society. It is because there has been that number of appeals dealt with sucessfully, in that way, that there is a general feeling among those people who have the misfortune to need this assistance from the state of confidence in the appeal system.
As I say, that is the present system. Under Part III of the Bill, which we are dealing with this afternoon, all that is to go. What the Government now propose is that there should be a social fund officer who would be appointed by the Secretary of State. He would have the power to determine the amount of any single payment. He would also have the power, as he has at the moment, to review his own decisions. That is the situation that arises under Clause 33.
There was much debate in another place as to whether or not there should be a right of appeal, and in due course the Government conceded that the case had been made out for a right of appeal. That right of appeal is now enshrined in Clause 34, which says, in effect, that there can now be a right of appeal to another officer of the DHSS appointed by the Secretary of State, only this time a regional officer rather than a local officer. It is our suggestion that that is a totally inadequate substitute for the present system.
It is difficult to make out at the moment, and I do not think there has been a clear answer, whether the Minister himself will in future be accountable for any particular decisions made by either the social fund officer or the social fund inspector. I suspect that the answer is going to be "No": that it will not be possible to challenge the Minister on independent decisions and that the officers will have the same sort of status as have the present DHSS officers. If that is right, what the system now comes to under the Government's proposals is that the finding of a DHSS official should be final, except that it can be reviewed by another DHSS official.
I suppose there is a very remote prospect of judicial review through the courts in highly exceptional circumstances, but there will be no appeal in the form of an independent tribunal and there will be no direct ministerial responsibility for any decision so made. All that is in an area of great importance to the people who are involved—a large number of our people—and in an area of very great sensitivity. It is an area where the figures demonstrate beyond argument that officials, however well intentioned, can and do make a very big proportion of mistakes.
In those circumstances, I think one must compare the merits and demerits of the two alternatives: the existing system with an appeal to an independent tribunal, or the new proposal by the Government that there should be an appeal simply to a further regional DHSS official. It is a matter of balance. I would not be so naive as to suggest that the arguments are all one way and that there is not something to be said on the side of the Government. However, I suggest that when one looks at all the various issues involved the balance
592
comes down overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the right of appeal to an independent body.
Let us consider the issues. First, there is public confidence. I doubt very much whether the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will stand up in due course today and say that the public—those who have to apply for the single payment—will have just as much confidence in a regional officer of the DHSS as they have acquired over the years in the independent statutory system of appeal that has served them so well. Secondly, there is the question of local knowledge, which can be crucial on these issues of single payments. Who is going to have more knowledge? Is it going to be a DHSS official sitting in his regional office, one of a small number scattered throughout the country, or is it to be the social security tribunal which sits in hundreds of centres in this country and which is familiar in every case with local circumstances?
There will be the issue of expert knowledge. Here I concede that the DHSS official will have the requisite expert knowledge. So, indeed, will the SSACs, the tribunals whose members have been specialising in this type of work for a great many years. There is the question of consistency: which is the more likely to be consistent? Is it the tribunal system—a system developed over the years which has a precedent, regional officials, a system of communication for decisions and standards that have to be kept up and maintained, with reasons that have to be given—or is it to be a system of regional DHSS employees acting as inspectors? Again, I suggest that the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that it is the appeal tribunal system which will provide the consistency rather than that of DHSS staff who are accountable to no-one.
There is then the test of speed, and here the Government may in due course want to say something. Clearly, if people are going to appeal for money on a matter of urgent pressing need it is desperately important that they should be dealt with speedily. Is there any reason why a matter should be dealt with more speedily at a region by a DHSS employee than by a tribunal which sits locally and which can be called at a moment's notice? Indeed, a tribunal will continue to sit for a great many other functions apart from this particular function. I suggest that if the tribunal system is working efficiently, as I believe it is, a tribunal can be just as speedy in reaching a decision as any official at the department. One must not forget that we are not speaking about courts of law; we are speaking about tribunals which are informal bodies that can meet at short notice. They do not need pleadings or documents being served, or any matters of that nature. They can meet and determine matters with very great speed.
In the course of the progress of this proposal the Government have raised some other objections to the suggestion that there should be an independent tribunal to deal with these payments. They said in the Green Paper that it was taking a sledgehammer to deal with small sums. There are two answers to that. The first is that some of the sums can be very substantial, running into four figures. Secondly, there is the more important consideration that what might be a small sum to someone who has drafted a Green Paper can be

593
a very substantial sum indeed to a citizen of this country in his hour of need.
It was then suggested—I think in another place—that another objection to tribunals dealing with these matters is that because of the discretionary element involved a DHSS official is more suitable than an independent tribunal. That shows up a considerable misunderstanding of recent history. Down to 1980 the tribunals in any event dealt with an entirely discretionary system and did so, so far as I know, perfectly satisfactorily. Since 1980, and at the present time, the tribunals have dealt with a whole variety of issues which are discretionary. They have to interpret the words "reasonable", "necessary", "practicable", or whatever it may be.
I come to the final matter which the Government raised in the other place that I have been able to trace. It is the notion that a regional officer, sitting in his office, perhaps a very long distance away from where the appellant lives, in some way will personally be able to deal with the appeal more satisfactorily than a SSAT sitting in the local town or the local large village, with the appellant before it and able to talk to him, and so do justice in that way. One has only to put forward the proposition to realise that there is very little in the contention that the system proposed by the Government will be satisfactory.
I ought perhaps to deal with one other matter in case it is put forward by the Government today, and that is the question of on-going appeals. Clearly it is desirable that there should be finality in this matter and that if possible one appeal should suffice. I suggest that there is very little to choose between the two systems in that way. The Government's proposal allows for an appeal to a regional officer; the alternative that we are putting forward allows for an appeal to a tribunal. In theory it is possible to go on to the Social Security Commissioners. In theory it is possible; but one could very easily amend Schedule 5 to the Bill to ensure that such a thing would happen only where there was a matter of law, and on the whole matters of law do not arise where single payments are concerned. It would at once rule out some 99 per cent. of any possible further appeals.
As regards judicial review, that will take place, if it takes place, either under the Government's system or under the tribunal system, because it is quite clear from the wording of Clauses 33 and 34 of this Bill that judicial review may lie in certain circumstances, just as it may lie in certain circumstances from the Social Security Commissioners. However, that is a very improbable situation. For all practical purposes there is really one appeal whichever course is taken, the Government's or that contained in the amendment.
In those circumstances the amendments to which I am now speaking, comprising Amendment No. 88, Amendment No. 90, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and Amendment No. 101, in a sense are paving amendments. They simply seek to ensure that in Clauses 32 and 33 there is a legal framework, so that it is not a matter of the Minister making directions at his own whim without any control by Parliament and which, for all one knows, are not published and not open to criticism; instead, there must be regulations which are approved
594
by Parliament in the usual way. I doubt whether that would make very much difference to the content of the directions or the regulations, but I think it is desirable that Parliament should have the last word and should have control over them.
Amendment No. 102 is really the principal amendment with which the Committee is concerned at this moment. It restores the right of appeal to the SSAT—the tribunal. It restores the right of appeal, but limits the powers of the tribunal, as the Committee will see from Amendment No. 102, to doing whatever it is and only whatever it is that the social fund officer could have done in dealing with the application. That is perhaps a restraint on the complete independence of the social security appeal tribunal. It differentiates the proposal in Clause 102 from that in Clauses 103 and 104. It may perhaps be marginally more acceptable to the Government for that reason and I think that it would meet the case if there were tribunals which had that power.
The last matter that I want to raise concerns the constitutional implications of the Government's proposal. The fact is that there has been a right of appeal on payments of this nature for something over 50 years—since 1934 in fact. I suggest that clearly it is therefore a matter of constitutional importance when a government come forward and say, "A right of appeal sanctified by time, approved by thousands of people who have had to use it, is now to be abolished". I do not say that it is impossible for a government to take that view, but I suggest that very cogent reasons are needed before it can properly be supported.
I think it was with this primarily in mind that the Council on Tribunals considered this whole issue. I know that the Committee will be aware that the council is an independent body appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I had the pleasure of sitting on it at the material time, though I am happy to say that I have now "expired".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wigoder: The Council on Tribunals considered this matter with very great care and issued the special report which I know that most Members of the Committee have seen. It is only the second time in the history of the council that it has issued a special report, and the first occasion concerned a largely internal matter. I do not propose to read very much of the report to the Committee, but I do not think I can better end my observations than by reading the concluding observation that the council made in paragraph 12 and asking the Committee to agree with it. The council said:
"The people most affected by this proposal are among the most vulnerable in our society. Very good reasons are needed before the abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years. It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right of appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958 following the Franks Report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde".
I invite the Committee to agree with that sentiment and I beg to move the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It is indeed a happy circumstance that it is only his term of service with the Council on Tribunals that has expired and not the noble Lord himself. He has thrown light on a very serious issue which the Committee must decide today, arising out of the operations of the social fund, which in itself makes a major change in the administration of social security to those in the community who are most in need.
He has emphasised two vital matters: namely, as the Committee will see from Clause 32, that the fund out of which payments will be made may make payments,
"in accordance with this Part of this Act and with any directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
In our view—and this is the proposal in some of our amendments—there should be a requirement that in place of mere "directions" there should be a statutory duty and statutory regulations, first of all giving a right to the parties concerned to be able to rely upon them and, secondly, above all giving Parliament the opportunity of examining both the regulations and the proposals to see that justice is done.
But the main thrust of the amendments lies in regard to the abolition of the right of appeal. Ever since the social security system started, way back in the days of unemployment assistance in 1935, and continuing through the national assistance scheme, there has always been the right of appeal given to the applicant who is refused or denied. It is a vital part of the system which has been relied upon in thousands of cases. The statistics which are given in the special report of the Council on Tribunals, to which the noble Lord has referred, show that during the four years from 1981 to 1984 a total of over 25,000 decisions about single payments were changed by the tribunals on appeal. Never has there been a more dramatic illustration of the need for an appellate system and of the value of the appellate system being by way of appeal tribunals.
We had considerable discussion about the Council on Tribunals during the time I was in another place. I am glad to say that we extended its field of activity very considerably indeed. It is now a vital part of the administration of the welfare state. A great deal of decision making has been taken out of the hands of civil servants and of the courts and a great deal of dependence has been placed upon the council. In my time in office we had a thorough review of the functioning and operation of the council. The report that emerged produced significant changes and brought the tribunals to a position where they are respected and where their services to the state are great.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has perhaps shyly not given enough attention, if he will permit me to say so, to the remarkable special report passed by the council upon the Government White Paper setting out what is now proposed by way of withdrawal of the right of appeal. The council begins by saying that it believes the proposal to be misconceived. It goes on to say, as the noble Lord said, that it would abolish a right of independent appeal which has existed for over 50 years—as I said, from the days of unemployment benefit onwards. Over 50 years of history are behind
596
this, and the purpose is to help and to protect the most needy people in the community.
What has somewhat shocked me recently has been the insensitivity of the Government about those most vulnerable people. We had a taste of it with a change in the legal aid regulations, which made it more difficult for a family with a large number of children to have legal aid than a family with rather fewer children. That insensitivity is marked in this Bill and in the proposals. It is identified by a council of great distinction under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt.
Having pointed out that the proposal would be highly retrograde, the report examines in detail the matters of discontent. It states:
"The Council consider that the proposed arrangement for reviewing decisions lacks independence".
Since then there has been an attempt by the Government in another place to make provision for a review of the decision by a DHSS inspector, whose obligations and commitments are inevitably, putting it as carefully as I can, influenced by his position within the system which is to apply the schemes. In our view, that is a wholly inadequate substitute for an independent council on tribunals.
The council also emphasises that the matter goes further than depriving claimants of the right to independent appeal. The accountability of social fund officers is also very much in question on the basis of the proposals. No indication has been given that there will be ministerial accountability for decisions or actions of social fund officers or that they will be independent of the DHSS, in complete contrast with the present position of the right of appeal to a tribunal.
Here, then, is a constitutional change in the highly sensitive field of social security (which is in any event difficult to deal with) of a grievous character. The findings of DHSS officials would finalise the matter, even though experience has shown that the need for appeal is, if anything, greater than it has ever been. What is proposed to Parliament in the measure is retrograde, oppressive and a staightforward denial of a well-established civil right. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will throw it out, and will throw it out with vigour.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: The noble and learned Lord said that 25,000 appeals had been heard in a certain number of years. Does he by any chance have figures for how long each appeal took? That would be helpful to the Committee.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That is not stated in terms, but these things take a little time, as would the Government's proposal of a review by inspectors. The time taken in order to have the right to appeal is not too high a price to pay. What is more important, it is a price that those affected would be willing to pay to be sure that they had justice, not just in a few cases but in the vast majority.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for so ably and sensitively moving the amendment, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. I am puzzled about the position of

597
the social fund. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify three points? Although the social fund as a piece of administrative machinery is not unacceptable, does she not consider that we are entering a political minefield in connection with the fund if the procedure is to be dealt with by inspectors who are part of the DHSS staff and not by external tribunals?
What is meant by the statement that the social fund is finite? If there is a proven need, the fund has run out and the claimant appeals, what is the position of the inspector? Will the inspectors be looking in two directions throughout the year—at the justice of the claimant's appeal and at the same time at the money available in the social fund? Are they in part to safeguard the interests of claimants, or are they to control the expenditure of the social fund? If as a matter of policy the social fund is to be kept within certain limits, I can understand that appeals should be kept clear of judicial procedure. If it is the intention that inspectors should temper their judgments to the availability of money—and we admit that viable needs must be met—local social service departments and voluntary organisations will feel compelled to make good the shortfall. Neither of those two sectors could carry that financial burden.
My second question therefore is: are the inspectors in post to control DHSS expenditure or are they there to safeguard claimants' well being? Secondly, why are internal inspectors a better mechanism to deal with claimants' appeals than external tribunals? What will the administrative structure of the inspectors be? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that they will be based regionally. If so, will they deal with appeals on paper or will they take oral evidence from the claimants? I am not sure about that point.
The report issued in January 1986, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, outlined the improved service given by the tribunals. I admit that the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was a good one because when tribunals were first set up, the procedure was slow. I think that I am right in saying that that procedure has improved greatly. Furthermore, all hearings are oral. Many claimants do not turn up to them. Claimants rarely appeal for small items, but they do appeal for £50 which is a large sum to those drawing supplementary benefit. What are the advantages of inspectors over tribunals?
I should be most grateful for the help of the Minister on my third point. Does she not agree that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done?
Claimants, by the very reason of their position, are vulnerable. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Some claims are only on the rim of reasonableness. If their applications are dealt with by internal DHSS staff who are far away and whom they do not see claimants will feel, reasonably or unreason-ably, unjustly treated. Is Her Majesty's Government at ease over claimants' possible attitudes that they will experience a sense of injustice? Such injustice can lead to anti-social behaviour.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his eloquent and convincing speech, referred also to Amendment No. 104 in the names of my noble friend
598
Lord Banks and myself, and therefore I thought that I should say that we accept the slightly greater limitation on the powers of inquiry of the tribunals embodied in the main amendment, Amendment No. 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which would restrict their functions merely to decisions which could have been made by a social fund officer, and would not go outside that. We accept that, and are happy to add our full support to the series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
Most of the discussions so far have been of a legal nature and have had to do with rights and natural justice. However, the consumer councils—the National Consumer Council and the consumer councils for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—are extremely worried by the provisions in the Bill as it stands. The DHSS makes mistakes. The 1984–85 report of the chief adjudications officer found that about a quarter of supplementary benefit decisions were wrong. An independent appeal system is obviously vital to secure fair and equitable treatment. An internal review alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder said, will not command the confidence of claimants. A review by regional officers will be seen as biased, whether it is or not. Inspectors may well become case hardened and remote from local need. A point which has not so far been mentioned is that they will be held personally responsible for their decisions and may well become the subject of resentment and abuse. The amendments would protect the position of the claimants and those who administer the system.
Social security appeal tribunals have shown themselves capable of dealing with a range of decisions. Some social fund decisions will involve discretion within a framework of rules and guidance. Social security appeal tribunals have been greatly improved in the past few years. It seems a great pity not to build upon that body of expertise.
In the absence of an appeals system, complaints will not just go away. A failure to provide a proper mechanism will lead to a greater use of judicial review and more formal reference to the ombudsman, procedures which are slow, expensive and unsuitable. Social security staff will be held personally responsible. The proposed amendment will go a long way towards protecting them as well as the claimant.
It is not the best way to gain acceptance for a new and untried system not to provide a proper appeal procedure. On those grounds, it is vital the amendments should be accepted.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I was extremely disappointed to hear the words of my noble friend Lady Faithfull because I welcome the introduction of this inspector. If ever there is a time for spot-on decisions, it is in situations of daily need. For that reason I welcome this new idea. From my experience with evacuees in the last war, I know that immediate attention to such daily difficulties can greatly alleviate a situation and add to flexibility. It seems to me that this proposal could be a much simpler method for dealing with the kind of small problems which at the moment often have to come before tribunals. Those problems could thereby

599
receive quick attention. A claimant would not then have to cope with a tribunal and the delays involved.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendments. I think that the system proposed in the Bill will be a much quicker way of deciding the cases, which I think is important.
Baroness Jeger: May I ask why?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: At the moment, all appeal procedures take a long time. I know that the noble and learned Lord said that that was not too high a price to pay for the right of appeal. If one is in urgent need, it is far better to have that need met then and there.
A point made was that in 25 per cent. of cases the decisions had been proved to be wrong. I take issue with that. I should say that 25 per cent. of the appeals were upheld. That means that the tribunal came down in favour of the applicant. It does not necessarily mean that the first decision was totally wrong. There is often a fine balance. I have sat on many appeals, not social security but others. A lay tribunal often gives someone the benefit of the doubt. It is rather too sweeping to say that 25 per cent. of the decisions were wrong in the first instance. It would be much more accurate to say that 25 per cent. of the appeals were upheld.
This is a new system which should be tried. If it is then proved to be wrong, there is no reason why it cannot be changed. The department brings some type of Bill to the House every year. After the system has been implemented and tried we should then know more accurately whether it is an improvement, as I believe it may well be.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, what advantage is there if, as the new system proposes, officials act as reviewers and the claims are turned down? Claimants will only go to such a review if they have been turned down by another official. What conceivable advantage can there be for them?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If I understand the proposal contained in the Bill, the first decision will be made by one special officer. There will be a rapid appeal procedure to another and higher officer. He will be a regional instead of a local officer. Am I wrong in that?
Lord Ennals: Not at all. He is merely another official. There is no independent appeal. There is a great deal of difference between another official, who is obviously operating under some sort of guidelines from the Secretary of State and looking at what one official has done, and an independent tribunal. Over many years, indepedent tribunals have proved their independence by the judgments that they have made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would like to respond to that point, if I may. I think I have a greater faith in the independence of these inspectors than the noble Lord opposite seems to have, in that I do believe in the independence of the Civil Service and I do not believe
600
that one inspector would automatically support another inspector. I think it is a rather cynical view to say that this would happen. I also believe—and I hope to hear confirmation from my noble friend—that there is to be special training for these officers, who are meant to be set apart from the department so that they are no longer in the position where one looks upon the other as a colleague, but where each is independent. I will wait to hear what the Minister says on this, but that is as I understand the position.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to contribute to this debate. I have Amendment No. 90 standing in my name. I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said on the issues of principle, because I think those principles are irrefutable; but I should like to tell the Committee that for many years I was a member of a social security tribunal, which are tripartite bodies with a legally qualified chairman. The people who came before us were, in the main, unrepresented. Nearly all of them were very vulnerable and extremely poor people. We did our job as an independent tribunal. We put them at their ease. The whole environment was a very relaxed one. I felt that at the end of the hearing the people who came before us felt that they had had a fair hearing and a fair deal. Sometimes we found for them and sometimes we did not, but we were at least able to persuade them that they had put their case before an independent body and the insurance officer, who was the official concerned, had to justify his decision to an independent body.
I think this is a very necessary element in our social security legislation, and I think it is invaluable. I would strongly urge the Committee not to do away with it in relation to this new legislation. I support absolutely what Lord Wigoder has said. I shall therefore not be moving my amendment, because it seems to me that the series of amendments which he and his colleagues have moved amply covers the situation. Based upon my own experience I can tell the Committee that we were able to deal with the people coming in before us in a sympathetic and entirely humane way. It was a speedy procedure in that there were no long delays before cases came before us—unlike the ordinary court system, which is incredibly lengthy. We were able to deal with the issues speedily, and I commend the procedures to this Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): To reply to the overlord of BUPA, to an ex-Lord Chancellor and to other distinguished noble Lords is a daunting prospect. I am not daunted—nervous, but not daunted!
The noble Lords have made clear in moving this amendment that they are in effect opposed to social fund decisions being made flexibly on a judgmental basis. They are seeking, through this amendment, the uneasy mixture of a social fund governed by regulations. It is obvious that I cannot agree with noble Lords on this issue, so fundamental to our proposals for a social fund. This amendment seeks to retain the regulated basis of the present system. I simply cannot believe that that is right, and I also cannot forbear from pointing out that many of those now defending

601
the present system have previously criticised it for complexity and inflexibility.
We now have a system which seeks to deal with special one-off needs by setting them all out in detail in regulations. This creates rigidity. Let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that if a need is not listed in regulations, if we have not anticipated it or it has not been possible to interpret the legal drafting in a way to allow a payment to meet it, then no help can be given. This means that help is available only if someone is able to match precisely a set of circumstances and a particular need against a list and criteria set out in regulations. This cannot be the correct way to handle the special and individual difficulties of claimants. Exceptional personal needs do not fit into neat categories. The social fund will tackle the needs expressed by people seeking help in a more sensible way. It will enable us to tackle the need in the context of the wider individual circumstances rather than simply matching a request for help against a detailed check-list.
There is one claim often made for a regulated scheme which I also find dubious. This is that it ensures that claimants know exactly where they stand. I am not sure that this claim bears much examination. A person may know that in certain circumstances he can receive a single payment for a certain item, but what is involved in determining these circumstances? The local officer must decide that there is a need for the item. He must be sure the person does not already possess it, does not have available a suitable alternative, has not unreasonably disposed of it, or has failed to avail himself of the item, and so on. We are only half-way to a decision. It is misleading to suggest that a regulated system makes everything clearcut. Tension results when judgments on individual and widely varying circumstances have to be handled within an adjudicated approach which can make only broad distinctions between circumstances and considerations to be taken into account.
The Committee must recall that under the social fund decisions will not be taken in a vacuum; nor will they be taken on the basis of secret instructions. My right honourable friend will issue directions and guidance, and these will be published. Social fund officers will make their decisions within the scope of these directions and guidance. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has asked whether people would get oral hearings at reviews. We intend that where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, then the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, taking into account all the information so far gathered. Where the individual is still dissatisfied, he will have a right to a review by a social fund inspector.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also asked about reviews and whether inspectors would look at the budget. The question really relates to the principle of having a fixed budget for the social fund. We have discussed this before and will no doubt come back to it later, but inspectors will be expected to check that reasonable decisions have been taken in the light of all the circumstances of the case, including the budget.
602
However, I would stress, as we have done before, that spending will be monitored and the budget will be handled flexibly so that the money will not simply run out before the end of the year.
The noble Baroness asked whether the inspector's job is to safeguard the interests of the applicant, and the answer is, "Yes, of course" That is why we have added this provision to the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked about the position of the DHSS staff, and I must resist the notion that our staff will somehow be ciphers in the way they discharge their duties. That does not occur now, when they are appointed as adjudication officers, and I feel that it is doing less than justice to DHSS staff to imply that they will not take their responsibilities to claimants properly.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether claimants would feel justly treated. It was because of the concerns expressed that reviews confined to local office management might not seem sufficiently impartial, and because of fears that there might appear to be local bias, that we introduced at Report stage in another place the proposal for social fund inspectors. They will be independent of the people who took the original decision. They will be trained to take a careful and dispassionate look at the way the decision was taken. Their conclusions will be explained to the applicant. This is the safeguard that we are proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that this was the most significant reduction in appeal rights since the establishment of the Council on Tribunals and that it involved the abolition of a 50-year-old appeal right. Of course, we believe that claimants who are dissatisfied with the decision should have a right to have it reconsidered, but the form of that review must fit the nature of the benefit. The appeal system represented by the Council on Tribunals has been developed over the last 50 or so years in a different context to meet different requirements. The social fund is not like other benefits; nor will it be administered in the same way. It would not be right for it to take over an appeal system designed for other needs just because it is familiar, nor to set up a new independent appeals system that is different in name only from the present one.
What we are proposing for the social fund is normal practice outside the world of social security. In banks, for example, when a client is dissatisfied with a decision, he complains first to the person who took the decision. If he is still dissatisfied, he asks for the manager to deal with it. That is what will happen in the social fund. Our guidance will ensure that dissatisfied claimants know that they have a right to a review and that their objections will be properly considered. In addition, we are now proposing a further tier of reviews by inspectors outside the local office to check that decisions are properly taken and to ensure against any actual or perceived local bias.
The regulated system in this area has been shown to be complex and confusing. Few people would argue that there should be discretion in the system. Our proposals are a recognition that the type of issue appropriate to the social fund does not lend itself to the rigidity of a regulated system. It has led to situations that should be left in the imagination of Lewis Carroll,

603
such as a social security commissioner, the highest tier of adjudicating authority, deliberating over whether a 78-year-old woman should receive a payment for a screwdriver or a ladder, or whether to increase a one-off award by 49 pence. I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
I now turn to the second group of amendments in this part of the debate. These three all deal with the way in which a social fund decision may be reconsidered if the person concerned is unhappy with it. The amendments provide for an appeal to tribunals. It is important, I believe, not to overlook the safeguards that are now written into the Bill. The Government introduced at Report stage in another place a new clause, Clause 34. This introduces to the Bill two things. First, it gives people a statutory right to have their cases reviewed. Secondly, it establishes a further review by a new group, the social fund inspectors. There is a statutory right to request a further review of a case if a person remains dissatisfied following the first review.
What this means—I address these remarks particularly to my noble friend Lady Faithfull—is that if someone is unhappy with a social fund decision, he will exercise his legal right and apply to the local office for it to be reviewed. In the first instance, this means that the social fund officer will reconsider the case. He will check the facts of the case and the directions and guidance of the Secretary of State. He may need to take account of any new information provided by the person concerned. This re-examination of a case is what happens now when an appeal is introduced. If this does not lead immediately to the application being granted, then the case will be examined, still within the local office by the social fund officer's manager. He, too, will check the facts and ensure that the social fund officer took proper account of them and of the guidelines. I should also make clear that, at this stage of the review, the individual will be able to put his case in person at the local office.
However, if, after this thorough reconsideration at local office level, the decision remains unchanged and the person remains unhappy, he can exercise his right to a further review. This case will then be considered by a social fund inspector. I stress that the inspector will be outside the local office and independent of its management chain. He will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be accountable to him for the way he carries out his duties, not to local offices or regional management. His task will be to ensure that a reasonable decision has been taken in the light of the full facts and of the Secretary of State's guidance and directions. He will have powers to confirm a social fund officer's decision, substitute his own decision, or send the case back to the social fund officer to investigate further and reconsider.
We should not get the number of single payment appeals out of proportion. There were indeed some 37,000 single payment appeals heard in 1984; but this compares with almost 3 million single payments that year. The tribunal found in favour of about 8,000 cases. That means that appeal tribunals were responsible for about a quarter of 1 per cent. of the single payments that were made that year. Further-more, as my noble friend Lady Macleod pointed out,
604
the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, did not say how long these appeals took to resolve the matter. Time does count when the need is urgent. That is the reason for the social fund.
With regard to accountability, the Secretary of State will not be accountable for individual decisions any more than he is accountable for adjudication officer decisions now. But he will be accountable for the way the system works. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, talked about the rights before 1980 on discretionary decisions. I would reply that it is indeed the case that appeal tribunals reviewed discretionary decisions before 1980; but the Government do not regard that experience as wholly satisfactory. The tribunals were not bound by the Supplementary Benefits Commission's policy of guidance. The effect was that discretion could operate on two levels. It was not a guarantee of consistency and accountability.
Again with regard to the tribunal, what we are proposing for the social fund is normal practice outside the world of social security, as I have said. I resent any suggestion that this Government have not been sensitive to the needs of the poor. What have the Government done to help the poor? Social security spending has gone up by 35 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. Nearly one half of this represents a real increase in the average amount of benefit paid. Only one-third is due to extra unemployed people. Supplementary rates have gone up by 6 per cent. ahead of prices, and there have been larger increases for people with children.
We have been particularly anxious to help people on low wages. The family income supplement rates have gone up in real terms by between 13 and 25 per cent., depending on the size of family. These families will also have been helped by the reduction in national insurance contributions for the low paid and increases in personal tax allowances. So do not say to me that we are not sensitive to the needs of the least well off.
There is now, I submit, an adequate means of redress for people dissatisfied with social fund decisions. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the new clause by the Government in response to concern. But more importantly it recognises the different nature of the social fund and its decision making.
Our clear view is that one cannot apply the appeal system which is designed for an adjudicated regulated scheme to a system operating on a different discretionary basis. We need to have consistency in approach between the way decisions are made and the way they are challenged. At the moment vast sums of money are being spent, not always reaching the most deserving cases. I believe passionately that the Government's approach to this matter is right. Flexibility, speed of decision, fairness and compassion will result, and I believe people will have confidence in the Government.
I realise that those who want to retain inflexibility, narrow outlook, and endless waits for an urgent need may not have been swayed by my arguments. But I do not think that the new clause and amendments which are being put forward are necessary and I cannot commend them to Members of the Committee.
The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask whether or not she agrees with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that not only should justice be done, but it should be seen to be done? To this end is she not aware that the banks to which she has referred have recently appointed an independent ombudsman?
Baroness Trumpington: I entirely agree that justice should be seen to be done, and I have explained the public nature of this whole process.
Lord Blease: May I ask a question along similar lines? Is it intended that the social fund with its inspectors—and I assume that there will be a number of them—should publish a report of the cases coming under its review procedure, as happens under the appeal tribunals? In other words, will there be reported cases which would give guidance and help public understanding of the way in which an inspector had exercised his discretion?
Baroness Trumpington: To be perfectly honest, I do not know.
Lord Wigoder: I rise with reluctance in order to wind up this discussion. The reluctance stems primarily from the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was going to undertake this task. Unhappily he has been detained by very urgent personal reasons and he asks me to present his apologies to Members of the Committee.
Points have been made on behalf of the Government's proposals. I always expected that they would. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, as to the length of the hearings, the answer is that we do not know. We do not know how long the social fund inspectors will take to dispose of a case. What we do know is that through the way the social security appeal tribunals have developed, with sympathetic chairmen, and through their being well organised they can now deal with these matters a great deal more rapidly in terms of each hearing than they used to.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Can the noble Lord, as an expert, give us any idea at all of how many days, weeks, or months it takes from the initiation of the appeal to the hearing and the appellant being satisfied?
Lord Wigoder: The answer is, no I cannot, any more than I can give any estimate of what will happen under the new proceedings. All I am venturing to suggest is that we have no grounds for thinking that one will be any better than the other; that is all.
The other point that was raised was, how long it might take matters to reach a hearing. That is the point that the noble Baroness has just mentioned. I was dealing with her original point as to the length of each hearing on which I thought that she was commenting; I misunderstood the noble Baroness.
The question of the speed of the hearing is a factor, but it is a factor that fades into insignificance beside the importance of consistency and public confidence which are issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has hardly mentioned. What she
606
mentioned repeatedly was that this would be a discretionary system as it has been in the past and that for some reason tribunals were incompetent to deal with it. The thousands of our fellow citizens who serve on tribunals—
Baroness Trumpington: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for disturbing his peroration, but I never said that tribunals were incompetent. I said merely that under the new system they will not be suitable.
Lord Wigoder: I thought that in her closing comments the noble Baroness made certain observations about the membership of tribunals to which they will not take kindly when they read in Hansard tomorrow what she said.
I come, finally, to the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised. Are we going to have a fixed budget each year, determined almost whimsically by civil servants? Are we going to have a situation where there is not a regulation but a direction? For some reason the noble Baroness does not want a regulation approved by Parliament. Consider the case of a woman in conditions of extreme poverty who might be entitled to a small grant to pay her train fare to see her child who has been involved in a serious accident 50 miles away. But at the end of the year the social fund runs out and the inspector says, "I am terribly sorry, if only you had come last week". What is the meaning of a finite fund in those circumstances?
I would venture to submit that on the balance of the argument—and there is a balance to be struck—the case for these amendments has been fully established by what the Committee has been told. In those circumstances I press Amendment No. 88.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131: Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Amherst, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ardwick, L.

Darwen, L.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Banks, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Donoughue, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Ennals, L.

Blyton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boothby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkender, B.

Brockway, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Fitt, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Flowers, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Chitnis, L.

Gallacher, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gladwyn, L.

607

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mulley, L.

Grimond, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hampton, L.

Northfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Oram, L.

Hayter, L.

Phillips, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Plant, L.

Heycock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hirshfield, L.

[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Reilly, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Richardson, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kaldor, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kearton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Somers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Stallard, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mar, C.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Milford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bauer, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beloff, L.

Glanusk, L.

Belstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blake, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marylebone, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Kemsley, V.

Cathcart. E.

Killearn, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Cowley, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denning, L.

Lyell, L.

Derwent, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Manton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

608

Morris, L.

Sandford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandys, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Norfolk, D.

Shaughnessy, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Tranmire, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Trumpington, B.

L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Polwarth, L.

Vickers, B.

Porrit, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Watkinson, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Westbury, L.

Quinton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Reigate, L.

Young, B.

Romney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 88ZA:
Page 41, line 24, after ("State,") insert ("which will normally be in the form of grants rather than loans").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 88ZA. The object of the amendment is to ensure that in the normality of cases payments from the social fund will be made in the form of grants. We are very concerned at the intention to deal with special needs by means of loans. To put struggling people on income support into debt seems to us to be the height of governmental folly. In view of their limited resources, many claimants may well be in debt already, and to add to it will only compound the problem.
Grants made today under the single payment regulations are required for such matters as a fuel debt arising out of exceptional circumstances; the replacement of an essential item of household equipment; or meeting an exceptional clothing need—for example, if a coat or a pair of shoes is accidentally lost or damaged. In most such cases loans are now to be provided instead of grants and they are to be repaid through automatic deductions of 10 per cent. from income support. If a family has more than one debt then the deductions will not exceed 15 per cent. of income support.
Income support is subsistence support. It is designed to provide a subsistence benefit. What, then, is likely to be the effect of knocking 10 to 15 per cent. off it? Some idea of the scale of indebtedness likely to be created can be obtained when it is appreciated that 300,000 claimants have fuel debt repayments at the present time and there are approximately 1 million single payments each year. If only two-thirds of single payments were replaced by loans, the number of families forced into debt and to living on an income 10 to 15 per cent. below the poverty level would be between half a million and three-quarters of a million.
If single payments are replaced by loans, then more children are likely to be received into care on a voluntary basis because parents will feel unable to cope with the added financial pressure. That will mean

609
extra residential care costs, court costs and costs of social services' time. We believe it is essential to establish that loans will be the exception to the rule and that payments will normally be in the form of grants. To increase the indebtedness of the poorest of the poor would indeed be a crime. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, comments on the amendment, I should like to clarify with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that he is speaking also to Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 94.
Lord Banks: Of the four amendments to which the noble Baroness has referred, the only one which is mine is No. 88ZA.
Lord Ennals: I support absolutely everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In my view most people hate to be in debt, and that applies especially to elderly people who are not even prepared to get into debt—as they call it—by hire purchase. They believe in being paid-up at the end of the week. There are very many people who suffer hardship. Again, I am thinking particularly of the elderly, because most of those who will be receiving loans or grants will be elderly. Such people will find it unacceptable to be in debt at the end of the week because that was not the way in which they were brought up.
This amendment does not say that there are no circumstances in which there should be loans, and that when those loans are paid there should be an agreement that there should be a loan and that the person receiving the money understands the nature of the loan and accepts that it will be deducted from their pay. Though I must say I find rather horrible the thought that a loan or a grant would be refused to someone—and 1 am looking at Clause 33 at the top of page 43 of the Bill—if there was money from perhaps some other source, from some other member of the family, or the possibility that some other person or body might partly meet it, are people going to say, "Is there perhaps a charity that might bear this instead of the grant being made?" Those who feel that they have to turn to charity are going to find, from what the charities say to me, that they are simply not going to be able to meet the needs.
One of the fascinating things about this Bill is the way in which ancient charities—what they call "quiet charities"; and I think of people like the Family Welfare Association, the Church Army, the Children's Care Association, and the National Institute for the Blind—have all gathered together to express (and I had a meeting with them last week) their desperate concern. That includes their concern that a normal method of payment would be by loans.
One has to ask, unless there is someone who has funds that they can see they will be able to draw upon in order to repay the loan week by week, how are people living on the breadline going to pay? If it is said that it is going to be taken week by week out of their regular allowances, what will go? No one is suggesting that the regular allowances are going to be above the needs of that individual. What will go? Will it be food? Will they not have adequate meals? During the winter
610
will it be that they will not have adequate heating? Will it be that clothing or shoes will go? I do not know how this will happen.
We are in a difficult situation. The Joint Consumer Councils Social Security Committee said:
"The explosion of lending has brought benefits for the many, but has led to severe problems for the minority unable to pay their bills. Consumer debt, housing, fuel, water and rates arrears have all risen sharply. Money and debt problems now top the list of all consumer problems. The figures tell a story of human misery, as families struggle with mounting bills, demands, summonses and court orders, and experience the fear of disconnection, eviction and loss of household possessions.
"Most debtors are neither feckless nor wilful".
If the social fund were, under most circumstances, to make a loan, it would be to someone who is so poor that they need to go to the social fund—and they are going to need to be poor to do that. I fear that it will drive people into debt. Driving people and families into debt is a severe thing to do to honest British people. Perhaps more than in most other countries of the world, British people—and I think again of the elderly—despise being in debt. Our hope in this amendment is not to say that there are no circumstances in which loans should be made, but in the generality of cases that it should be a grant as to which there is no expectation of repayment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am doubtful, first of all, about the form of this amendment:
"which will normally be in the form of grants rather than loans".
That gives no guidance to those who have to administer the benefit as to the circumstances in which loans would be appropriate. It merely says that "normally" it will be grants. If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would put himself in the position that he used to hold as the Minister responsible—a position in which I also was involved for some years—one would not know what Parliament was trying to say if you merely used the word "normally". If the amendment spelt out even roughly the circumstances in which loans would be permissible, that would at least give some guidance to those responsible, but simply to say "normally" seems to me to be building up real difficulty for those who have to administer the scheme.
Nor do I wholly share the view of the noble Lords opposite that loans ought normally to be ruled out. There are quite a number of circumstances in which loans are perfectly appropriate. One set of circumstances is where you have a man of considerable potential earning capacity who has had a run of bad luck—perhaps the sickness of himself or his family, or an accident—and temporarily has to come to the fund, but whose outlook for the future is quite a reasonable one. Indeed, he may be going to have substantial earnings again in a few months' time. There is no reason at all why such a man should not be helped by a loan. Therefore, both on the form of the amendment and to some extent on its substance I am against it.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend sits down, could he, drawing on his distinguished experience in this particular department, recall to the Committee whether he knows of any precedent for the use of this generalisation "normally" as a statutory term without

611
any definition? I do not think that any has been volunteered by the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Ennals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I have no knowledge of any precedent in any statute, but I have not sufficiently examined the mass of legislation which exists on this subject for me to be able to say with any great confidence that there is no such precedent. I have often found—as I am sure has my noble friend—that when one says confidently that there is no precedent for this, almost always some noble Lord finds one and one's argument is therefore invalidated. But for my part I have not. If my noble friend, whose experience of the law is considerable, has not seen it, that strengthens my doubts.
Lord Blease: Speaking in support of this amendment I would wish to indicate that this clause, Clause 32, and indeed Part III of the Bill, are viewed with much concern by representative organisations in Northern Ireland, and particularly those bodies with direct responsibilities for the sick, the unemployed, and the under-privileged. At this Committee stage of the Bill it is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech. The detrimental effects of the changes proposed by this legislation on the Northern Ireland community were ably and forthrightly expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs in her speech during the Second Reading debate on 3rd June.
The introduction of the proposed loan system, in place of the existing grant arrangements as exist under the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations, will create greater hardship, not only for those in Northern Ireland but for those in need throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Ennals, has already mentioned that the widening cycle of poverty and the forcing of needy people into further debt will, without doubt, acutely exacerbate preventable human misery for large numbers of families throughout the United Kingdom.
The realities of this situation are well borne out in the Written Reply on 23rd April in another place by Mr. Needham, Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to a Parliamentary Question by Mr. Peter Archer, Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. The Question asked for details of "single social security payments" made during 1985. The reply is contained in the House of Commons Hansard, Volume 96, No. 1380, at columns 155 to 158 on 23rd April last, and goes into considerable detail. I propose to quote only what I consider to be the relevant details—the extent of the range of single payments
"Single payments awarded [in Northern Ireland] during 1985
Pensioners 36,400
Unemployed 148,900
Others 91,500",
a total of 276,800 single payments at an average of £114. It has been estimated that about one-third of the total families in the whole of Northern Ireland will be affected by the proposed Bill.
The range of single payment awards under the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations
612
(Northern Ireland) are important. They give an understanding of the type of payments that are required. I quote the round figures rather than the detailed figures given in the Parliamentary Question: maternity needs, 10,000 awards of an average of £112; funeral expenses, 1,600 individual awards of an average of £296; purchase, repair and installation of essential furniture and household equipment, 100,000 awards in one year averaging £140; bedclothing, 38,000 awards at an average payment of £71; removal expenses, 2,000 awards at £64 average; draughtproofing, 6,000 awards at £54 average; redecoration, 20,000 awards at £51 average; fuel cost, 1,000 awards with £139 average; clothing and footwear, 30,000 awards at £77 average; other types of payment for people in need, 10,000 awards averaging £85.
The significance of these figures will be readily understood and assessed. I believe the figures raise sharply the question: if the Government are really serious about redirecting resources to those people in most need, can the Minister state how the conditions for those types of families will not be worsened under the proposed changes?
While I do not have the relevant statistics for other regions of the United Kingdom, by noting that Northern Ireland has about one-fortieth of the total population of the United Kingdom it is not difficult to relate the extent and the range of the present single payments to other regions. I am sure it will be readily admitted that there are many regions in Great Britain where poverty, bad housing and human need are as manifest, sadly, as they are in Northern Ireland. Indeed, throughout the United Kingdom the notion of two nations is very real. Social statistics and unemployment figures reveal a nation divided into wealth and poverty, into the "haves" and the "have nots"; a nation where a measure of health and human happiness can be acquired by cash, while preventable human suffering and misery are subject to rigorous Scrooge-like policies.
As has already been indicated, the present single payments regulations provide for one-off payments for a range of items of expenditure for the needy which cannot be foreseen or which cannot be met out of basic benefits. The kind of social fund help required is a sensitivity of approach and an understanding of what it really means to a family or an individual to undertake additional financial commitments by way of a social fund loan when already many such people are in penury, as has already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Does not this proposed loan arrangement portray a Shylock mentality, demanding the pound of flesh when one is already under straitened circumstances at a time of critical need of urgent financial help? On behalf of many representative organisations in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, I support this amendment for the principle of grants rather than the proposed "loan office" system, and that the principle should be written into the Bill rather than determined by ministerial direction.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked whether the word

613
"normally" was appropriate for legislation. I do not know the answer to that, but I think I know what most people mean by it. If blame is to be placed anywhere it should be placed on the draft legislation which we have here, the measure, which studiously avoids giving us any indication of what the balance might be between loans and direct payments. I have looked carefully at Clause 33, and it gives no indication of that point. The word "normally" for most of us means "in the majority of cases". That is what we would expect, though I daresay it may be important to find a more precise word for it. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I made the point that I had had a number of letters, as I am sure many other Members of the Committee have had, from people who are deeply concerned about the implications of putting many people into the position of having further debts which they will find very difficult to repay.
My other point is that the amendment we have just passed changed the words "directions given" to "regulations made". I would have assumed that one of the regulations to be made should indicate fairly clearly which categories of need would be met by direct payments rather than by loans. The onus of the matter would be on indicating where social fund officers—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. If he is right on that point, then this amendment is wholly unnecessary.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I do not think I agree with that because we need to spell it out quite clearly, but I see the point.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: In his wisdom the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, thought that the majority of people would be elderly. I want to put forward another section of our community that I know a tiny bit about, though perhaps not as much as the noble Lord—those people now coming out from psychiatric hospitals. To my knowledge they do not always have homes to go to and they are allowed out because they are able to make their own homes. But as they do not have homes they need to borrow. They do not necessarily need grants, but they need to borrow money to pay for the necessities in their new homes.
I believe I am right in my answer, but I should like the Minister's reassurance that when somebody applies for a grant or a loan that person can stipulate which he or she would prefer, because the people I have in mind I am sure would prefer to have a loan, bearing in mind that the majority of these people are allowed out of psychiatric hospitals because they are able to work again and on the whole have been found jobs. That is the point I wished to make.
Baroness Faithfull: I believe the Committee are in some difficulty over this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, as drafted, it is difficult to see how the amendment can be administered. What this ties up with is the question of discretionary payments or regulations. If it were laid down by regulation, for example, that in certain circumstances loans were to be given and in other circumstances grants were to be made, this would
614
meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If somebody found a job at a later stage, then by regulation he could pay back. But we should not say that a number of people should have loans rather than grants. It is distressing in our country at the moment to see how many people are in debt.
I have here the figures from the Citizens Advice Bureaux. Last year the bureaux dealt with £500 million-worth of debts. Seven per cent. of all citizens advice bureaux inquiries were debt problems: that is, half a million inquiries. One-quarter of all debt is concerned with local authority housing. In 1984 the Audit Commission found that about one in four of all council tenants was in arrears. Twenty per cent. are concerned with fuel and telephone costs, and 30 to 50 per cent. are housing area problems such as second mortgages and so on. I am afraid that in this country we are in many cases, in all sectors of society, living in debt. I would wish it were otherwise, but I do not think the way to put it right is to make loans rather than grants in this area which we are dealing with today. I believe it could be put right if we had regulations laid down rather than the making of discretionary payments.
Lord Ennals: I wonder whether, before the noble Baroness replies, I may make three points clear. First, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there are circumstances in which loans are appropriate. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod that some people may actually opt for a loan as opposed to a payment. I find that totally acceptable. I would not agree for one moment that those coming out of a psychiatric hospital would want loans—and I say this as chairman of MIND—because the chances of their getting a job in the next few months or even in the next few years are not too great; and even accommodation could be a great problem for them. So I would put them down as people who, if they were to inherit a loan on coming out of a psychiatric hospital, would be adding another burden to the burdens they already bear. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked what the word "normally" means. He will know that we are debating with this amendment Amendment No. 90. That amendment reads:
"and the Secretary of State shall make regulations stating the circumstances in which an award shall be made to meet the expenses and needs specified in section 32(1) and the amount that shall be paid".
It is clear that the Secretary of State makes regulations which make quite clear in what circumstances a social fund officer would make a grant and in what circumstances he would make loans. This amendment has been taken before the other ones and the amendment I have just quoted, which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends. It makes it quite clear that first, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, this is not the time to put more people in debt. Therefore the regulations, when being drawn up, should make it clear, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, that "normally" means more of one thing than another; so that the normal thing would be to make a grant and in other circumstances, as defined by regulation, a loan would be made. I do not think there is any difficulty at all in terminology because the Secretary of State would

615
himself draw up regulations which would inevitably come before your Lordships.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I say to the noble Lord opposite that I understand his argument perfectly well, but surely it is contradictory? If the regulations are to define, as I think he is suggesting, the circumstances in which there should be grants or there should be loans, they should do so. Therefore, it is surely wholly unnecessary, confusing and misleading to put in before that an amendment saying that "normally" it shall not mean by loan.
Lord Ennals: It is exactly the opposite, if I may say so.—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Lord Ennals: The purpose is to say to the Secretary of State what Parliament thinks he should do. If this amendment were carried, Parliament would be saying that we think the Secretary of State should say that normally it should be grants, as opposed to loans. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the word is "normally" then we are back to the original point that I made which has not been answered, that the officials handling this are given no guidance whatsoever. If the regulations were not to use the word "normally" but to define the circumstances, then at least that difficulty would be overcome; but simply to say "normally" is to leave the Secretary of State or his officials, or probably both, in a state of confusion.
Lord Kilmarnock: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness to clear up something for me and to enlighten me as to what system of repayment of loans is envisaged under the social fund. Would the social fund become in effect a preferential creditor with the right to take payments at source out of benefit each week? Am I right in reading the Government's intention in that way?
As the noble Baroness knows, under the Consumer Credit Act, borrowers who cannot meet their commitments can go to the county court and ask for time to pay. Presumably, no such right exists in regard to the social fund, and I imagine that the social fund officer can only be asked by a claimant to exercise discretion. If that discretion is not favourable, are not a number of people going to find themselves in great difficulty? It seems to me that there must be a minimum level of weekly support and a limit to the amount that claimants can afford to have deducted from their benefits. If the noble Baroness could help us by saying a word or two about that, it would help us a great deal and increase our confidence in the proposed loan system.
Baroness Lane-Fox: Surely, what we want to do is to improve things for people in need. There can be few noble Lords present who would not love to give endless grants, in the same way as many of us would love to be Father Christmas. But how could any responsible government give open-ended grants ad
616
nauseam? Interest-free loans, on the other hand, could help enormously in cases where some people could not get grants; and for that reason I welcome the introduction.
Baroness Trumpington: As we consider this important group of amendments, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not mind my saying that the effect of Amendment No. 94, which I am taking in the grouping as agreed, if taken in isolation, would be that maternity payments, which are at present non-recoverable, would become recoverable. I cannot believe that that was the intention of the mover of this amendment.
Your Lordships will see that the power to direct that a payment is recoverable can apply only to payments for funeral expenses or other needs, by virtue of the inclusion of "(b) or (c)". However, I do realise that the thrust of this group of amendments is against recoverability and I will address my remarks to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that people will look to charities for help. He is referring to the circumstances set out in Clause 33, which is the subject of Amendment No. 98, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not comment further on this point at this stage.
With regard to the question of regulations and discretion, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, clearly we shall want to consider the implications of the amendment which has just been agreed to by your Lordships. I hope your Lordships will recognise that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
Let me now return to the main discussion. From the outset we have made quite clear our proposal that some social fund payments should be recoverable. I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the place of the low-paid worker or pensioner, whose income is just above the supplementary benefit level—as low as 50p or £1 above.
You have an urgent need for something. What do you do in such a position? I suggest that you have three options. First, you buy on credit or hire purchase, which can mean heavy interest when you pay it back; secondly, you approach a moneylender, which may mean even heavier interest, and, thirdly, you do without. Let us now compare your plight with the position of persons on a fairly similar income but getting supplementary benefit. For those people the options are rather more straightforward. They can apply for a single payment from the social fund and, provided that they satisfy the rules, they will get a grant and such grants can often—and do—run into hundreds of pounds.
I suggest to your Lordships that these arrangements raise considerable questions of fairness. The social fund proposals will redress this balance. The person in receipt of income support will continue to receive grants in certain circumstances, such as for maternity and funeral expenses. That is in answer to my noble friend Lady Macleod. In other cases, such as a person leaving a long-stay hospital to be resettled in the community, we will also help by way of a grant. But in

617
other cases help will be in the form of a loan, although without any interest at all. I wish to make that clear. This seems to me to be more equitable. Why should the out-of-work person be given grants for every need, for every replacement of household items, when his counterpart in low-paid work, with an income just 50p or £1 above income support level, is given no help at all? This underlines our proposals for recovery.
Some mention has been made of the levels of rates of help and that they will be too low to allow recovery. Of course, it is sensible that the system of extra payments for particular difficulties should be set in the context of the general help with weekly needs. The direct link can be overstated. We must remember that the present system of single payments is rather haphazard. In any one year, only a minority of claimants would receive a payment. By far and away the most significant help for claimants is their regular weekly support.
If we look at the wider context of scale rates, we see an interesting picture. It is slightly at odds with some of the claims we have heard. We have already spoken of the explosion of single payments which took place in the early 1980s. They have risen from 1 million payments, totally some £45 million in 1981, to over 4 million payments, totalling over £300 million in 1985. This development has taken place at the same time as we have seen significant improvements in the supplementary benefit scale rates.
I remind the Committee that since this Government took office the real value of scale rates has risen by 6 per cent. We have presided over a real increase in the rate for a pensioner couple of £3.80 a week, and for a non-pensioner couple on the ordinary rate of £2.90 a week. Because of structural changes, there have been improvements in the rates of children, particularly those aged under 5 and 11 and 12, whose rates were levelled up in 1980. Let me give two examples. For an unemployed couple with two children aged four and six, the value of support has gone up by over £5.80 a week—over £300 a year. For a lone parent on the long-term rate with a child under five, it has gone up by over £4.30—over £220 a year.
We can argue about the level of support that we should be arriving at, but there have been significant improvements and our proposal shows that we are aiming to improve the support further. Noble Lords greeted with pleasure my announcement last week of a family premium. But the priority must be put in regular weekly income, not in the retention of the sort of single payment system that we now have.
If I may just turn briefly to Amendment No. 88ZA, the decision on whether a grant or a loan will be made will depend upon the individual circumstances. It will undermine that intention if we write restrictive provisions into the Bill. This is especially true, I fear, of such vague terms in this context as "normally". We could end up in constant discussion over whether a particular set of circumstances was exceptional or normal. What has become clear is that this amendment is technically a horror. On that ground alone, I must resist it. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is arguing the case for a discretionary system governed by regulations and there is confusion of thought here. I believe that this amendment would stop the social fund from working properly.
618
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the rates of recovery and whether there would be a maximum. The full scheme would not come into effect until 1988, which is nearly two years away. The maximum rate of recovery has not yet been decided, but from this the Committee will see that we intend to have one. The purpose of this will be to ensure that people who are having social fund payments recovered do not have an amount deducted which is too large, or that deductions should go on for too long a period.
Of course, there are rules at the moment governing the amounts which can be deducted from benefit for various purposes; for example, if a person has a housing debt then the maximum deduction is 5 per cent. of the single householder rate. There are rules governing other deductions and rules governing the priority for debts when there is more than one deduction. So it is yet another area where we can examine the way in which similar rules have operated in the scheme so far and build on that experience. We all have enormous sympathy for those who are. alas, out of work and living on income support. My compassion, and the Government's compassion, lies equally with a chap struggling on a low-paid job to support his family and whose resources put him just outside the scope of automatic state aid.
To conclude on the general principle of recovery, the Government believe there must be provision for the one-off exceptional expense which anyone can face from time to time. But, equally, it is not right to retain the present open-ended commitment to assist one group of low-income families when others do not have the choice. The social fund is a sensible balance between these two considerations and I ask the Committee to resist these amendments.
Lord Auckland: My noble friend the Minister has given a generally very informative reply to this amendment, but I wonder whether she can qualify paragraph (c) of Clause 32(1). Does this mean payment for the long-term mentally or physically disabled in the form of grants or loans? Just what categories are covered by paragraph (c)?
Baroness Trumpington: One of the areas where we envisage that help will be available, and indeed where grants may be made to further community care, is in this field, in order to enable people leaving long-stay hospitals to set up homes in the community.
Lord Banks: It has been widely understood that the Government's intention operating through this new Bill will be to substitute loans in a great many cases where there would now be grants. It is understood to be the Government's intention to move towards a system in which loans will be the norm rather than grants, although as the noble Baroness has made clear, grants are not ruled out. It is a fact that this understanding of the Government's intention has caused a great deal of apprehension and concern among people who have to deal all the time with those who are unfortunate enough to require supplementary benefit. As I said in my opening remarks, the feeling is that if you switch over to a system which is mainly of loans and deduct the repayments from the income support, you will be putting people on to an income

619
which is below subsistence level; that they will suffer deprivation as a consequence and that you will put them into debt, and perhaps greater debt than they may well be in already. It is this feeling which so many people have that lies behind the amendment.
The amendment makes it clear that the intention of the Bill would not be what at the moment is understood to be the Government's policy; but that as the general rule the officials would be seeking to provide, as now, grants, whereas there might well be cases where loans were appropriate or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, even requested. This would make clear the general principle and the general line in which it was anticipated that the DHSS and its officials would go. It is argued that that is not guidance of sufficient strength. But it is guidance of very much greater strength than is in the Bill at the present time. There is no proper guidance in the Bill at the present time but it is understood that the Government intend to go in a particular direction—hence the alarm. The inclusion of this amendment would, as the right reverend Prelate said, establish the principle.
That is what we on these Benches and those who support the amendment want to do today. We want to establish the principle that the main emphasis of the administration of the social fund will be to provide grants, while it is not ruled out that there could be circumstances in which loans might be appropriate. I beg to move.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkender, B.

Amherst, E.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Attlee, E.

Fitt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Flowers, L.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Heycock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, L.

Darwen, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kaldor, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kearton, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ennals, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Listowel, E.

620

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shepherd, L.

McNair, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Mar, C.

Southwark, Bp.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stamp, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Walston, L.

Oram, L.

Warnock, B.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.

[Teller.]

Willis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rea. L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ypres, E.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Auckland, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Henley, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blake, L.

Kemsley, V.

Blakenham, V.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brentford, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cathcart, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cowley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marchwood, V.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Derwent, L.

Middleton, L.

Dilhorae, V.

Monson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Newall, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Nome, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glanusk, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Glenarthur, L.

L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Polwarth, L.

621

Porrit, L.

Teviot, L.

Portland, D.

Teynham, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Quinton, L.

Torrington, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Tranmire, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reigate, L.

Trumpington, B.

Richardson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Vickers, B.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Watkinson, V.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wise, L.

Shannon, E.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Yarborough, E.

Sudeley, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Young of Graffham, L.

Terrington, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 41, line 25, at end insert ("in relation to a mother of any age;")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to restore to mothers who are under 16 years of age their entitlement to maternity benefit, which they at present hold in their own right. Under the provisions of the Bill, those schoolgirl mothers would only qualify for social fund payments as dependants of their own parents. Their parents will only be eligible for payment of the grant for their daughter if they are themselves either on income support or family credit. For those potential grandparents who rise just above the threshold for income support or family credit there would be no other source of help available.
Fortunately, we are dealing here with only a very small group. In 1983, the number of births to mothers aged under 16 was no more than 1,226. On the other hand, I am sure it would be generally agreed that, although those young mothers are a very small group, they are a very vulnerable one. Statistics show that the risk of stillbirth or of early death to babies born to mothers as young as that is two and a half times that for the population as a whole. The high incidence of illness and early death among babies born to such very young mothers would seem to indicate that they do need more support, and that one should not take away the little support that they have at present.
In the debate in the other place on this particular issue, two arguments were put up to justify the removal of maternity grant to schoolgirl mothers. The Minister responsible first struggled with the concept of a parental responsibility if the parent was a girl under the age of 16. However, if one accepts the fact that at present we recognise and support young mothers' family responsibilities by paying them child benefit, and one parent benefit if appropriate in their own right, then surely it is illogical not to accept that they have a parental responsibility if they are under the age of 16. Therefore, their entitlement to help with their maternity costs should be considered in the same light.
Secondly, there was the argument that giving benefits to mothers under the age of 16 might
622
encourage under-age pregnancies. However, a payment of £75 could hardly be considered an adequate inducement to a girl of 14 or 15 to take the enormous step into motherhood. Indeed, the figures show that since the Government made a maternity grant available to those under 16 in 1982, together with other mothers who were entitled to it, there has been a small reduction in the number of pregnant schoolgirls who actually had their babies.
The amendment does not ask for any new or additional benefit for those very young and vulnerable mothers. It simply seeks to restore that which the Bill will take away from them. It would give them direct help when they need extra support very much, one would have thought, to be better parents. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon this amendment. As I have said, it is entirely logical and rational. However, if the Minister does not agree, she will have to explain on what grounds that most needy group is to be deprived of the little help to which its members are currently entitled. We are all critical of the girl of 14 or 15 who has a baby, and of course it is entirely to be deplored. But it is the interest of the baby that must be considered. It is that interest we have in mind and which this amendment would in some small measure safeguard.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, has drawn attention to the position of young mothers under the age of 16 in relation to the social fund. I congratulate her on raising this important subject but must say at the outset that I cannot agree to the proposal. The noble Baroness asked me for an explanation, and I would have thought that that was what I was going to give her when I rose to my feet.
When considering this issue we should remember one simple fact. Young people aged under 16 are still legally children. Consequently they will normally be in full-time education and living at home in the care of their parents or with a guardian. If circumstances prevent that, then they will not be able to take up a tenancy and establish their own household. In those circumstances, they would probably be in care—especially so in the case of a young child who has had a baby. It remains my view that it would not be sensible to treat young persons under 16 as having become independent adults, with independent title to benefit, simply because they have had a child.
I remind the Committee that that approach does not represent a change in government policy but rather one that has been adopted by successive governments. It has always been the case, for instance, that young girls in that position would be excluded from supplementary benefit. Their needs and that of their children continue to be aggregated with the young mothers' parents. We do not propose any change in the principle for income support. To allow access to payments from the social fund would, quite rightly, lead to accusations of inconsistency on our part.
It is our intention with the social fund that we should adopt the same approach to the problem as we do now in the supplementary benefit scheme. Supplementary benefit single payments are not payable to young mothers under 16 in their own right. But if the young parent's father or mother—the

623
grandparent—is in receipt of supplementary benefit, he or she will be entitled to claim a single payment for maternity expenses. We believe that that is the best way to direct help to households most in need. I remind the Committee that help from the social fund will be available to young mothers living with parents who are receiving family credit as well as those receiving income support. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard that explanation, will withdraw her amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: Earlier, the noble Minister was pleading the cause of families who were just above the social security level and saying how sorry she was for these poorly paid families. Now she does not seem to have the same sympathy towards a poorly paid family just above the supplementary benefit level whose daughter is found to be pregnant. What will happen in families in that situation, where often there is a great deal of discord?
I feel that my noble friend made out the case very well. There will be considerable expenditure which the parents will have to meet. I know that in the other place the Minister emphasised that the plight of these young girls is the responsibility of their parents, and I wish that real life was like that. I can see difficulties in the fact that extra financial burdens are placed on parents who may not be very sympathetic, who may be separated and who may have their own debts and money troubles as well as their emotional difficulties in accepting the situation. However, to have further money difficulties cannot add to the harmony in any family which finds itself in this situation.
I share my noble friend's concern about the baby. There must be all sorts of difficulties for a baby born in such circumstances. There are higher rates of illness and neonatal mortality among them. I should have thought we would all agree that this was an area where we could do something to help. Fortunately, it is not a frequent problem but there are too many schoolgirl mothers in difficulties and too many of them belong to families who are already deprived and, as I said, poor but not poor enough to benefit from social security payments.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness must forgive me if I return to the debate. She obviously did not listen to me, because I said that help was available to the families of children. We believe that the best way to direct help to households most in need is to give the family help for a child of theirs who has borne a child.
The numbers of births we are talking about were 1,263 in 1983 and 1,328 in 1984. We are indeed compassionate about those on very low incomes, which is why we are supporting the families of children who give birth to babies and who are living with them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: When I asked the Minister for an explanation I merely meant a justification for the change, and it is indeed a change from the present system, where a young schoolgirl mother gets maternity benefit in her own right. When my noble friend said that the families need this benefit she meant
624
those families who are above the threshold for income support and family benefit but who are still very poor and who will lose out on this benefit altogether because their daughter will not receive benefit in her own right. I think it is inconsistent to pay them child benefit and one-parent family benefit and yet say they are not independent and that they are a member of the family. As I said, this is a completely inconsistent change, whereas at the moment there is a consistency in which these schoolgirl mothers receive benefits—all three of them—in their own right.
It is a pity that the Minister has been unable to give a satisfactory answer. However, I will look at what she said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Within the scheme prescribed in subsection (l)(c) above, regulations shall make provision for entitlement in prescribed circumstances to grants in respect of essential items of furniture and household equipment and other essential items for which periodic payments of income support do not provide.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
This amendment is at least precise; unlike Amendment No. 88ZA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took exception for its imprecision. This amendment is, incidentally, also about grants or loans, but there can be no question about the precision of its wording. It states that within the subsection (l)(c)—that is, not maternity and not death grants—
Baroness Trumpington: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening but may I ask a question? In the grouping of amendments that I have, the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 89 and speaking to Amendment No. 95. Am I correct?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is what has been arranged and I am quite happy that it should be so, although I was not exactly consulted.
The amendment is as precise as it can be made because it refers only to an entitlement—and no one can quarrel with the word "entitlement"—that in prescribed circumstances grants (grants, not loans) shall be made in respect of essential items of furniture, household equipment and so on for which periodic payments of income support do not provide.
The present position is that single payments, by regulations, shall provide for one-off grants for families with children, and others living on the poverty line, for a range of bulky items of expenditure which either cannot be foreseen or cannot be met out of the basic rate of benefit. These include basic items such as bedding, furniture, and household equipment without which families could not live in their own homes but would have to live in institutional care.
The Bill proposes that grants would be limited to a few very closely defined situations, and these are so closely defined and so few that a large number of those

625
people who, in existing circumstances, are in receipt of the payments which I am saying should be an entitlement would no longer receive those payments. One way of putting it is that this amendment seeks to provide for the maintenance of the status quo; and that is exactly so. I do not wish to say anything against the concept of the fund but I think that one should not be so rigid as to say that it shall be the fund and only the fund without one or two essential entitlements. I maintain that this amendment is concerned solely with those whose entitlement should be justified on the ground of essential need.
I illustrate what would happen if, for example, those who are on income support had a loan but not a grant. I understand that the DHSS proposes that 10 per cent. of the claimant's income support would be deducted at source for the repayment of a loan. The claimant would then be existing at 10 per cent. below the poverty line. However, a great number of these claimants already are in debt for fuel, which may be another 5 per cent; so there would be poor people living at 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. below the poverty line if they receive, by way of loan rather than grant, what I suggest should be an entitlement.
This is a large number of people. I am told that if only two-thirds of single payments were replaced by loans, the number of families that were forced into debt and had to live from an income of between 10 and 15 per cent. below the poverty line during the period of the repayments would be between half a million and three quarters of a million. It is of those people alone that I am speaking.
Perhaps I may add that the effects of a loan system on the 8,000 or so young people who are released from care each year would be very considerable. Is it really right that such vulnerable young people should begin their adult life in debt? It can only have adverse consequences. I believe that Mr. Tony Newton in a note to the Standing Committee dealing with this Bill in another place said that work on this part of the social fund (that is, grants or loans for one-off expenses or community care needs) is at an earlier stage of development than arrangements for maternity payments and funeral payments, and that there is a certain amount of time—two years or so—for these needs to be formulated. I think that two years is really a long time to wait for the formulation of this important category of need. Also, I should have thought that the decision should be made by Parliament rather than by the Minister. It is on those grounds that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment which the noble Lord has just moved and also to speak to Amendment No. 95, which has a very similar purpose. As I understand it, under the amendment that is now before the Committee grants will be available for furniture and household necessities, whereas under Amendment No. 95 payments for removal expenses and essential furniture and essential household repairs will not be repayable.
Scottish Women's Aid, which is a registered charity that gives advice, support and refuge to battered women and their children, has drawn my attention to a particular situation. Mrs. T and her three children came into the Women's Aid Refuge because of her
626
husband's violent behaviour toward her. Mrs. T was given a tenancy of her own by the local authority. As is often the case for women fleeing from violence, she had to leave her furniture behind in the marital home and her husband refused to give her anything from the house. Under the current legislation Mrs. T would be entitled to a grant from the DHSS for essential furniture and household items. As we understand it, under the proposed legislation the money obtained by Mrs. T to set up home could take the form of a loan from the social fund. Given her situation as a single parent, who is in poorly paid full-time work and has all the attendant child care problems, it would be totally unrealistic to expect her to repay the money, since any repayment would reduce her income to below the poverty line. I think that that particular example helps to illustrate the importance of this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support this amendment. In particular I have in mind the homeless who are living in bed and breakfast accommodation and, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, young people who are coming out of care. As it stands at the moment, the law under the Children and Young Persons Acts cannot help any child who comes out of care at the age of 18. Even if they find one unfurnished room, which is what these young people usually find, they have no means of purchasing a bed or any furniture whatsoever. Moreover, if they are to be given a loan, they will never be able to repay it. I regret to have to say that various misfortunes stem from this situation and the young people get deeper into debt or into trouble. Therefore, in the light of such cases I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in this amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I want to be very brief in supporting both the amendments—the one that is proposed and the one that has been spoken to. I have added my name to both amendments. The group of persons upon which I should like to touch is a group that has been mentioned earlier, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod; namely, those who have been discharged from psychiatric hospitals, having in many cases been there for a long time, and who are either moving into group homes or into some other form of community accommodation. Certainly they will come out of hospital without furniture or household effects and in some cases there may be need for essential household repairs.
Both the amendments before the Committee relate to a large number of people. I think it is good that we— the Government and the country—are managing to proceed as fast as circumstances and the funds permit to ensure the discharge of patients who do not need to be in a psychiatric hospital. They should be in the community, but we cannot expect them to come back into the community and settle down unless they can obtain the necessary furniture and other items that are essential to enable them to set up home. If the first thing that they are asked to do is to start repaying a loan, they will be in very great difficulty.
Viscount Buckmaster: I, too, should like to support this amendment and I do so particularly in the context

627
of refugees. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know, there are a number of refugees who come to this country from warm climates in the colder months of the year and their need for warm clothes is absolutely vital. They need warm clothing, footwear and various other essential items. I myself have seen refugees who have come to this country with the scantiest of clothing and I feel that in that context this amendment is very helpful.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Viscount who has just spoken has to some considerable extent undermined the case for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was on a very strong point when he mentioned the person who is discharged from a psychiatric hospital, because it is quite obvious that if help of this sort is to be given, it is required to be given by grant. It would be absurd to do it by loan.
Of course, the trouble is that the terms of the amendment that the noble Lord is supporting go far wider than that and when read with Amendment No. 95, or even independently of it, they appear to imply that in all cases grants shall be made for this purpose and in no cases shall loans be made. That seems to me to be going too far. It is perfectly possible that there could be circumstances in which loans were the appropriate method of financing these particular needs. The obvious example is that of someone who has had a series of misfortunes but who has considerable earning capacity. When he has been helped, and properly helped, by the social fund through those troubles, he will be able to earn on a substantial scale, and can be expected to do so. Thus he would be in a position to repay the social fund. Indeed, he might even wish to opt for a loan for reasons of self-respect.
The example that has been quoted by the noble Viscount who has just spoken of the refugee coming to our cold climate in winter is a case in point. Many such refugees are people of very considerable ability and considerable earning capacity. They come here as refugees and, as the noble Viscount has quite rightly said, they need warm clothing at once. However, in a matter of months they might be earning extremely well and it is really quite absurd in those circumstances to exclude such cases from being dealt with by way of loan.
Therefore it seems to me that the amendment goes too far. Otherwise, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says, that probably the great majority of these are cases for grant. I think that my noble friend would be quite wrong to accept an amendment which makes it grant in all cases and excludes the possibility of loan in any case whatever.
Viscount Buckmaster: With great respect to the noble Lord, it is extremely unlikely that such refugees would be in a position to earn quickly. Indeed, it may take a year or more before their position in the country is legalised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Illegal immigrants are another matter. I am not sure that an amendment designed to benefit illegal immigrants is particularly attractive to the Committee. But many legal
628
immigrants—which is what I am talking about—have great earning capacity. The noble Viscount has only to bear in mind the Pakistanis, who arrive here and almost invariably set up a highly successful shop—which generally, I am glad to say, provides sales on Sundays and follows therefore the view of this House as to the propriety of Sunday shopping. They are earning excellently. It is quite wrong to say that it must be presumed that any refugee will be in poverty for years. I am glad to say that many of them are not.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On the last occasion that the Committee met we heard from my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the refugees she helped in Oxfordshire, who bought, I think five houses, and paid back every penny of a loan.
Lord Ennals: As chairman of the Ockenden Venture, which has been responsible for the resettlement of half the quota of Vietnamese refugees settled here, I happen to be deeply involved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Very successfully.
Lord Ennals: Very successfully, yes, but not in terms of employment. That was the point that I was going to make to the noble Lord. They arrive here without linguistic abilities and often with skills which are not immediately needed, and they may often need retraining. For many, employment possibilities in their first two years or so are slight. Otherwise, I agree absolutely with everything that the noble Lord said. He recognised that there were certain circumstances when loans would be appropriate and other circumstances when grants would be appropriate. If the noble Baroness agreed about that, I should be happy.
Lord Kaldor: Would the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, support Amendment No. 89 if there were inserted after the words,
"in prescribed circumstances to grants",
the words,
"or loans, as may be appropriate"?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord that that would be an immense improvement to the amendment, but whether it is necessary at all to legislate on the point is a matter on which I should like to hear my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Banks: Is the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, correct in saying that Amendment No. 89 excludes loans? It seems to me that Amendment No. 95 does, but Amendment No. 89 says:
"for entitlement in prescribed circumstances to grants".
That seems to qualify it, and I think perhaps that meets his point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 89, he will see that it refers to grants only.
Baroness Trumpington: As Amendment No. 88 has already been carried, there is now written into the Bill a provision for payments from the social fund to be

629
governed by regulations. The Committee has already provided for a measure of entitlement; we must consider that. I note the noble Lord's further comments on this amendment.
Let me say a few words specifically on Amendment No. 95. It provides for a sharp distinction among items of help. That is not the approach that we intend. Indeed, it takes us back to the drawbacks of the current regulations. It would quickly become a matter of contention as to which items of furniture or household equipment were essential. There would tend to be endless arguments as to where lines should be drawn. We are proposing that decisions on whether a payment should be a grant or a loan will depend more on the surrounding circumstances of the need and the individual rather than the fact of whether it is on a checklist of items.
We have always made it clear that certain payments from the social fund, including those to support community care needs, will be in the form of grants and not loans. As my honourable friend the Minister of State indicated in another place, we would consider help in the circumstances where a woman was leaving home as a result of domestic violence. Similarly, we would consider a grant for essential furniture and household equipment to a lone parent setting up home after a marital breakdown or domestic violence.
On the question of refugees, we shall ensure that asylum-seekers get help with living expenses much as we do now. As we have previously indicated, we are considering making the help available through income support rather than the social fund, and we shall also consider sympathetically what help might be given to asylum-seekers with, for example, immediate clothing needs.
With regard to young people leaving care, I am glad to say that that is one of the vulnerable groups for whom we shall be considering grants to set up home in the community. I submit to the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the mover not to press it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is an emollient reply, if I may say so. I should like to respond in the same way. First, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not sitting down when she rose to interrupt my opening speech. I suppose that I more than most should have known better.
Secondly, let me say a brief word about what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, although I know that it is dangerous to do so because he comes back on the riposte. He again brought forward the example of the man who is down on his luck, who has to resort to income support, but in due course may earn a great deal. He is right to draw attention to that rare case. I wish that it was frequent, and I hope that it will be more and more so. But that man will still be the exception, even if there are many more, as I hope there will be. But I think that he would be quite happy to repay the loan voluntarily. If he did not do so, perhaps he would be happy to repay it through the tax system. I regard it as a good but not very important point, and not one that destroys the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I anticipated a riposte!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As always, the noble Lord is most courteous. Given what he said—that there will be cases in which a loan would be a perfectly sensible provision and that indeed the man might voluntarily repay it—why in his amendment does he limit the provision to grants? Why not have grants or loans, as appropriate?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the amendment was to be agreed subject to that amendment, no one would be happier than I. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to put down that amendment and I should be happy to agree with it.
In her reply I thought that the noble Baroness made a promising reference to the fact that the Committee has accepted Amendment No. 88, which was to leave out "directions given" and insert "regulations made". I am very keen indeed on that amendment. After all, there are two parts to the amendments which were taken together. One was that there should be regulations laid before Parliament and the other was the independent appeal; there are two elements. Taking the regulations argument, the noble Baroness has given almost a hint that that might be, if not accepted, at least considered sympathetically.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry for jumping up. Lord Henderson of Brompton: I sit down at once.
Baroness Trumpington: No hints; it was a mere statement of fact.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: No more than that; no hint that it may be sympathetically considered. If that amendment were to stay, I should perhaps be happier that this amendment could be withdrawn. That puts me in something of a difficulty. Before 1 do one thing or the other, I should perhaps say to the noble Baroness that I sympathise very much with the kind of person she has in mind. She asks us to remember the man or the family whose income from employment is marginally above income support and how unfair it would be if those below income support were to receive benefits which that man or family could not obtain. I sympathise with that, but I ask her to sympathise with the case that I put forward, which is of those who are on income support and who therefore live below the income suport level, if from the start they have to pay 10 per cent. of the loan and perhaps 5 per cent. of a fuel bill. They may well have to pay 5 per cent. for late payments for fuel in addition to 10 per cent. for the loan from the DHSS. They will therefore be living 15 per cent. below the poverty line.
The noble Baroness has given us one kind of person or family to wring the heart, and I give another. They should both be considered. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the few exceptions who could repay a loan are so few that I should prefer to

631
leave my amendment drafted precisely as it is now, for grants and not for loans.
I am in the hands of the Committee as to whether or not to press the amendment. I should quite like to withdraw it at this stage, pending a decision by the Government as to whether they will accept Amendment No. 88. If I have the feeling of the Committee, and without prejudice to bringing this matter back at a later stage, that for that reason it is desirable to withdraw, I shall do so. May I have the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved. ]
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be a direction in calculating social fund payments to registered blind persons that the existing separate blind addition shall be maintained.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides for the continuation of the special allowances for the blind. There has been a long tradition in this country of recognising the special needs of blind people. Preferential treatment for them was incorporated in the national assistance scheme as a continuation of local authority practices under the Blind Persons Acts of 1920 and 1938. There is nothing revolutionary, therefore, in what I have suggested.
Between 1948 and 1980 there were separate blind scale rates. The adult rate exceeded the ordinary scale rate by 15s, as it used to be, in 1948. The extra allowance for blind people was set at its present level of £1·25 in November 1969. It has not been increased since. If it had been increased in line with the movement of the retail price index, it would be well over £8. I understand that the Government have no plans to review the allowance.
I have also to ask the noble Baroness if she knows whether the Inland Revenue will continue to allow a personal allowance of £360 a year against income tax for blind persons. That was introduced because blind persons who have earnings that bring them within the tax limit usually have higher expenses. They often have a blind dog or escorts to take them to work. If they type, they need a Braille typewriter, which is more expensive than an ordinary one. In many ways, blind people who try to earn their living earn it at considerable cost, and that is why there has been this arrangement with the Treasury.
I know that the Minister will say that what the Treasury does has nothing to do with her in her present capacity. That only underlines a fact that has been stated again and again in these debates. Until we have some communion between the Treasury and the DHSS, we shall not have this whole subject of benefits and taxation right. I do not apologise for raising the matter today. I hope that the noble Baroness can at least assure us that the Government do not intend to alter that arrangement, for the time being anyhow.
There is an old principle in industrial negotiations that I have often found in social security regulations: that when one makes changes one tries to stick by custom and practice as far as practicable, and to
632
establish a "no detriment" provision. I do not think it would be the Committee's wish to make blind people worse off and to take away something that they already have.
When I raised this matter on Second Reading I was told—and I have been into the matter since—that blind people would be treated as the disabled and would receive disability help. However, I have received no undertaking that there would be any extra help by virtue of their blindness. I know that not everyone agrees that there should be, but if the result of the change means that blind people are to be worse off after the Bill comes into effect than they are now, that would be regrettable.
The question was raised on 22nd February 1984 in this Chamber, and the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"Although we are sympathetic to the case for the introduction of a special cash allowance for all blind people, it would be wrong for me to suggest that the necessary resources are likely to become available in the foreseeable future."
—[Official Report, 22/2/84; col. 840.]
It seemed to me that the then Minister was not opposing the matter on principle because he said he was sympathetic to it, and it was a question of whether he could find the money to introduce it.
A great deal of anxiety is being caused to a great many blind people because the Bill is unclear as to the basis of the calculations of the amounts which they are to receive. It would put at rest the minds of everybody who is concerned about blind people for them to know that there would be no detriment and that a fact of life will be that their income support, whether from tax or social security, will be maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I support the noble Baroness. However, I should like to make a slight correction to what she said about the period during which the blind addition has not been changed. In fact, it goes back to 1962, apart from a 2½p rise on the introduction of decimalisation in 1969. We have not moved on that figure for nearly a quarter of a century. As the noble Baroness said, had the amount moved in relation to the retail price index, it would now have been about £8.
Setting aside the question of the amount, the real argument is that the Government proposal, as I understand it, is that in fact all the additions which many blind people receive at the moment should be subsumed in the new disablement premium, which is a sum of £12.25. The trouble with that is that in the past blind people have been entitled to a considerable number of additions which, taken together, in many cases work out at more than the disablement premium. Many of them are likely to find themselves worse off under the Government's proposals.
Let us take, for example, a single blind person currently receiving the following supplementary benefit payments: the long-term rate of £37.50; the blindness addition of £1.25; the heating addition of £5.45; the diet addition for a slimming diet of £1.60; water rates of £1.35, and maintenance and insurance £1.85. That adds up to £49. If we deduct the available scale margin, that comes out at £48. Under the Government's proposals, as I understand them, that

633
person would now receive £42.85 a week from income support—that is to say, £30.60 plus the £12.25 disablement premium—and the net loss would be £5.15. Now the additions that I have mentioned in that case are very usual in the case of blind people. The heating addition is certainly greatly needed by people who are confined by blindness to the home and who therefore consume more fuel.
There is another case which I shall not go into in detail except to note that it includes a diabetic addition. This Committee will be aware that diabetes is frequently associated with blindness and in this case there is an addition of £3.70 on that specific account. There is also a heating addition of £3.70 and a laundry addition of £3.25. In this second case the net loss under the Government's proposals is £4.05.
I have given these instances but I could give many more examples, some of which involve larger losses. However, I have tried to choose cases which are representative and therefore more likely to affect a larger number of people. It does seem to me that in these circumstances it is an absolutely minimal requirement that, apart from the net losses that they may suffer from the transfer from the additions under the supplementary benefit system to the new disablement premium, blind people should not also suffer the loss of the £1.25 which has not been changed in 25 years. That seems to be adding insult to injury for people who are among the most disadvantaged in the whole of our society.
I, along with the noble Baroness, very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will say that is not the Government's intention, and that the Bill as drafted is not intended to make blind people worse off. In so far as it does have this unfortunate effect, I hope she will say that at least there will be the amelioration of preserving the blind persons' addition. This certainly ought to be put up. We are not, however, moving that in this amendment but merely seeking the preservation of what exists. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will give us good news on this.
Lord Wolfson: I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. In human terms it is morally right, and this is one of those occasions when both the heart and the head can work in unison. I hope the Government will agree.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may start by saying that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are addressing the wrong part of the Bill. Their concerns are to do with the arrangements for regular weekly benefit covered in Part II, dealing with income support, and not the social fund.
If I may say at the outset of my reply to the noble Baroness that I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee, perhaps I can explain the reasons why and hope to take the noble Baroness with me. She is quite right to highlight the fact that blind people receive recognition in the supplementary benefit scheme. This takes the shape of a weekly addition of £1·25 which is payable automatically to blind people. There is also an addition which can be paid by blind non-householders; but I think that when we refer to the blind addition we generally mean the weekly
634
addition of £1·25. This additional help is the only help given solely because of blindness.
When we introduce income support we shall be replacing the system of weekly additions, including that for blindness, with a better system of premiums. These will also be paid weekly and will go to particular groups. One of the premiums, as the Committee will know, is for disabled people and an entitlement for this will be blindness. Therefore blind people will automatically receive this additional help through weekly income support, and I hope the Committee will agree that the new scheme helps to carry forward the help which is currently available to blind people. I am sure that this is right. However, I am not convinced that it is for the social fund to give an extra weekly payment to blind people if that is the intention of the amendment. We have made it clear that the social fund is intended normally to deal with one-off payments to meet unexpected or particularly expensive needs. The Committee will realise that this is different from weekly income support. Indeed, the main thrust of our proposals is to split the two forms of support. There is no provision for additions to be made to single payments in the current scheme, and I am sure the Commitee will agree that if a payment is intended to meet the cost of an item, then that should be the determining factor rather than that of a characteristic of a person.
I realise that the noble Baroness is concerned to maintain the position of blind people and believes that this amendment might be the best means of achieving that goal; but I think this still confuses the roles of the two schemes. If a blind person has his underlying entitlement in some way reduced by the switch from supplementary benefit to income support, then transitional arrangements will ensure that there is no drop in cash income. But this will be achieved by an addition to weekly benefit and not by additions to one-off payments. Therefore I hope it will be seen that we must leave the special provisions for weekly help to income support and not to the social fund. Otherwise we lose the gains from our proposals for structural reform.
The noble Baroness mentioned Inland Revenue. This is not a matter for this Bill, as she acknowledged; but I shall draw her concern and her remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, the Chancel-lor of the Exchequer. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that as blindness is a qualification for the disablement premium there is no need to make a separate provision as she suggests.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I hope that I heard her rightly when she said that she could state that there would be no cash loss for blind people. That will give them some reassurance.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Baroness Jeger: I appreciate that it is not for the noble Baroness to talk about income tax, but I think it is very important for that allowance to be maintained because it is expensive for blind people to get to work; it is expensive for them to keep a guide dog; and it is

635
expensive for them to have escorts. I think the blind are very brave. I often see them getting on buses and I admire them very much. I hope the blind will be protected. I understand that this part of the Bill will not come into force in any case until April of 1988, and I am sure that by then we shall have a different government and we can look at this again. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 41, line 33, after ("amounts") insert ("as are necessary to meet fully all social fund payments, and there shall be no other determining factor as regards the amount of payments into the fund, and he shall make payments").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of the amendment is to prevent the fixing of cash limits for the social fund. Clearly cash limits would be inappropriate and a demand-led area like the social fund. In particular, there could be extra unexpected claims due to factors like very bad weather and floods, successful take-up campaigns, and higher and longer unemployment than has been estimated.
Recent experience in the growth in single payments shows how difficult it is to give exact predictions. For example, I gather that the figures were under £1 million in 1981 and over £4 million in 1985.I believe that reference has already been made to these differing amounts. If social fund officers are overwhelmed by demands for help, if there are no rules of entitlement, and if officers have to function within a cash ceiling, it must be concluded that many needs will remain unmet while others will be met only in part. Claimants who call upon the fund at the beginning of the financial year may well have a better chance of success than those whose need arises eight or 10 months later. Claimants in different parts of the country could well come out with different amounts or different treatment.
The level of deprivation is difficult to anticipate. But social services departments may well find themselves full of desperate claimants whose needs are purely financial. The government have argued that claims for single payments are limited and that many claimants receive little help from single payments. It is probably true that claimants in touch with a social services department or advice agency will be more likely to apply for single payments than others. As with all means-tested benefits, it is likely to be the case that the most deprived and vulnerable claimants will be the least likely to claim payments unless supported by an agency. This, however, is not an argument for imposing a cash ceiling to limit the benefits available for those who do come forward to claim. It is an argument for improving communication about benefits and for improving advice services.
If this amendment is not carried and if the Government do not change their mind, it can be foreseen that charities will be snowed under with applications for assistance and forced to ration their money. Already, it is said that some charities are imposing arbitrary limits on sums allocated to clients in order to spread their help as widely as possible in the face of an every growing volume of genuine need.
636
Social fund officers reaching the limit of funds available could well be beseiged in their offices by desperate claimants. We have had some discussion in the Chamber about the problems that already face social security officers with shortages of staff and the number of people who now have to have recourse to social benefits.
A cash ceiling on the social fund may meet the short-term needs of the Treasury, but it will cost more in the longer run and will cause chaos and considerable hardship at grass-roots level. Since we have agreed this afternoon to adopt an amendment providing for a method of appeal, this will clearly have an effect on the original concept of a fund that was cash limited. I ask whether the noble Baroness can make a statement in that regard this afternoon. I believe that the passage of the amendment has an impact on the concept of a cash limited social fund. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment. The idea that special needs—needs that are admitted by the Government to be special—should depend on a fund that is cash limited must give rise to considerable concern. It would certainly appear to mean that whether an award, however justified, is made or not, this must depend on how much cash is in the fund at any time. It would seem to be true, as the noble Baroness said, that those who claim early in the financial year would appear to be better placed to make sure of getting their award than those who come later in the year. If some are not to be in danger of not getting their special needs met, it is difficult to see what the cash limitation means.
Baroness Trumpington: In responding to this amendment—I take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—I must preface my remarks by saying that in the light of the debate that has just taken place we shall need to consider the issues of regulations versus discretion and appeals versus reviews following this afternoon's vote. Clearly, the outcome could affect the status of the budget that we envisage for the social fund. Nevertheless, it is right that I should explain the thinking behind the proposals that the Government have put forward. I shall make my remarks on that basis.
This amendment seeks to constrain the role of the Secretary of State in making payments into the social fund. We have always made clear that there should be a limit to the role of the social fund. This limit is set by Ministers in two ways. First, the proposal is that the scope of the payments will be set out in published guidance and, secondly, the amount of money allocated to it will be in the form of a budget. Both of these will be open and public knowledge. It will be possible for us to discuss and agree—and disagree, I imagine—the limits set and the scope it allows the social fund. That is a matter of legitimate and sensible political debate.
There is nothing novel about this in some respects. There are many aspects of government spending which are governed by a budget. It provides a clear indication of the role of the government and, of course, it introduces an element of financial control. This introduction of financial control is the hall-mark, I submit, of responsible government. Expenditure on

637
single payments is mushrooming. We have seen it rise from £45 million in 1981 and £88 million in 1982 to a current level of over £300 million. This may be relatively small in terms of social security expenditure, but it would be foolish of any government to ignore this rise. The Committee will already be aware that we have referred proposals on the current single payments package to the Social Security Advisory Committee. But that cannot be a regular event and, of course, it is done on the basis of the current scheme.
As we move to the future, we choose to exert financial control by the means which are used elsewhere in government spending—that is, an annual budget. The question of proper financial control and planning of expenditure is inescapable, whatever the legal structure. Of course, having a budget means emphasis on monitoring of expenditure. It is not sensible to have one without the other. We shall need to watch our allocations carefully and react if they look wrong. Was our estimate unrealistic? Has the ground shifted suddenly since we made it? Is our guidance unclear? Any number of indications may be called into question. But this method of operating is responsible budget management and something I hope the Committee would welcome.
I must take the opportunity to comment on some of the criticisms of this approach. I am afraid that some of them have been far from sensible. There have been claims that, if a budget is set, some local offices will close down half-way through the year because their money has run out. One lurid picture was painted of groups of people going from office to office looking for one with money. And yet our White Paper responded specifically to this point. I can do no better than to quote from it:
"The purpose of a budget for the fund is to establish a system where there is effective monitoring and control of expenditure. But the Government recognise that it will take time for people to become accustomed to such a system, and that the system should be flexible enough to ensure that payments should not cease because a local office had run out of money before the end of the financial year".
We realise that in its early stages the system must be operated flexibly. But I do not see why the system cannot be accommodated. Such events do not happen in local authorities where social services departments have budgets. And so I hope that the Committee will understand why, given the whole nature of the fund and its intended effect, I cannot recommend acceptance of this amendment. It makes a nonsense of the whole idea if we establish a fund and then provide in the Bill that there can be only one determining factor as to the level of that fund.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask one or two questions as to how this will operate? First, can she tell me, since this is clearly a demand-led service, what is the difference between this and the family practitioner service? Would it not be inconceivable for a doctor to say to someone, "I am very sorry, we have finished. I have done my ration for the month", or the week, or the quarter, or whatever it was? Because it is a demand-led service it is the only part of the health service that is not cash limited. Cash limits apply to all the rest.
638
Can the noble Baroness explain to me how one can cash limit this type of demand-led service? Surely, one will not know in advance what the weather will be like, whether one will have a very cold winter, or what will happen to prices. All these factors which affect whether one needs to have a one-off payment seem to me to be issues on which it would be almost impossible to forecast.
How does a local manager operate, having been given his cash limit for a year; or is he given it for a month, three months, or six months? Does he divide it equally week by week? How does he do the job when clients come before him and say, "Please may I have this piece of furniture, this piece of clothing", or what have you? Can the noble Baroness explain to me how it can be cash limited?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I add something which is germane to what the noble Lord said? On an earlier amendment I made a note that the noble Baroness said that the budget will be handled flexibly so that it does not run out before the end of the year. Can she expand a little on what she means by that flexibility? Will that be done by scaling down means, for example, so that if someone has a specific need, one can meet only 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of it according to the time of the year? Can the noble Baroness expand on that a little?
Baroness Trumpington: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I would say that the budget would operate in exactly the same way as hospital services which are cash limited now. That is my answer to him.
From the flexibility point of view, it is not likely that there will be the same quantity of demand in each part of the country. Therefore, there will be flexibility to move money around. But it is precisely because of just these kind of factors that we have made clear that there will be flexibility. All people who provide services over a year have to plan the way they provide them—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the noble Baroness a question, so as to make sure that I have understood correctly what she has just said about the social fund? Does it imply that a responsibly budgeted social fund, which she has been indicating will be the case, would not be in any fundamental conflict with a responsibly operated appeal system?
Baroness Trumpington: I have already said that we would have to look at the way it operated and see whether we have the balance exactly right in every kind of way. Of course we want the whole scheme to be utterly successful. It would be rather stupid in our part if we did not. Therefore, when it comes to the time to put it into operation we shall have examined all those possibilities, always with the proviso that we can make changes if we find there is any trouble of any kind.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Does the Minister realise that she has given the game away by saying that the social fund will be cash limited in the way that the

639
hospital service is? Because the hospital service is cash limited we often have to close wards in order to save cash.
Lord Banks: I am not quite clear about this. The Bill seems to say that in making an award an officer must take into account any relevant allocation under Clause 32(4). That is stated in line 7 on page 43. Then, when one looks at Clause 32(4), one sees that it says:
"The Secretary of State may allocate an amount, or allocate different amounts for different purposes, for awards by a particular social fund officer or group of officers in a financial year".
It would appear, in dealing with a particular award, that an officer has to take into account what is in the fund. That seems to run rather contrary to what the noble Baroness has been telling the Committee.
Baroness Trumpington: I can only suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, reads what I have said.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Will the noble Baroness inform us whether her definition of "flexibility" would include provision for bringing forward supplementary estimates if the fund itself was clearly in danger of being exhausted?
Baroness Trumpington: I cannot possibly anticipate what my right honourable friend would wish to do, but I can certainly bring the remarks of the noble Lord to his attention.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find the response of the noble Baroness a little disappointing. It seems to me that she has not dealt with the questions that have been raised regarding what happens when one is dealing with social need where people are in desperate straits and a limit has been reached. As my noble friends on this side of the Committee have said, if one relates this to the hospital service, does this mean waiting lists? One would hope not. On the other hand, the situation has been slightly changed this afternoon because the amendment in relation to provision for appeal has been passed by the Committee. That plainly means that the social fund and regulations in connection therewith may have to be looked at.
I do not propose to press my amendment. I shall look very carefully through Hansard at what the noble Baroness has said and consider the matter again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Baroness sits down I must come back, if I may, and say this. The matter of waiting lists is a totally different question. It is a red herring which has been introduced into the debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 49, line 9, at end insert ("save that a social fund officer shall be under a duty not to disclose information relating to the personal circumstances of the applicant, other than to the applicant or his representative, without the prior consent of the applicant").
The noble Baroness said: Before moving Amendment No. 92 which is in my name and the
640
names of my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should point out that there is an error in the amendment as printed on the Third Marshalled List. The "special fund officer" should of course read the "social fund officer".
The purpose of this amendment is pretty clear. It is to prevent the social fund officer passing on to other people detailed personal information about an applicant without his prior consent. The Disablement Income Group, the British Council of Disabled People, the Spastics Society, RNIB, RADAR and the Disability Alliance all feel that this amendment is necessary. I feel that they are not being unduly sensitive. DIG has details of many instances where local authorities have distributed very personal details about disabled people to others, either directly, or indirectly through a third party, without asking for the client's consent.
It is very important that this should not happen with social fund officers who will be deeply involved in making inquiries about applicants and in relaying details about them. Indeed, the White Paper envisaged in paragraph 4.45 that the social fund officer,
"will be the focal point for liaison with outside agencies".
and a glance at Clause 33(9) will give an indication of just how deeply the social fund officer will have to delve.
The matter of confidentiality was discussed at a meeting that the disability organisations which I mentioned earlier had with the Minister for the disabled and the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that neither Minister would expect the social fund officer to act at variance with the spirit of this amendment, and so it is not out of line with Government thinking.
If we look at Clause 33, we see on page 43 at line 8 that subsection (10) provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines about the manner in which the social fund officer shall determine questions referred to in this clause. It may be that the Minister will consider that disclosure of information on a client could be covered by those guidelines, or she may even like my amendment. In that case, it is possible that it ought to be to Clause 33, not Clause 32; I am not sure about that. I look forward with a good deal of hope to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I should like to make one final point. It is important that the social fund officer should tell the applicant to whom he will disclose the personal information; he should not just receive blanket permission to disclose. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am not quite certain that the amendment is necessary. I understand that in this day and age everything is put on computers. Therefore, practically anyone can know anything that is put on a computer. Although I agree with the principle behind what the noble Baroness has said, I do not think it is a viable proposition.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. I take the point which was made by my noble friend Lady Macleod. I have been out of social work too long to know whether or not all the information is put on

641
computers, but I rather think that it is not. For instance, it is the most natural thing in the world for the social services department to telephone the supplementary benefit department and for the supplementary benefit department to telephone the social services department.
I should also point out that in this country there are a number of co-ordinating committees within local authorities which discuss various different cases and how best they can be helped. There is the procedure by which case conferences are held. Sometimes by using these mechanisms of co-operation we have rather slipped into discussing people and their circumstances without their permission and without their knowledge.
Speaking for myself, I always found, as the noble Baroness has said, that it was important to ask the permission of anyone whose case was to be discussed whether it could be discussed and whether it could be discussed with the particular people concerned. In 99 per cent. of cases approval was given, and if approval was not given there was very often very good reason. However, it is most important that people do not feel that their cases and their personal circumstances are bandied about without their approval and without their permission.
I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me for raising an additional matter. On Second Reading I took the opportunity to say that many of these problems would be overcome if the supplementary benefit offices were run in a different way. I paid tribute, as did my noble friend Lady Trumpington, to the staff in the supplementary benefit offices. I do not know how any of them manage to live from day to day, week to week and year to year doing what they have to do. I pay tribute to them.
However, I hope that when the Bill has completed its passage we may look at the way in which supplementary benefit offices are used and run. I submit that many of the problems about which we have had to talk today, particularly with regard to appeals and confidentiality, could be cut down to a considerable extent if the offices were run in a different way. I am sorry if I have overstepped the scope of the amendment. However, I support the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I do not believe that there is much between the Government and those who have put their name to the amendment. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said as a result of her experience, it is very difficult to resist the amendment. I only say to the Government that I should have thought that it would be good public relations for the Government to accept this amendment, or something like it. If the social fund is to work and is to be run by social fund officers, it is of prime importance that the confidence of the public should be attracted, especially the confidence of those who will be on that level of support and who will be, as it were, the customers of the social fund officers. For that reason alone I think that the amendment is well worth considering.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I am quite surprised at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because I
642
totally understand the concern which underlies the motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in moving the amendment. However, the confidentiality of information given to officials in the Department of Health and Social Security is a matter which we take very seriously, and, so do the officials themselves. I do not think that it would be a PR jot)—as the noble Lord suggested—from their point of view. I hope that my reassurance about the seriousness with which those working in local offices view the matter of confidentiality will be sufficiently good for the public.
I very much welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull who echoed what I said the other day about the excellence of those who work in those offices. The Committee may find it reassuring to know that social fund officers will be bound by the same rules which govern any other member of the DHSS about the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. That information includes any which comes to their notice in the course of their official duty and would, therefore, embrace any details which may be furnished to the social fund officer by the person seeking help. If that information were disclosed it would constitute a breach of staff rules, which would make the offender liable to disciplinary procedures.
I hope that the Committee will be content with that assurance, because I must suggest that it would not be advisable to press the amendment. I do not think it necessary to write this provision into Part III of the Bill any more than it is written into Part II for the purposes of income support, or, indeed, in the supplementary benefit Act at present. Moreover, we should be very careful not to circumscribe too closely in legislation the social fund officer's ability to respond to difficult circumstances.
I very much share the concern that my noble friend Lady Faithfull expressed about ensuring that any discussion is handled with due sensitivity. We must, at all costs, avoid people feeling that their personal details are being bandied about. However, occasionally a social fund officer will be dealing with a particularly difficult case and will have to establish contact with someone in the social services department, a hospital or a health authority. I could give the committee an example, but time is against me. It may be necessary in such circumstances, in the best interests of the person or his family, to speak confidentially to those professionals. However, I expect that to be very much the exception and that it would occur only in extremely special cases.
Officers of the department are bound by the staff rules on official secrecy and the disclosure of information. Those rules draw attention to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, which covers the actions of all civil servants. In addition, the rules emphasise that information relating to a claimant for benefits, pensions, allowance, etc., is to be regarded as held strictly in confidence. A breach of staff rules is not to be taken lightly. Staff are warned that disciplinary action will be taken in cases of unauthorised disclosure. We think that the matter can be covered in staff instructions.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Ennals: It will be for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), to decide whether or not to press her amendment to a vote. However, I was very disappointed in the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Certainly in my day—and I am certain that it applies now—the question of confidentiality was taken very seriously by the department. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that in my view—and the facts may prove me wrong—a computer is a safer measure of keeping information secret than a collection of papers in a file. I think effectively-run computers, with people not having natural access to them, are a much safer measure.
The noble Baroness said that it was not necessary to put this in because of the serious way in which the department took confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act, and that the social fund officers would undoubtedly do this. What she did not say in her answer was why it should not be put in. There are a number of reasons why it should be put in, even though the noble Baroness gives us an assurance that everything is right and that no one is going to pass on information. I am not casting any aspersions at all at those social fund officers who will be fulfilling their duty, but it is necessary to satisfy the applicants.
The people who will be worried about whether information they have given will be shared with someone else are the applicants. It may be that the applicants, unless they have an assurance—and they will have an assurance if it is written into the Bill—that information is not going to be disclosed, may be more reluctant to give information that they may be asked to give. Whereas if it is clearly known that there is no danger that that information will be disclosed, then they will feel satisfied and give such information as the social fund officer will need in order to make a fair and proper judgment.
I look at the wording.
"save that a social fund officer shall be under a duty not to disclose information relating to the personal circumstances of the applicant, other than to the applicant or his representative, without the prior consent of the applicant".
I cannot see what, in those words, the noble Baroness can disagree with.
If I may say so on a more general point—and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, took us slightly away from the central issue of the amendment—the purpose of a Committee stage is not for the Government automatically to defend everything that is in the Bill if the arguments go the other way, and yet the noble Baroness has resisted everything. I should have thought that this was in a sense completely inoffensive, utterly inexpensive, absolutely principled, and totally right. With all those considerations, and particularly bearing in mind the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who said that it would be nice to give this and rather nice to make a gesture, I think it would be rather nice for the noble Baroness to make a gesture before the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), makes her decision.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Baroness referred especially to what I said about the public relations exercise. I have no wish to speak against the social fund officers or to cast any aspersions on their goodwill and intentions. What I wished to
644
convey—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, did convey—was the public concern at the social fund in particular because of the element of discretion associated with it.
It is this element of discretion which makes the task of social fund officers that much more delicate than that of other officers of the department who now administer funds, which they have to do more or less by rule of thumb. It is this particularly delicate function that they are performing that requires that the public should have absolutely unmistakable confidence in them. For that reason, I believe that the argument I advanced has a special reference to this particular part of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My own doubts about this amendment were rather brought to a focus by the talk of making a gesture. It might well be that a gesture of this sort would have a rather less favourable effect on the staff of supplementary benefit offices and so on who, if consulted, might ask, "Why is it necessary? What have we been doing wrong?" I doubt whether the effect on them would be as salubrious or as salutary as has been suggested.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why this should not be accepted. There are two circumstances, neither very frequent, which would make for difficulty if this were enacted and put into the law. One is if investigation into the personal circumstances of an applicant were required for the purposes of a ministerial reply in this House or in another place if the case were raised, for example, by the local Member of Parliament of the person concerned. In those circumstances it would be necessary for the local officer to supply upwards the material required for briefing the Minister.
The other instance is of course if the personal circumstances of the applicant were relevant to the commission of a crime, and it became the duty, as I would see it, of the social fund officer to report the matter to the police. Both of those passings on of information would apparently be stopped if this were put into the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: May I take up the point that this would be implied to be some criticism of the social fund officer. If that were so. why was it necessary for us to have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which wrote into law that certain facts could not be revealed. There has never been any evidence that the police, or the people concerned with handling these people, revealed any information, and yet we had an Act of Parliament which made it clear to everyone that these facts would not be revealed. I cannot see any objection to having this written into an Act of Parliament under similar circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the noble Baroness misunderstood the point that I was trying to make, and I am sure that it was my fault. What might be revealed in the personal circumstances of an applicant could be plans for the commission of a criminal offence. In an extreme case it might be people associated with terrorists in Ireland. All these things might be revealed. It would not be frequent, but it

645
would be quite wrong to say, and to enact by Act of Parliament, that that information should not be passed on without the consent of the person concerned, particularly if that consent in those circumstances would plainly not be given.
Baroness Trumpington: As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, confidentiality rules are exactly on the same basis now as when he was Secretary of State. Therefore he is really undermining his own case in pleading for something different. This is not a matter that is appropriate for main legislation. What matters is how we discharge our responsibilities. My assurance on the way we shall discharge this duty should be enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know that we do not cover staff rules in main legislation, including, in relation to other sensitive matters, administration of attendance allowance, for instance. It does not make sense to separate out this element.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like first to thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment, and indeed all noble Lords who have spoken for or against it. I am rather surprised that such a small, innocuous amendment should stir up such a lot of talk. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who from her great experience said what she said about asking permission of a person about their personal details being bandied about, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his well-argued support.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that I tried to explain that the social fund officer will have to delve deeply into the lives of these clients, and as my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton said I think they should have some protection. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is really talking about something quite different. When I talk about intimate personal details, I am talking much more about people's toilet arrangements, or their situation with their wives, more than whether they are planning to rob the Bank of England, which one probably could disclose.
I am glad to hear what the noble Baroness said about breaching the rules of confidentiality. But I am disappointed. I thought she would say it could be covered in the guidelines to Clause 3(10)) and this could be written into the guidelines. I am more worried about what she said about certain instances when it might be in the interests of the client—
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble Baroness sits down—
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am sitting down!
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness must tell me! Perhaps I may give an example of what we are thinking about: it was given by an honourable friend in another place. A visiting officer may notice evidence of possible cruelty to a child and would probably refer the matter to the social services department so that it could determine whether the child was being maltreated. It is only within such narrow confines that staff would generally breach the strict rules on confidentiality. If the amendment were accepted it
646
would inhibit that useful and desirable practice of visiting officers and perhaps others in the department.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. This amendment may not be the answer, but I still think one could write into guidelines some way in which the social fund officer should behave. However I shall not divide the Committee. I shall read what she has said very carefully, go away and have a little think and I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness may have a little think as well. I reserve my right to come back at the next stage with something slightly different. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: This may be a convenient moment to break our proceedings. In moving that the House resumes may I suggest that we do not reconvene the Committee stage before 8 o'clock? I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords. I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 laid before your Lordships' House on 7th May be approved. The order is being made under Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The order provides the balance of the money necessary this financial year for the services provided by Northern Ireland departments and certain other public bodies. On 20th March this year your Lordships approved a total sum on account of £1.365 million. This evening I am seeking the balance of £1,840 million making up a total estimate for 1986–87 of £3,205 million. The Estimates Volume, which gives full details of projected expenditure, is available from the Printed Paper Office and your Lordships who have been studying these matters will have it before you.
In addition to the total I have just mentioned the draft order also appropriates the sum of £104,154.01. This sum is to cover excess expenditure in the 1984–85 financial year by the Department of Economic Development in Class II Vote 6, which we call "Administration and Miscellaneous Services". The Committee of Public Accounts has examined this excess vote and it raised no objection to it being voted. Details of the excess expenditure are set out in the "Statement of Excess " pamphlet which has also been placed in the Printed Paper Office, for your Lordship's convenience.
We see that recent developments in the general economic situation in Northern Ireland include elements of good and bad news. On the positive side the level of inflation, at around 3 per cent. per annum,

647
for the United Kingdom as a whole is at its lowest level for many years. In addition, interest rates continue to decline.
On the other hand, unemployment in the Province remains unacceptably high at approximately 21.5 per cent. This remains the worst figure for any region of the United Kingdom. While the news of the closure of the Rothmans factory at Carrickfergus was a further blow, the success of the Harland and Wolff-led consortium in winning the Ministry of Defence contract for the first auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel, was most welcome news. I shall say more about this when I come to the appropriate estimate.
Unemployment does however remain the paramount economic problem in Northern Ireland. The estimates before your Lordships reflect increases in public expenditure as part of Government's commitment both to the creation of viable jobs, and to the support of those who are unemployed. The Government continue to spend more per head of the population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Public expenditure alone, however, is not necessarily the answer; rather, our aim is to create an environment in which private enterprise and initiative can thrive in order to encourage the creation of self-sustaining, long-term employment. Your Lordships will be aware that there have been encouraging results in this area from the small business development unit, what we call LEDU, in Northern Ireland.
In the order we find that Class I of the main estimates covers agriculture, which is particularly dear to my heart. Your Lordships are being asked to approve a total provision of some £75 million. This is made up of £16 million for agricultural education, research and development; some £12 million for direct agricultural support mainly through the continuation of the programme of special aids for Northern Ireland; £28 million for administration and miscellaneous services, which cover among other things advisory and veterinary services; £13 million for drainage, and finally £5 million for forestry. The year 1985 was—I put it tactfully—horrendous for our farming community and the Government's ability to retain Northern Ireland's programmes of special aids such as the milk consumer subsidy; the aid to pig and poultry meat plants and egg packing stations and the schemes for grassland improvement and beef development are therefore all the more important to this sector and the province itself.
The Northern Ireland Agricultural Development Programme, which is a European Community measure of great significance in improving the viability of certain farms, is presently under review. I hope that the European Commission will come forward shortly with a revised scheme.
Class II Votes 1 and 2 cover the estimates of the Industrial Development Board with a total provision of some £112 million. Of that amount some £25 million in Vote 1 is for industrial support and regeneration and £87 million in Vote 2 for general support to industry. Ninety five per cent. of this general support is earmarked for industrial development loans and grants to help firms expand, diversify or generally improve their competitiveness.
648
In Vote 3, miscellaneous support services, some £17 million of the £77.3 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, to which I referred earlier—the very successful small business agency for Northern Ireland. LEDU has recently formulated its corporate plan for 1986–89, which aims to ensure the agency builds on its past success and offers an even greater comprehensive 'one stop shop' facility for the small business sector in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will also note the provision of £37 million for Belfast Shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff. None of this provision, of course, is for the AOR order which the company recently won from the MoD on a wholly unsubsidised basis. The provision, instead, reflects not only the seemingly unending difficulties of merchant shipbuilding worldwide but also the Government's recognition of the importance of the company to the Province's economy as the second largest manufacturing employer. I should like to congratulate Harland and Wolff for having won the MoD contract for the design and building of the first auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. Your Lordships may be aware that Harland and Wolff, which was the lead firm in a consortium which includes Yarrow Shipbuilders and YARD, won the competition on commercial and technical merit. The company chairman, Mr. John Parker, is to be highly commended for his skill and determination in putting together the successful consortium bid, but of course he would be the first to admit that he is the leader of a large and very successful team. The company's move into unsubsidised naval work represents a real challenge to all at Harland and Wolff. It is now up to the workforce to justify the Government's confidence in placing this important contract in Belfast.
Moving to Vote 5 (functioning of the labour market), of the £96 million sought, £31 million is required for the youth training programme, £27 million for industrial training and some £34.5 million for employment services and community projects. As I stressed in my opening remarks, unemployment remains the paramount economic problem in the Province. Evidence of the Government's determination to tackle this issue is provided by some new measures designed to help the long-term unemployed. These will be introduced from 1st July 1986—and that is as near as tomorrow. In Northern Ireland there are some 60,000 people who have been unemployed for more than one year. Each one of these will be invited to attend an in-depth counselling interview.
These interviews will provide a positive contract with the local job market. They will give the unemployed an opportunity to consider the full range of the Government's employment services and also to discuss the scope for self-employment, voluntary work and other possibilities. One of the options on offer will be a place on a restart course. Many people who have been unemployed for a considerable time may have lost the will, the motivation or indeed the capacity to seek work. With this in mind, we are introducing a new one-week restart course. The aim of this course will be to help long-term unemployed people to assess their potential and aptitudes, to learn more about opportunities open to them and to review their basic working skills and their confidence, and to help them

649
With the techniques of finding and applying for a job. I hope that everyone invited for interview at the job market will make the most of the opportunities and that the measures will be welcomed as a very positive and genuine attempt to help those who have been out of work for a considerable period of time.
In the final vote in Class II, which is Vote 6, £26.8 million is sought to cover the running costs of the Department of Economic Development, including the trading standards service and grant to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.
The two votes in Class III provide for the Government's assistance to the gas industry and subsidies to the Northern Ireland electricity service. The total provision amounts to some £75 million, of which £30 million has been allocated to the gas industry and £45 million to the electricity subsidy. The latter figure was calculated prior to the recent substantial fall in oil prices. If current levels prevail through-out 1986–87 the requirement for subsidy would be significantly reduced, but, given the volatility of oil prices, we think it would have been premature to anticipate this outcome.
Work on the conversion of Kilroot power station from oil to dual coal/oil firing is now under way. The Northern Ireland electricty service is also continuing with the preliminary planning of a possible new power station required in the 1990s and fuelled by indigenous lignite. In parallel with this work, the Government are examining the scope for private sector involvement in the ownership and operation of a lignite power station. A decision on who will build any new power station will not be taken until later this year.
Class IV makes provision for the Province's roads and transport. Of the £123.7 million being appropriated for these services, £97.5 million has been allocated to the roads programme and the balance of £26.2 million to transport.
Class V covers housing; and this has benefited from year-on-year increases in public expenditure in recent years. This is one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and that is a point I shall be reiterating later. These increases have enabled much improvement to be made in the supply and condition of housing in Northern Ireland. The results of the 1984 Northern Ireland house condition survey, published during 1985, confirmed the progress made since 1979. This process has been facilitated by capital receipts from sales of houses to sitting tenants and indirectly by aid from the European Community under the urban renewal regulation. The increases in housing expenditure have, moreover, also involved deliberate decisions to divert public expenditure resources away from other programmes in Northern Ireland. A combination of factors has, however, affected the overall level of resources that will be available to the housing programme in this financial year.
First, the Housing Executive's capital receipts from its very successful house sales scheme have begun to decline. Total capital receipts in 1986–87 are now projected to be some £14 million below the level we previously estimated. Secondly, the additional resources provided from the European Community peaked in 1985–86 and will eventually disappear in 1988–89. Thirdly, pressures have built up in other
650
programmes which have been squeezed in recent years to support the housing programme: some of these pressures have now had to be accommodated. As a result, it has not been possible to maintain gross spending on housing at the levels of recent years. Total expenditure on housing should gross around £530 million, of which about £487 million will be spent by the Housing Executive. This figure will include over £64 million on new house building, £64 million on improving the public sector housing stock and over £58 million on maintenance. Provision is also sought for expenditure of £54 million on renovation grants for private dwellings.
The provision for housing associations will facilitate gross expenditure this year of some £41 million, of which £27 million has been allocated to general housing association work to fund the completion of work on the ground and an annual programme of about 900 new starts. The remaining £14 million will finance the co-ownership scheme, which continues to play a decisive role in encouraging new private housebuilding and facilitating those aspiring to owner-occupation. Two million pounds of this allocation has been earmarked for the pilot extension of the scheme into the second-hand housing market which was announced last summer following a review of the scheme. The provision being made for housing in Northern Ireland will enable a substantial programme to be mounted, and demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to tackling the housing problems, which we acknowledge still exist in Northern Ireland.
Clause VI, Vote 1, provides £78· million for the Province's water and sewerage services. Of that amount approximately £24·5 million will be on new works, and particular emphasis is being given to four large sewerage schemes, three in Belfast and one in North Antrim.
Expenditure on education, libraries and arts is contained in Class VIII of the Estimates and totals over £680 million. The bulk of this expenditure (£528 million) is detailed in Votes 1 and 4 and covers expenditure on, among other things, teachers' salaries and the grants to the education and library boards. The recurrent grants to the boards in Vote 4, out of which are met the running costs of controlled and maintained schools, represent an increase of over 4 per cent. compared to 1985–86.
In Vote 2, £115.6 million is sought for higher and further education and teacher training. This allows for the continued funding of the two Northern Ireland universities on the principle of parity with comparable institutions in Great Britain. The funds requested reflect the targeted improvements in cost-effectiveness which the Government believe are necessary, but specific additional resources are being made available to enhance provision in the science and technology field, particularly in relation to computing which is an area where both the local universities have considerable strengths.
The balance of education expenditure, £33.1 million, is sought under Vote 3 to maintain public support for the arts, museums, and youth and sports bodies at broadly the same level as in 1985–86 and to permit initiatives to enhance Northern Ireland's

651
cultural profile, particularly in the United States of America.
Class IX provides for health and personal social services, and a net total of £673 million is sought to maintain and further develop the existing services. The largest single element within this total is the revenue expenditure of the Health and Social Services Boards, estimated at £550 million. This represents an increase of 6 per cent. in cash terms over last year. From this provision the boards will be expected, through programmes of cost improvement and efficiency savings, to meet all pay and price increases and to make some urgent and essential improvements in services.
Under Class X a total of some £794 million is sought for social security expenditure. Vote 1 provides a supplement of £52.3 million from the Consolidated Fund to the National Insurance Fund. Votes 2 and 3 provide a total of £685 million to cover non-contributory and family benefits, comprising 53 per cent. of total social security benefit expenditure, the remainder of which is met from the National Insurance Fund. In Vote 4, £56.2 million is sought for departmental administration and miscellaneous services.
And, finally, in Class XI a total provision of some £31 million is sought, £26 million of which is for the Department of Finance and Personnel for the services it provides for all government departments. The balance is to meet the running costs of the Exchequer and Audit Department, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and Administration. This estimate was prepared before the Government took the decision to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is why I mentioned that body in this group.
I have in these opening remarks tried to mention the main features of the Estimates covered by the draft order before us. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and try to respond to as many points as possible. I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have been kind enough to warn me of the topics you intend to raise. I hope to deal with them satisfactorily later. With that, I commend the order to the House, My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, a third of the time allotted for the discussion of these three orders has already been taken up and I shall not follow the precedent established by the Minister of commenting in detail on all the votes in the appropriation order. Within a few minutes of starting his speech the Minister reminded the House once again that the Government continue to spend more government money per head of population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Of course that is correct, but it begs the question: what should be Northern Ireland's fair share of expenditure in comparison with expenditure by the Government on other parts of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that they all start from a different base level? I am sure that what the people would say, and say correctly, to
652
the Government is that the differential in expenditure for which the Government take credit comes nowhere near the greater differential in need.
Our task in replying to the Government's request for the supply of funds is made easier by the recent publication of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's assessment for the 12 months ahead and, regrettably, it is a sad assessment. The council is dismayed by the evidence of a worsening of the economic situation which it claims could lead to a spiral of further economic depression and to further violence. If that assessment is true, it far outweighs the good news which the Minister has brought to the House this evening. We wish to know whether the Government accept the assessment of the economic council or do they challenge it? At Question Time about six weeks ago it appeared to me that the Minister was inclined to dismiss the report far too easily, but it may well be that we took him by surprise on that occasion.
It is well worth reminding ourselves that the economic council calls not only for more vigorous action by the Government, but for the spending of money in a number of specific sectors. It presses for the restoration of money for the housing programme; and I shall return to that. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton will also refer to it. It calls for more expenditure on major works of school buildings, for the reduction of the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom average, for guarantees to inward investors that they will not lose out financially from unrest in the Province, and for the stepping up of marketing help for industry.
Listening to the noble Lord the Minister, it appeared to me that the Government have no intention of responding favourably to any of these recommendations, but if I am wrong, I shall be very happy to be corrected. It is worrying that, notwithstanding the efforts of the industrial development board, new inward investment is at a low level. Do the Government propose to review the inducements which the board can offer to inward investments, or does the board itself have plans of its own for making more effective its capacity to capture a greater share of overseas investment?
We welcome the proposed increased expenditure on industrial and employment training schemes, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, this evening, because they offer at least the hope of employment one day in the distant future. But whether in work or out of work, people require homes. That is the basis of the good life. We on these Benches are highly critical that the income of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is to be so substantially reduced during the current year. Of course there has been progress on the housing front since 1979, and we acknowledge that progress. But the Government seem to have failed to appreciate that so much remains to be done in the housing sector. Housing unfitness is still twice as high in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are 50,000 homes unfit for human habitation in the Province and 100,000 in need of serious repair. Meanwhile, the waiting list continues to grow, and today there are 24,500 on it.

653
But possibly the most damaging indictment of the Government's decision to reduce the housing executive's budget by £44 million is that, having agreed in December 1983 to a new housing strategy, having agreed targets with the housing executive, and having encouraged the industry to gear up to meet the agreed strategy, the Government now slam on the brakes. It may well be, as the Minister has told the House, that the continuing expenditure is still substantial, but that is a relative term, and the fact remains that it is reduced expenditure. I think that my noble friend Lord Graham will reinforce the criticism which I have levelled at the Government's approach to the budget of the housing executive. There will be many repercussions, and it is estimated that at least 5,000 of the 24,000 jobs in the construction industry will now be put at risk. In a Province where unemployment is among the highest in Europe, what do the Government hope to achieve by this reduction? The Minister justified the reduction on the basis that the Government require the money to spend more on law and order and on economic development. There are grounds for believing that poor housing conditions can also contribute to the problems of law and order.
We say very simply that the Government's case for reducing the housing budget is not accepted on these Benches. We invite the Government to come clean and recognise that they have made a huge mistake in reducing the housing executive's budget.
Having given a high priority to the requirements of the housing executive, I must now move on. There is in the Province one industry which is as old as the Province itself. I refer to agriculture. Agriculture in Northern Ireland is the industry which still employs the largest number of people, accounting for 11 per cent. of the total working population. But there is also concern about this, the oldest of its industries. It is a concern which does not spring merely from the consequences of the bad weather of 1985, although obviously those consequences are very worrying, as the Minister has acknowledged this evening. No, the major anxiety arises not out of the misfortunes of a single year in the calendar but from the transformation of agricultural production from dearth to surplus.
Can the Minister give the House an indication of what he thinks will be the conditions five years from now under which the Ulster farmer will be tilling his soil? How much land now under cultivation in Northern Ireland will go out of cultivation in 10 years' time? How will the anticipated changes be handled without doing irreparable damage to the rural communities of Northern Ireland? The Minister referred in his speech to the research and development expenditure of the department. I was not able to follow him in detail, but I should like to know how many research projects financed by the department are to be decommissioned over the next few years. Meanwhile, are there any real prospects of the Government being able to negotiate with Brussels special terms for the Northern Ireland farmer? Or is it the case that Brussels may be willing but the Treasury is without the inclination to seek favourable terms for the industry?
I turn now to another ancient feature of the Ulster scene. I refer to the Irish language which is probably as old as Northern Ireland agriculture. Once again I have
654
looked in vain for a specific Irish language provision in the appropriations. Yet there is growing interest in parts of the Province in the renaissance of the Irish language, reflecting possibly the growing interest in the revival of the Gaelic language in Scotland and the Welsh language in Wales, and to which the Scottish Office and Welsh Office respectively are responding.
I read in the newspapers that two of the district councils are planning to appoint a full time officer to promote the Irish language and the culture associated with that language. If this expenditure is not provided for in the appropriations, presumably it will be at the expense of some other item of expenditure. It would be helpful if the Minister can indicate to the House what action the department proposes to take in support of the Irish language. For example, if the department were to spend £50 per annum per Irish language speaker, what would that expenditure amount to? But perhaps more important still, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have a coherent policy to encourage the use of the Irish language? If they have such a policy, will he outline to the House the main features of that policy?
In our last appropriations debate I asked the Minister whether and to what extent the Province has been suffering from depopulation. Since then we have seen the valuable study on demographic trends in Northern Ireland published by the Northern Ireland Economic Council. It seemed to me that the signals from Northern Ireland are reassuring; but the council reminded us that the last full enumeration of the population was held 15 years ago and that we are today, in 1986, without an accurate account of the size of the Northern Ireland population. That is an interesting, if not an astounding, finding. The council asks a fair question whether the good administration of the Province can wait until 1992–93 when accurate population numbers are again available.
I have taken up the time allotted to me. Clearly, immense economic problems are still facing Northern Ireland and additional money could solve many of the problems. But the political problems facing the Province are of course of much greater magnitude and cannot be solved by the most generous of appropriations. Nevertheless an appropriation order could assist in creating improved conditions for political initiative. Measured against that background—and it is my judgment that that is the true background against which we must measure the appropriations order—the single most disappointing weakness of the order is probably its failure to provide an adequate budget for the housing executive.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order. I propose to raise general points, and in the main leave detailed inquiries into the finances to others. To some extent they seem to be a recommendation for the medicine as before.
In recent days I have felt considerable gloom about affairs in Northern Ireland, where bigotry and a lack of desire for reconciliation seemed to be the dominating factors. But since then two events have taken place that can, I believe, cheer our hearts. First, there was the

655
brave visit to the Province by Prince Andrew and Miss Sarah Ferguson. The people there welcomed them warmly, and while it is true that they did not visit Republican areas, the obvious enthusiasm that was shown and the pleasure that was experienced were a refreshing contrast to the talk of possible civil war that has recently been in the air.
Secondly—and I believe very importantly—there has been the so-called "Belfast declaration" by an inter-Church group of Christian leaders in Northern Ireland, and many distinguished names are mentioned. There has been so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants that it is a very pleasant contrast to read such simple, direct and helpful words. It only seems surprising that so little notice of this publication has been taken on the mainland. Perhaps I may repeat some short extracts. The first is:
"We believe that for us obedience to Christ is more important than Nationalism of Unionism".
Secondly:
"While Unionists have a right to be British and Nationalists to be Irish, we reject the lie that justice can be achieved by the use of violence. We are interdependent and we must accommodate each other. Bigotry, discrimination, intimidation and distortion of the truth should have no place in our relationships".
Following these two comments, I should like to put three questions to the Minister. First, what steps are being taken to convince so-called "Unionists" that action by many of their supporters over recent weeks has done more to harm the Union than 17 years of IRA activity; and to make them realise that feeling in Great Britain over the treatment of some RUC officers, no more than doing their duty, has sickened public opinion over here? On the other hand, can the Minister say how many American Irish there are in the United States, and what steps are being taken to convince them that they are not living in the 1840s today, and that they are doing untold harm for the peace and happiness of Ireland as a whole by continuing support for the IRA?
Thirdly, what steps are being taken to convince the SDLP that it should have a more positive policy following the signing of the agreement and that its refusal to take part in the Assembly procedure played a significant part in the need for its, at least present, dissolution?
I refer now to an item under Class XI of the order before us, referring to the Assembly. How will the figure be adjusted to allow for the fact that it is desirable that there should be minimum difficulty in restarting the Assembly before too long if, as we hope, it can be reconstituted?
Finally, what support are the Government prepared to offer the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, which is the only non-sectarian party, which has been striving gallantly for reconciliation, and which has been subjected to much criticism and contempt? I ask also in what way we on the mainland, and particularly in Westminster, can get across that we respect the position of the many decent people in the Province and admire the courage of those leaders genuinely seeking a better future?
656
I hope that the message will filter quietly through that we applaud the following further statement from the declaration:
"It is also our responsibility to recognise that such injustices as are now experienced by one or other communities in Northern Ireland do not warrant any attempt by either to make government unworkable".
They continue:
"We declare that it is the responsibility of every Christian to work for just structures in society and to seek to rectify unjust acts of any kind on the part of government or society".
Together with good wishes from Great Britain must go the clear message that the future of Northern Ireland is in the hands of its own people. Great courage and unity of purpose will be necessary, and we shall be powerless to stop the people of Ulster from suffering severely if the thugs and hoodlums are not checked. I believe that both the opportunity and the need are great.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I have had second thoughts. However, I intend to be brief. First, I join in welcoming the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. Also, I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his courtesy in writing to me some time ago about this appropriation order. He has kept me in touch, as he usually does, with the general tone and happenings of what is taking place in relation to finance and supply.
I have several times before made my views known about the ineffectiveness of the procedural arrangements, and about the rubber stamp way in which appropriation debates concerning Northern Ireland are undertaken. I make it clear that that is in no way the fault of the noble Lord the Minister or of our Front Bench spokesman, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. Indeed, I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt would readily join me in thanking the noble Lord the Minister, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others who have continually taken a concerned, compassionate and constructive interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
My main reason in speaking this evening is that this could be the last occasion on which this House will be invited to consider the present procedural arrangements for dealing with the important matters of finance and supply in Northern Ireland. I understand that there could be consultations and discussions to deal with the newly-devised way in which administrative and parliamentary matters concerning Northern Ireland will be dealt with.
I hope that whatever may emerge in the future, the constructive and responsible voice of the elected Northern Ireland representatives will soon be heard in Westminster, taking its rightful and full part in the parliamentary affairs of the United Kingdom, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Blease I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but I shall make what will possibly be the briefest intervention I have ever made in speaking to a an appropriation order.

657
The events of last week and of the week before in Northern Ireland, and in the South last week, do not give any grounds for great optimism. The fact that this appropriation order did not receive the attention it should have received from the elected representatives in another place creates an atmosphere that Northern Ireland could very well do without. However, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions.
The Minister said that of the 125,000 or 130,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, 60,000 of them have been unemployed for more than one year. I know from experience that that is the understatement of the year. Of that total of 60,000 people, many thousands have been unemployed for five, 10, 15 or 20 years. The Minister said that the hopes of those people taking up employment will be assessed. How long will it take for that assessment to be made? How many extra people will be employed to carry out that assessment?
I do not believe it would be any exaggeration to say that in the case of people who have been unemployed for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, it will be very difficult to place them in any type of work. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, there were 61,000 people unemployed. Now there are 125,000 or 130,000 unemployed. It will be no easy task to rehabilitate those people and to find them employment.
Yesterday morning, the Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Cahal Daly, who I believe is a very eminent spokesman in the ecclesiastical field, was speaking in St. Peter's Church, which is now to be a mini-cathedral. He made an impassioned plea to the Government to consider very seriously the total and absolute demolition of the Divis Flats. The Government must recognise that they can no longer carry out minor repairs in an attempt to rehabilitate those flats. The Divis Flats are in my old constituency as a former Member of another place. In the atmosphere that was then prevailing, I remember well that the people in that area, who were being moved under slum clearance programmes, were very happy to take up residence in the whole Divis complex rather than be shifted away from the particular district in which they were born and bred.
In the years that have elapsed since then, it has been proved conclusively that the Divis Flats complex is a total and absolute disaster, as has been the case in many other major cities throughout the United Kingdom. The appeal made yesterday by Bishop Cahal Daly for the Government to consider very seriously the total demolition of the Divis Flats should be heeded, because the longer they exist the more the concern that will be created in that area.
My penultimate question concerns the expenditure on hospitals in Northern Ireland. I have had many representations made to me about Cushendall cottage hospital. It appears that it is the Government's intention to close that little hospital. That hospital has existed for many years in the Glens of Antrim, which is an area that can be subjected to extremes of weather. There have been times during hard winters when it has been impossible for weeks on end to negotiate the
658
roads out of that hospital. It has been very necessary to help that little hospital, situated as it is in Cushendall. The Minister may say that the new tower block in Belfast will be capable of looking after the needs of all the people of Antrim, Down and Belfast, but the Cushendall hospital has served its little community very well for a number of years. There would be great concern if the Government continued with their proposal to close it down.
Finally, I refer to the great deal of trumpeting and publicity—in which I have not had a great deal of faith—concerning the expected American financial contribution to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. First, we heard that it was going to be millions upon millions of dollars, and then over a period of weeks it was drastically cut down until the final figure was 250 million dollars over a period of five years—50 million dollars a year.
Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any sign that the money is forthcoming and will be made available in Northern Ireland, and where it is to be spent? We understand that representations have been made for it to be spent in the rural areas. Well, there is a great deal of poverty in the City of Derry and in Belfast, outside the poverty which exists in the rural areas. If the Americans are going to keep lending their support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement—I will not go into that in any great detail as it is something on which I have considerable doubts—that money which it is claimed is to be in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be made readily available at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always, we are very grateful for the close attention paid by all your Lordships to my impassioned remarks at the start of this debate. We have bi-annual or perhaps tri-annual debates on the Estimates for Northern Ireland, and it provides us with an opportunity to discuss any major points of concern in the Province as well as many others, which I shall come to later, including the Cushendall cottage hospital. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, takes on board that perhaps he, too, has been snowed-up there in winter, but we shall possibly hear about that another day.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for informing me of some of the topics that he intended to raise. I hope to be able to give some replies this evening. The noble Lord commenced by referring to the gloomy prospects in the latest Northern Ireland Economic Council report. There is, of course, more than one dimension to economic progress, and as I stressed in my opening remarks there are one or two encouraging signs. Output in manufacturing has grown in the range of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum in the four years since 1981.
Secondly, the level of employment has grown—I admit, slowly—since 1983, but I stressed, and I continue to do so, that unemployment remains unacceptably high. Most of the growth of unemployment occurred during the period 1979–82, but since then there has been a period of relative stability of around 20 per cent. (I think it is 21.5 per

659
cent.) although it is still too high. However, I add one small detail. The prospects for reducing this figure are not altogether encouraging because the demographic trends point to a rising labour force. However, as I shall be able to stress later, unemployment in Northern Ireland remains a top priority and is reflected by the high levels of spending per head on the social and economic programmes which appear in the Estimates before us this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred—not in great detail, but with considerable vigour and strength, which is quite right—to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the restoration of the housing programme and the budget. The noble Lord spoke about the letter from Sir Charles Carter, to which he rightly referred in Question Time. I said then that I hoped to be able to give some reply this evening. One of the seven points covered in that letter accompanying the latest Northern Ireland Economic Council report dealt with the levels of new housebuilding and renovation which, of course, are determined primarily by the level of public expenditure which we allocate to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I covered this, but only generally, in my opening remarks, and I dwelt possibly at some length on the factors which affect the levels of resources that we have in Northern Ireland and which we allocated to the Housing Executive in previous years and this year.
I hope that the noble Lord will find from my earlier remarks the reassurance that housing is still a high priority programme and that our commitment to it remains firm. However, I add this point. Public expenditure allocation to the housing programme this year is some £350 million, which exceeds, in real terms, the allocation in any year before 1984–85. The Government recognise the severity of the economic and other problems which face the Province. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Blease and Lord Hampton, the size and the balance of the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme. This is formulated, and we take account of the particular needs of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to electricity tariffs, and this was one of the other points covered in Sir Charles Carter's letter accompanying the NIEC report. I think that Sir Charles suggested that the cost of electricity should be linked to the UK average rather than the UK highest regional level, which is the current scale. Perhaps the noble Lord and other noble Lords will accept that the linkage to the highest charge in England and Wales has already provided significant benefits to the consumers of electricity in the Province, but if we brought that subsidy to the average rather than the highest level in the UK that would mean the taxpayer supporting the electricity charges for the Province at a level below that applicable in many parts of England and Wales. I take that, but I certainly stress the earlier point that we accord a very high priority to industry in the Province; but this would be squeezing the subsidy just a little too high.
The noble Lord also referred to inward investments. The Northern Ireland Economic Council suggested
660
the development of effective insurance guarantees to inward investors. The letter and the report did not necessarily help us with what the insurance guarantee would be. Indeed, nor were we entirely clear on how the scheme could work effectively. It would be difficult to identify the extent by which the performance of a company would be affected by local unrest as opposed to normal trading conditions and commerce in the Province. That would need to be a subjective view. However we have asked the NIEC staff to outline a proposal in detail so that we consider this further.
The noble Lord also asked about inducements to inward investors. The financial incentives available to the IDB to help attract inward investment are kept under constant review and have very close scrutiny by my honourable friend in another place. The Government recognise the need to ensure that these incentives remain competitive and attractive. To take one example, the corporation tax relief grant has not necessarily proved to be affective, and we are examining it to see whether its attractiveness can be improved.
The noble Lord also put three questions on a subject which is particularly dear to my heart—agriculture. If we take the future of farming in the Province over the next five years, it would be unrealistic and dishonest to predict a trouble-free future. That applies to farmers, like myself, in Scotland, farmers in England and Wales, and, I believe your Lordships will accept, farmers throughout the Community. Your Lordships will be well aware of the difficulties of excess production throughout Europe and of changing consumer demands. The Ulster farmer accepts that he cannot be immune from these changes. In referring to farmers, I mean the whole agricultural industry in Ulster, which goes beyond the percentage of the population mentioned by the noble Lord of, I believe, just under a further 3 per cent. involved in food processing. I take this opportunity of saying how efficient they are, too. I have been at close quarters with them in export markets and they are second to none in food production as well as being the top quality there is in Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord that the Government continue to recognise the prime importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland, and we remain committed to the maintenance of a prosperous and efficient industry.
The noble Lord asked about research and development in connection with agriculture. It is part of the overall United Kingdom R & D effort, but it is weighted particularly toward the needs of Northern Ireland industry. This is of necessity because of the climate, heavily livestock-oriented, but I think that the question of adequate need in this particular area is somewhat difficult to quantify.
I stress to the noble Lord that the estimates that we are debating include over £7½ million for activities in research and development, which maintains the level of the previous year, and certainly we have no plans to reduce it. I am afraid that I am not able to enter into particular details. Though I am aware of some details that have come across my desk, I have not necessarily costed them immediately, and it is a question of balancing, as the noble Lord will, I hope, accept.

661
So far as concerns special treatment from the EC for Northern Ireland producers, we already receive special treatment from the European Community in a number of areas. In my opening remarks I suggested that we are waiting for the Commission to come forward with a revised agricultural development programme which replaces the measure which has been of considerable benefit to producers in Northern Ireland's less favoured areas over the last five years. I assure your Lordships that we are making every effort to bring to the notice of the commission the problems that affect us in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Irish language. We fully recognise the importance of the Irish language and culture in education and related activities in Northern Ireland. The curriculum in schools is not dictated or indeed controlled by the Government or the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, but is a matter for the school authorities and for head teachers. I understand that Irish is studied by over 20,000 pupils in secondary schools in Northern Ireland. In specific instances the right of parents to have their children educated through the medium of the Irish language has been recognised by the department. The noble Lord asked for a simple arithmetical term. I am not too sure about the number of teachers or other persons who might be in further education or vocational training and who also wish to learn Irish, but certainly there are 20,000 pupils in Northern Ireland's secondary schools who are studying Irish, and that gives some idea of the scale of the commitment that we have to the Irish language.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was kind and warned me of various points that he would be raising. Indeed, there are four serious points that he brought forward. He asked me how we would convince the Unionists that many of their actions have not helped their image on this side of the water. I certainly accept his point and agree with him about the great harm that is done to the image of Northern Ireland both here and abroad by violence and intimidation. What has worried us very much is violence toward the police. The people of Northern Ireland, indeed, all of us everywhere in the United Kingdom, have good cause to be very proud of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, both the reserves and those who serve full time. They have proved time and again to be fair and impartial upholders of the law, but as we have seen during the last few months, some of the so-called Unionists and Loyalists have turned on the brave police officers to whom we all owe so much. Police officers have been cold shouldered by their communities and regrettably have been physically attacked in their homes.
We are hopeful that this particular problem is now abating. The period from March to the middle of May saw over 380 attacks on police officers in their homes and on their persons, but since 21st May I understand that none has been recorded. I hope that this signifies a change of heart among the less responsible elements of the Unionist population and is indeed a recognition that they cannot enforce their will by violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked me about Americans who claim Irish ancestry. I am given to understand that there are up to 40 million persons
662
in the population of the United States who claim Irish ancestry, but I stress that the great majority of them are horrified by violence, even though they may support Irish unity. We are giving the dissemination of accurate information about Northern Ireland a very high priority. Very considerable efforts are directed toward communicating the facts about Northern Ireland abroad, particularly in the United States, which is the primary focus for IRA propaganda and fund raising. We work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our embassy in Washing-ton and with other diplomatic posts in the United States and elsewhere. I stress to your Lordships that my right honourable and honourable colleagues make regular visits to the United States—and they have made visits elsewhere in recent months—during which they back up particular efforts with political meetings and interviews in the media.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State returned last month from a short trip to Washington and New York and I think that your Lordships will be aware of the favourable publicity that was generated by his visit there and to other parts of the United States. My right honourable and honourable colleagues and officials take every opportunity of visits by distinguished Americans to brief them fairly and impartially, we hope, on the problems of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised one more query about convincing the SDLP that they should have a more positive policy following the signing of the agreement. We understand that the leader of the SDLP, the honourable Member for Foyle, reiterated in another place on 19th June the willingness of the SDLP to sit down and discuss devolution without preconditions. We believe that dialogue between parties, and, above all, between parties and government, is the only possible way forward for democratic life in Northern Ireland.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I also want to pay a very full tribute to the role which the Alliance Party played in the work of the former Northern Ireland Assembly. In passing I shall reiterate the tribute that I paid to the noble Lord. Lord Dunleath—who warned me that sadly he would not be able to be with us tonight—for the part he has played both in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in your Lordships' House. I think that certainly in your Lordships' House he personifies the strength of the Alliance Party. Many of the reports of the Assembly reflected the very hard work put in by Members of the Alliance Party and of course the other parties in ensuring that local views and interests were fully taken into account by the Government. I was forced, indeed I was happy, to take into account the strong views put by the Assembly's Agriculture Committee. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, used to come and put his views forcefully and succinctly. I pay tribute to the role that the Alliance Party has played throughout as a force for reason and moderation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked how we here on the mainland, particularly in your Lordships' House and in another place, could support the many decent people in Northern Ireland who want to see a

663
better future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my honourable colleagues and I make clear on every single occasion our admiration and respect for the resilience that has been shown (and continues to be shown) by everyone in Northern Ireland through the long years of terrorism and trouble. I think that those sentiments of admiration and respect are shared not only by your Lordships but, above all, by the majority of people in Great Britain.
Of course, your Lordships will be aware that sympathy and verbal support are simply not enough. We have tried to foster internal political progress, but sadly our efforts have met with fairly limited success. It is against that background that the Government reached an agreement with the Government of the Republic which we believe can help to relieve some of the pressures which are being faced in Northern Ireland. I think that the best way in which we in your Lordships' House can show our respect and concern for the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland is to reassure them about the effects of the agreement that we signed.
First of all, it does not give the Republic joint authority in the running of Northern Ireland. We retain full power to make decisions. Nor does it set us on the road to a united Ireland. If the majority eventually decide that it wants a united Ireland, the Government will respect its wish, but we know that that decision is not likely to be taken for many years, if indeed ever. I stress that so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wants the country to remain part of the United Kingdom, the Government are committed to the union.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked about the Assembly. I do not think we can speculate on the use that would be made of any savings that might arise, but I would assure the noble Lord that certainly money will be available should a new Assembly be possible. I hope that my reply has covered all the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, quite rightly raised the question of how we are dealing with Northern Ireland affairs this evening. I am afraid that I have to stress, as always, that this is a matter for the usual channels, but certainly I feel constrained, just as he does, in trying to fit what is a very important debate into the limits of your Lordships' time. But certainly I shall push on, and I hope that he will accept this. I stress the noble Lord's support and his plea for the democratic representatives in another place to carry out the work for which we all understand that they were elected. Only good can come from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised four points. One concerned unemployment. I have stressed that we consider it to be a serious problem; above all that applies to long-term unemployment. But there are job opportunities for everybody and, above all, for the long-term unemployed. Last year over 31,000 jobs were filled and 16,000 people were placed in various types of training. I stressed earlier counselling for the long-term unemployed, and those are the persons to whom the noble Lord referred. I hope that our
664
renewed efforts will be recognised by the noble Lord and accepted by what we hope will be the many beneficiaries of the process. That is one of the range of services which we hope will be available through the job market and counselling programme. It is designed to renew contact for those who may have lost touch with what is available. As I stressed in my opening remarks, it is above all to foster once again the confidence of those people that they have qualities that are sought after. That will be the basis of our job counselling.
The noble Lord raised the question of United States funds. As he will know, nothing is yet decided. Fascinating figures are being bandied around, but we shall have to wait until the Senate finally concludes its deliberations. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of the Divis Flats and the Cushendall Cottage Hospital. I hope that he has not been snowed in there too often.
I apologise for the rush. I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in this important debate. If I have missed anything, I shall write to noble Lords. I am grateful to noble Lords who have written to me. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The draft order has two main purposes: first, it provides a scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector; secondly, it enhances the rights of public sector tenants by extending the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and by providing new statutory rights for secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations. The draft order has been the subject of wide ranging consultation with interested bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and its environment committee, and has also been debated recently in another place.
Part II of the draft order provides a statutory scheme of assistance for eligible owners of certain defective dwellings sold by the public sector which are designated as defective by reason of their design or construction and which, as a result of those defects having become generally known, have been substan-tially reduced in value. The assistance is to be provided by the housing executive to eligible owners of designated defective dwellings in the form of a reinstatement grant at a rate of 90 per cent. of the cost of the reinstatement works (subject to an expenditure limit) or, in certain circumstances if the owner wishes, by repurchase of the dwelling at a price of 95 per cent. of the defect-free value.
These provisions flow from the discovery of defects in a wide range of prefabricated reinforced concrete or PRC dwellings built before about 1960. A scheme of

665
assistance for people who had unwittingly purchased such dwellings from the public sector in Great Britain was introduced in the Housing Defects Act 1984.
In Northern Ireland we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. The housing executive had about 3,000 Orlit dwellings in its stock and sold about 200 of them before the defects became known. Initially, therefore, the scheme of assistance is likely to apply only to those 200 or so dwellings.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the defect in PRC dwellings is essentially one of corrosion of the reinforcing bars in the structural concrete components. That process is a gradual one and technical investigations carried out by the housing executive have confirmed that no dangerous situations currently exist. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is at least one benefit. Many of these dwellings will provide perfectly good housing for a long time to come. Even those Orlit properties in which the corrosion is most advanced have a serviceable life of between five and 10 years without the need for remedial action, while others have a serviceable life of up to 30 years.
Part III, Chapter I, of the draft order deals with the right of housing executive tenants to buy their dwellings. It makes two important extensions to the scheme provided in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. First, under Article 22 and Schedule 4 secure tenants will have the right to buy their homes where the executive owns only on leasehold interest. This will ensure that the right-to-buy will apply equally to all secure tenants. Noble Lords may recall that these provisions fulfil the commitment given by the Government in their response to the report of the Assembly on the 1983 order that the extension of the right-to-buy to leasehold interests would be introduced in legislation at the earliest opportunity. The second extension to the right-to-buy scheme is that for the first time tenants who cannot afford to purchase outright will be able to buy their homes on an equity-sharing basis.
The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter I, amend the existing right-to-buy provisions of the 1983 order in ways that further help tenants who wish to become home owners to realise their ambition. The minimum tenancy period before entitlement to discount arises is reduced from three years to two years and the maximum discount is increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. In addition, the range of public sector tenancies which can be taken into account for qualification and discount is extended.
However, we are also aware that there are those tenants who, for whatever reason, do not wish to become home owners, and it has always been our policy that such people should as far as possible be given the same freedoms and responsibilities as owner-occupiers to exercise their own personal preferences in the use of their homes. That is why in the 1983 order we provided a new framework of statutory rights for public sector tenants—the Tenants' Charter. The provisions in Part III, Chapter II, of the draft order reinforce this policy. In particular, secure tenants of the housing executive and registered housing
666
associations are given two important new rights; the right to exchange dwelling-houses and the right to carry out repairs.
The remaining provisions of Part III, Chapter II, are minor in nature. Part IV of the draft order contains a number of miscellaneous provisions.
The draft order is important to both the private and public sectors in Northern Ireland. It provides assistance for certain private owners who, through no fault of their own, purchased defective dwellings sold by the public sector. It ensures that housing executive tenants will continue to be able to become the owners of their own homes on favourable terms. It also extends the freedom of public sector tenants to enjoy their homes in a way best suited to their requirements. I commend the order to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves for being sandwiched in the middle of a most important Bill which is the main business of the day and having to try to discharge our responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland in such a shabby fashion. It is no fault of the Minister, but in the debate on the first order 40 minutes were taken up by the Minister, 20 minutes in the introduction and 20 minutes in reply. Other noble Lords took only 40 minutes in order to curtail the debate out of respect for the Minister and for other colleagues.
This side of the House may have failed to convince the business managers that Northern Ireland business deserves more time, but the biggest failure must be that of the Minister. I assume that he has impressed upon his colleagues that it is a disgrace that the affairs of Northern Ireland are treated in such a shabby fashion. I hope that when he has an opportunity of speaking to the Government Chief Whip and others he will tell them that although this evening's assembly is only small there might have been other Members present at prime time who want to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that their affairs deserve a much higher priority. Sadly, our colleagues are waiting to continue the following business, and they must be irritated, frustrated and annoyed. That is sad and bad. I hope that the Minister will take on board how angry I am and how disappointed others outside the House must be.
The Minister will remember that before the debate I asked him to confirm that in Northern Ireland the rights, benefits and responsibilities of mainland legislation which has already been enacted are being visited upon the Northern Ireland scene.
I happen to have played a part in the Housing Defects Bill 1984 and I am therefore fairly familiar with the main arguments. The great problem with which we have to grapple is that on the mainland 16,000 people are affected by the designated categories. Can the Minister tell us how many people will be affected if this order goes through? We were trying to get those 16,000 people out of the difficulties

667
into which the Government had helped them by encouraging them with the right-to-buy scheme to buy houses that turned out to be pigs in pokes. While we were trying to assist them, 160,000 people were in comparable houses owned by councils. The Government did not bat an eyelid about them or where the councils would obtain the money to put right those houses.
Billions and billions of pounds are needed to put houses right, in general. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has talked about the Divis Flats. Those people are as much entitled to a decent place to live as those who will benefit from this order. They have had to whistle. They will have to have them put right out of the housing executive's depressed housing allocation. However, good luck to the people we are dealing with. The Government believe that having encouraged them to buy houses which have a major defect they should have that put right.
Will the noble Lord explain to the House what is special about the council tenant who has bought his house and who then finds that that house must be repurchased or substantially underpinned? Why do the Government believe that in order to induce council tenants to buy they must say to them that they need pay only 40 per cent. of the value? If it is such a good thing to purchase a council house, and it is, why does one need to say that a house worth £30,000 can be bought for £12,000? What other sector of the community is given such largesse? It is not the tenant of a private house. There is no legislation which says that the tenant of a private landlord who wants to buy his house will be encouraged by the Government to buy it by being given a 60 per cent. discount.
The Government believe that the council tenant should have the right to buy, which is right. The original argument was that the tenant had lived in it, paid all the rent and was entitled to be able to buy it. The Government will know from the experience of the past five years that that has been a substantial free gift. Having received that capital sum, people are selling their houses and moving elsewhere. There are some questions there for the Government to answer.
We know the dreadful housing situation in Northern Ireland. The record of this and other governments is good. There has been a decline in the percentage of unfit houses. At one time the figure was 25 per cent. It is now down to 10 per cent. Of all Northern Ireland housing, 10 per cent. is unfit. That is still twice the mainland level. The Belfast Telegraph of last Friday stated:
"Why the outlook is bleak for those who live in Ulster's unfit houses".
Whatever the Government say that they are doing, which I do not deny, for the vast majority of people who live in private and council rented accommodation, the prospect is bleak. Can the Government tell us how they can square that with the housing strategy that the former Secretary of State, Mr. Jim Prior, announced in December 1983? He told the people of Northern Ireland with a great deal of enthusiasm, "What we have is a programme to improve private and public housing." My information is that many
668
businessmen in Northern Ireland are in despair because they assumed that they would receive money from the Government in grants and aid. Individuals bought houses on the premise that they would receive improvement grants, but those have now dried up. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has pointed out, in the past six months 5,000 more construction workers have been put on the dole. The Government can wring their hands and say, "We have a plan. We are doing our best. It is better than it was." I believe the Government's housing record is an absolute disgrace. The Government have let down a great many people in Northern Ireland and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, speaks with experience, but I shall be briefer for obvious reasons. This is a long and technical order. The idea and value of providing financial assistance to those who have brought property and then found it to be defective can hardy be challenged. I should have thought that that would have been accepted as fair play. I ask the Minister just one question. The implication here is that bad workmanship is not uncommon. Is that, regrettably, the true position?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I may, I shall reply succinctly and swiftly to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I commend him upon a passionate speech on this order. Even he has stressed that it brings Northern Ireland into line with what we hope will be the case in the United Kingdom. I stress to the noble Lord that such legislation is a priority. We want to bring in legislation to ensure that we are in step with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord asked how many people were involved. In my opening remarks I said that initially we think there will be about 200. About 3,000 Orlit houses have these defects, which I did not go into too technically. I did not think that your Lordships would wish me to. As I understand it, there is some corrosion of the reinforced concrete beams. Only 200 of those Orlit houses were sold to tenants, and they will be covered by this order.
As for the noble Lord's questions about council tenants and discounts, I mentioned 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. That is in step with legislation for Great Britain which we have discussed for many years. I do not think that I can add anything new (or say anything different) to the discussions that we have had over years in your Lordships' House, in another place and outside.
I stress that we are not ashamed of what we have done. I believe that the noble Lord asked about unfit housing and I shall write to him on that point. I do not think that we have any reason to be ashamed of our record, as I stressed in my opening remarks and my remarks in the previous debate.
I take on board the noble Lord's opening remarks. This is a matter for the usual channels. I have done my best, but if I am at fault, I apologise to your Lordships. I am as frustrated as the noble Lord in trying to get through this business. I do so with the courtesy due to everyone in your Lordships' House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that there was one of 28 categories—the Orlit house—that had been built in Northern Ireland. Can he tell me whether in actual fact there are any other than Orlit houses in Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that the designation of those entitled to the grant is always under review, there is great pressure. Everyone who bought a house that has turned out to be defective is putting the Government under pressure to include that housing in the list for treatment. I should be grateful if he could write to me.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe I shall not necessarily need to do that. I take the noble Lord's point but I do stress that we have only the Orlit type of dwelling in the list of 28 or so defective types of PRC dwelling so far designated in Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord accepts that. If there is any further technicality I shall write to him, I hope more fully than I have been able to speak tonight. I hope that I have covered the point.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I am afraid that I have forgotten precisely what his point was, Will he raise it again?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, my point was that the implication seems to be that bad workmanship is not uncommon.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that bad workman-ship is uncommon but where we find it I think that it will be covered by the 28 different types of PRC defects which we attempt to cover with this particular order. I take the point concerning the question of bad workmanship but perhaps that can be dealt with another day. If your Lordships will allow me, I beg to commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
8.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the provisions of this order generally provide a better and more comprehensive legislative framework for the existing Urban Development Grant and Environmental Improvement Schemes in Northern Ireland. The order is geared particularly to helping tackle some of the problems associated with areas of social need. It has three main purposes. The first is to extend the scope and forms of assistance which the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) may make available under the Urban Development Grant Scheme. The second purpose is to enable the department financially to assist schemes for the improvement of the environment under the Environmental Improvement Scheme. The third purpose is to give the department power itself to undertake schemes for the improvement of the environment under the Environ-mental Improvement Scheme.
The Urban Development Grant Scheme has been operating very successfully in Belfast and Londonderry since 1983. The purpose of the grant is generally to assist economic development and relieve social need by stimulating investment and revitalising run-down areas. The present statutory base for both the Urban Development Grant and Environmental Improvement Schemes is the Social Need (Grants) Act (NI) 1970. However, the 1970 Act has always been recognised as a stopgap measure. It was originally enacted to enable the former Ministry of Community Relations to grant-aid community centre provision and has proved inadequate as a means of tackling urban development.
The 1970 Act, for example, restricts assistance to grant aid; in certain instances, however, private sector projects ought to be triggered by other forms of assistance—for example, a loan or rent guarantee. Nor is there power under the Act to pay grants in advance of expenditure being incurred towards the establish-ment costs of voluntary environmental groups. While the Act permits the Department to grant aid environ-mental improvement works, it does not permit the department to itself undertake such works. The 1970 Act also lacks adequate powers to impose and enforce conditions attaching to offers of financial assistance. The proposed order therefore seeks to tackle these deficiencies and thereby place Northern Ireland on a similar footing to Great Britain.
I had intended to deal with some of the more detailed provisions of the order but perhaps it is the will of your Lordships that I should simply mention that Article 3 also gives the department powers to contribute to the advance funding of projects for any body or any individual undertaking certain categories of project which is of benefit to a district. Article 4 provides safeguards whereby the department can impose conditions in offers of assistance and may enforce and police such conditions. Articles 5, 6 and 7 I think are very detailed and if the noble Lord wishes to raise them I can certainly cover them.
Finally, my Lords, there are inevitably some differences arising from different structures of central and local government but we believe that the provisions of the order will generally provide Northern Ireland with a similar framework for tackling problems associated with areas of social need to that already available in Great Britain. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I will be brief because this is a short order of only seven articles. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining its background and we hope that it will produce impressive results. However, I should like to suggest that there could be difficulties in interpreting two or three of the clauses.
The first problem is that the term "social need" is not defined. It is a wide expression and it does play a key role in this order. Unless there is evidence of social need, whatever that means, then the power to provide financial assistance will not arise.

671
Secondly, I wonder whether it is intended that a body corporate which has received financial advice under Article 3 should be beyond the reach of Article 4 which imposes a duty on a person who has received such assistance to furnish information and documents to satisfy the department that the conditions imposed at the time of giving the grant have been complied with. Article 4 contains no reference to a body corporate.
Thirdly, why should Article 3(2)(b) authorise the giving of financial assistance to a third party for the improvement of the environment, while under Article 5 the department reserves to itself the power to carry out works which contribute "directly or indirectly to the improvement of the environment"? Should not the order be applying the same criteria whether works are to be carried out by a person or a body under Article 3 or by the department under Article 5?
Lastly, the power to provide financial assistance is vested in the Department of the Environment. Assuming that that is constitutionally correct, at what level within the department will the decision be taken and will there be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State? Can the Minister answer these inquiries, either tonight or in the letter?
Lord Blease: My Lords, I shall not expect a reply from the Minister. He has been under tremendous pressure for the past hour and a half, but this is an important order to the people of Northern Ireland. First of all, I would like to welcome the main stated provisions and purposes as set out in Article 3. As I understand it, this article brings the law and the general provisions concerning urban development and environmental improvement work in Northern Ireland in line with he law and with similar provisions for Scotland, England and Wales.
However, I am concerned about the actual realisation of two matters raised by the order. The first matter is the possible efficacy of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland in implementing the purpose of the order. The second concern is the actual resources which are available to undertake the purposes of the order.
As regards the present functional activities of the 26 district councils, may I ask the Minister whether effective administrative co-operation and participation of elected representatives in positive decision-making procedures is not a prerequisite for any effective working of the measures proposed in the order? In other words, I am saying that the Northern Ireland district councils are not working at the present time in any effective manner. If that is true, how do the Government propose to move forward on these social needs provisions?
With regard to the matter of actual resources, I welcome the stated intention of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment as set out in Article 6 for the necessary studies, investigations and research which could forward the purposes of the order. However, as I understand it, no additional public expenditure or staffing arrangements are intended.
672
How do the Government and the department propose to undertake the purposes of the order? How vigorously will the provisions of the order be promoted and activated, and also the enforcement and monitoring of approved work? I do not expect the Minister to reply this evening, but I should welcome a written reply. I hope that it will be more encouraging and perhaps more hopeful than I and others expect.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease, for their forbearance. I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in respect of all his queries, apart from his thoughts on the area of social need. I am advised that there is no statutory definition of an area of social need in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, where this phrase is used in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. We take it that an area of social need is generally recognised as one where deprivation is above the norm. An example would be an area of high unemployment, of poverty, of poor housing and environment, or where there are high demands on the social services or low educational achievement. The precise mix and combination of these factors may vary from area to area. The overall impact is such that what we call social need exists. I would stress that such deprivation is normally associated with urban areas. That is the matter with which we are dealing this evening.
I should like to write to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Blease. I have an answer in respect of district councils. It is, however, a little long. I do not think that I can precis it sufficiently. I should therefore like to deal with that in writing. With that and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and to all your Lordships, I commend this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
8.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 42, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Social Security Advisory Committee shall monitor the operation of the social fund and shall receive from the Secretary of State such specified payments as may be necessary to ensure the proper exercise of this function.").
The noble Lord said: The social fund is a new concept and, as we saw earlier, a very controversial one. There is a great deal of apprehension about how it will work out in practice. It would seem to be essential that it should be subject to independent monitoring. It seems that the best way of achieving this is for the Social Security Advisory Committee to have a duty to monitor the fund. In order to do so, it will need to have sufficient resources to carry out research. The Government have pointed out that the Social Security Advisory Committee will be able to comment if it so wishes. We do not believe that this goes far enough. The Social Security Advisory Committee is

673
already hard pressed to fulfil its existing duties. We feel that unless it is placed under a specific duty to monitor the fund and given adequate resources with which to do so, the fund will not be properly monitored. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The Committee will be aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee was set up under Section 9 of the Social Security Act 1980. It has several functions under Sections 9 and 10 of that Act. It has the important duty of considering and reporting on regulations made under social security legislation. It also has the duty to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State. This duty applies whether a matter is referred to it or whether the committee selects a subject of its own accord. Your Lorships will notice that this role is advisory. It is reflected in the name of the committee. I do not think that we should lightly alter that role to a formal monitoring duty. This would have considerable implications for the wider relationship between the committee and the department.
The main thrust of the amendment is already catered for in legislation. There is no need to write this provision into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I want to support strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. After all, the Social Security Advisory Committee is an extremely responsible body. It is appointed by the Government. Therefore, it is a body in which the Government have confidence. It seems to me that in a new venture such as has been outlined, the social fund, it is vital that there should be some responsible body able to advise the Government on the progress it has made. The noble Baroness said in an earlier debate that there were issues on which lessons would have to be learned. We were talking then about cash limiting. She was saying, "If it does not work, we will have to change it". The "we" refers to the Government. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that someone other than the Government will advise the Government on what should be done. It is not the case that some other body can do this. I remarked earlier that the traditional charities would give their advice but that they cannot give any assistance. So far as I can see none was consulted on how the social fund would affect its work for hardship cases.
The advisory council is a government-established body set up to advise them. The monitoring role has to be done by someone. If the noble Baroness, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had said what other body would do this, I might have been a little more interested in her argument. She simply said, "No". I believe that she needs to give some argument that goes further. An argument from Scotland has been mentioned. I have an interesting argument from Welsh Women's Aid which says, in respect of the social fund:
"We are particularly concerned about its effect upon women leaving refuges".
The organisation argues that because of the different problems of the social fund that it had seen, there needed to be some sort of body that could monitor and
674
report to the Government on the effect that the social fund was having, and whether its worst fears were fulfilled or not. If the Government intend to say that the Social Security Advisory Committee shall not monitor and advise, will they kindly say what other body will do it?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies, she seemed to suggest that this amendment would alter the relationship of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government. It is clear, if she looks at the amendment, that there is no intention to return to the previous system by giving it the same sort of executive powers as the old Supplementary Benefit Commission. I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the first to recognise that the Social Security Advisory Committee has much to do with an increasing mass of regulations on which it comments either on its own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State. Normally, there is, I understand, a quarantine period of one year before the Social Security Advisory Committee can begin to scrutinise regulations under a new Act of Parliament. This may be appropriate for relatively minor legislation. We are, however, confronted with the introduction of a completely new system—what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called a new venture. It seems important, therefore, that there should be no quarantine and that the committee should have the necessary resources to carry out a proper monitoring exercise and report back. This would not in any way distort the relationship between the committee and the Government. I hope that the Government will look on it rather favourably.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall gladly expand on my earlier remarks. I mentioned that the committee commented on the changes to the supplementary benefits scheme in 1980 in its annual report. Your Lordships may wish to be aware that in its 1981 report it also devoted a chapter to service to the public. In this, it said:
"Although the Social Security Advisory Committee does not have any responsibility for the day to day running of social security operations, Ministers have asked it to keep a watch over the quality of social security service to the public".
The report then describes the committee's initial observations.
This request has never been withdrawn, and I know that the committee sees this aspect of its work as a continuing task. Again, if it specifically wanted to consider the operation of the social fund, it is able to do so. But this should be left to the committee. It may wish to examine the fund in its early stages and turn to other subjects when the fund is bedded down, so to speak. Alternatively, it may wish to leave it during the early stages of settling in and consider the fund later. I think it is better to leave this matter to the committee to decide.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Social Security Advisory Committee already has adequate powers to carry out its proper statutory role. This has worked well since its formation. I do not think that the introduction of a new type of benefit should lead us to alter radically its role and function. There is no reason

675
for the social fund to lead us to change a perfectly adequate relationship between the committee and the social security scheme. I still cannot support this amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I see whether I understand what she is saying. As I understand it, she is saying that the Government have great confidence in the Social Security Advisory Committee, and that the Social Security Advisory Committee would be perfectly free to study the operation of the social fund and to report to the Government and publicly on its impressions. If I have interpreted the speech of the noble Baroness aright, that seems to me a considerable advance.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to those who have supported this amendment. It seems to me that the second answer of the noble Baroness was rather different from her first. Her first answer seemed to suggest that the effect of the amendment would be to give an entirely new role to the Social Security Advisory Committee, whereas her second reply seemed to suggest that this was something that it was doing already but that we do not need to put it in the Bill—which is a fairly familiar answer.
Baroness Trumpington: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks. My first answer was not a good idea, but I was trying to make up for lost time, if the Committee knows what I mean.
Lord Banks: I accept the explanation of the noble Baroness and assume that her second answer is the one on which we must place the most reliance. As that was for me the more satisfactory of the two I am rather pleased about that, although I am disappointed that the noble Baroness is not more enthusiastic about the precise proposal in the amendment.
However, I should like to think further about what she said and to read both her replies again. I must point out that there is the question of resources which is important and with which I do not think she dealt. Having pointed that out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Awards etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 42, line 30, leave out ("or for the benefit of).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may recover an award made from the social fund from the person to whom, or for the benefit of whom, it was made. Where that person is the member of a married or unmarried couple it may be recovered from the other member of the couple.
Arising from this there is concern that women may be pursued for debts incurred by their partners without their consent. Perhaps I may mention a particular case. In this case Mr. R lived for some time with Miss M and they had a child. They obtained a grant for essential furniture. Miss M then left the house because of violence and Miss S and her child later moved in with Mr. R and the furniture. Mr. R subsequently abandoned Miss S, who continued to live in the house. That may seem an unusual case, but it is a case history. Under current legislation no money would be repayable by any of the parties for the furniture. Under the Social Security Bill's proposals if the furniture were obtained using a social fund loan, the Secretary of State may have the power to pursue both Miss M, who lived with Mr. R at the time of the loan, and Miss S, who now has the use of the furniture, but who did not know of the loan. Neither woman would have been required to consent to the loan. Which woman would the Secretary of State pursue for payment?
Several other questions arise. For example, who owns the furniture? It was provided originally for Mr. R, Miss M and their child, but is not now used by any of them. Who now is Mr. R's partner in terms of the Social Security Bill? For how long after a separation will a man and woman be considered to constitute a couple? If Mr. R and Miss M are subsequently reconciled, will they become liable for one another's loans obtained during a separation? For example, if a woman leaving a refuge receives a loan, her husband or cohabitee could be made to repay the loan out of his benefit. This could cause very serious problems for the woman, who may be further abused and harassed by the man as a result of being forced to repay the loan.
In future a man will be able to take on loans from the social fund without his partner's consent, the repayments of which will have the effect of reducing her benefit entitlement, as well as his own, and making her liable to proceedings to recover the loan should the man fail to pay out.
I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 97. The two amendments together would remove the problems which I have been outlining. High street shops and banks do not have this power to pursue partners who have not been party in writing to the debt or loan in the first place. It is most unjust that one person can be turned into a debtor without his knowledge or consent. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The present wording of Clause 33(8)(a) enables recovery of a social fund payment from two types of people: first, the person to whom the award was made or, secondly, the person for whose benefit the award was made. I agree that this might carry connotations which we did not intend. If one accepts the principle of recovery, obviously the payment should be recovered from the person to whom it was made. There will be no doubt about that, and the first part of Clause 33(8)(a) achieves that.
We intend to achieve the same effect by the second part of Clause 33(8)(a) also, but we wish to provide for the different circumstances which might exist. Members of the Committee will see that in the clause we provide that an application might be made on behalf of someone. Let us assume that an award is

677
made and that it is recoverable. If a person is making a claim on someone's behalf, circumstances might demand the payment also to be made to that person. But there would be no question of recovering the payment from that person. Recovery would be from the person on whose behalf the application was made and the payment made.
This is the intention of the second part of Clause 33(8)(a), but I accept that the wrong impression could be given. It could look more draconian than, for example, recovery from a child because the payment was intended for a pair of shoes for him. I need hardly tell the Committee that we would not to do this. But for the reasons I have outlined we do need the second part of Clause 33(8)(a) in some form. This is why I cannot accept the amendment at the moment. But I can promise to consider the points that have been made and to come forward with a clearer definition of the intentions at a later date. I hope that on that amendment that the noble Lord will find this acceptable.
On Amendment No. 97 I recognise the importance that Members of the Committee attach to the whole question of recovery of social fund payments, but I fear that in this issue there is unlikely to be a meeting of minds.
Clause 33(8)(b) is concerned with the recovery from either partner of a married or unmarried couple. In cases where recovery from the person seeking help is not a practical proposition, I would suggest that it is perfectly fair and reasonable to consider recovery from their partner. There will indeed be occasions where these arrangements will be of benefit to the person seeking help. For example, a claimant may be working part-time and receiving insufficient income support for a social fund loan to be payable. It will be to his advantage in those circumstances if the social fund officer has the power to make payment and recover it from his partner's social security benefit.
Clause 33(8)(b) provides for the recovery of a social fund payment for an item of furniture being made to the wife or husband during what turns out to be a temporary separation. It would be more than curious to prevent a recovery from the partner on his return to the household, particularly where he or she resumed a joint claim for both partners. I can assure the Committee that this provision will not be used to recover a social fund payment from the partner following a permanent separation.
9 p.m.
Lord Banks: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply because she seemed to be moving some way towards meeting the objections which have given rise to this amendment, and I am grateful for that. However, I should like to read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said; and perhaps she, too, may like to read what I said, and we can possibly consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 42, line 34, leave out from ("person") to end of line 36 and insert ("who is liable to maintain the person by or on behalf of whom the application for the award was made or any person in relation to whose needs the award was made.
(8A) Subsections (3) to (6) of section 25 above have effect for the purposes of subsection (8)(c) above as they have effect for the purposes of sections 23 to 25 above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 97A. The purpose of this amendment is to remedy a defect in the clause which if left unaltered would not reflect the principle that it should be possible to make, in the appropriate circumstances, a recovery from a liable relative. This subsection deals with the recovery from a liable relative of payments made from the social fund. Let me explain that the term "liable relative" is generally used in the context of supplementary benefit to denote a person who has a liability to maintain another person—for example, husbands and wives have a liability to maintain each other and parents have a liability to maintain their children.
The provision for recovery of benefit from liable relatives has been accepted by successive governments. There is an acceptance that there should be a means of recovery of a social fund payment from a "liable relative", in the same way as there is now for supplementary benefit, as there will be for income support. The subsection, as drafted, allows recovery only in the very limited circumstances when the social fund beneficiary is receiving income support and, in addition, a court order for maintenance has been made against the liable relative. The intention is to allow for the recovery of a social fund payment in a wider range of circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 43, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it.").
The noble Lord said: When considering the possibility of making an award, an officer must have regard to the possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet the need. The possibility, which may exist only in the mind of the social fund officer, that various local charities or relatives of applicants may be able to provide money or items requested from the social fund, could result in applicants being required to seek help from a whole list of individuals and organisations. Quite apart from the delay in considering an application, it would be demoralising for the individual concerned to have to face a series of humiliating requests and refusals. No indication is given of how the social fund officer is to determine what possibilities may exist. Will the social fund officer accept the word of the applicant or, at the other extreme, will official letters of refusal from charities and relatives be required?
The amendment will remove some of those uncertainties and put the onus on the social fund officer to show that the applicant's need can be met fully in some other way than by a social fund payment. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Indeed, I touched upon this matter in relation to an earlier amendment. I was perhaps out of order in doing so; but one occasionally strays from the terms of amendments if one feels very strongly about something.
The purpose of the amendment has been very well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I find it appalling that a social fund officer, faced with a person who has represented some very great problems in relation to a single payment for furniture, clothing or whatever else it may be, has to ask himself: "Is it possible that someone else would pay? May be the parents have some money? What about Auntie Flo? Perhaps we should find out whether Auntie Flo can pay? She has a brother who may be able to pay". How does he dig into the possibility that some other person or body may be wholly or partly able to meet the payment?
If it cannot be a member of the family, the officer in question may say, "This fellow is a Mason. Will the Mason's pay?" He may be an Elk or a member of some other society. He may be a member of the North Beddington Rugby Club and perhaps they will pay. If not, the officer may say, "Perhaps we could persuade some charity to pay. Maybe the local authority will pay? Yes, the local authority". How will he handle this situation? Will he telephone Auntie Flo, the local government offices, the family welfare association and all these other bodies? That seems to me to impose an intolerable burden upon a social fund officer. Moreover, it puts the person who is applying in an invidious position because he or she knows that they will find out whether some other member of the family or some relative can possibly find the money to pay. I find that so obnoxious. As Members of the Committee will understand, I feel deeply about the matter. I hope that the Minister can see her way clear to taking this nasty paragraph (c) out of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: The Bill includes some of the considerations to which the social fund officer might have regard in reaching his decision. These are in Clause 33(9). One of these considerations is the subject of this amendment. This simply builds on current practice, although to hear some people you would not believe it. The Committee will wish to bear in mind that Regulation 6(2) of the present single payments regulations contains a long list of items for which a single payment cannot be made. Some of these are because it has not been felt that the social security scheme should meet the cost of a television or a holiday. But others are clearly included because we should ensure that the cash benefit system is not used to pay for items or services which are properly the responsibility of other bodies. Thus we do not pay removal charges where someone is rehoused following a compulsory purchase order on their property or for repairs to local authority property. This kind of provision must be carried forward.
Similar rules operate in the current provisions for urgent cases. There are additional rules for these reflecting the different nature of these cases; for example, that they are payable to people not normally
680
entitled. So in urgent cases our local office staff have to pay regard to whether help is available from other sources. The S Manual gives guidance on this. At present it points out that the local officer must not assume other means are available. But it does point out that help may be available from other sources which could help in cases of urgent need. These vary from friends and relatives, through banks, to charities and organisations. So we are simply ensuring that the social fund officer has the same ability and flexibility as an officer has at present. We are not introducing a new principle which need be routinely considered in all cases.
Lord Wigoder: Could the noble Baroness give us a simple example of a set of circumstances in which there is never the possibility that the person or body might wholly or partly meet the payment?
Lord Ennals: And how would he find out?
Baroness Trumpington: The current paragraph in the S Manual states:
"refer a claimant to a charity or benevolent fund only if:—

(a) an appropriate organisation is known to exist in the area and it is likely that he would be eligible for help;

(b) it is known that help is likely to be received in time to meet the need; and

(c) the urgent need is for items which are known to be available"

Baroness Seear: Could the noble Baroness not look at the wording of this again even if she will not remove it? The way it reads at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, is that the officer shall have regard to,
"the possibility that some other person …".
That is extremely wide. It is not really in accord with what the noble Baroness has told us is the S practice. After all, the S practice is not in the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: May I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are simply ensuring that the social fund officer has the same ability and flexibility as an officer has at present. We are not introducing a new principle which need be routinely considered in all cases.
Lord Banks: Does the noble Baroness argue that the amendment would not leave the officer with that flexibility? The noble Baroness is not answering that question.
Baroness Trumpington: I am very sensitive of time. We shall be ensuring, if this is helpful to the noble Lord, that training and published guidance indicate how the consideration should be applied.
Lord Ennals: In view of the representations that have been made, including by the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, would the noble Baroness not agree to at least take it away and think again about

681
it? Obviously, she was a little reluctant to answer before. I know that it was in order to save time; but actually it delayed things. Would she not agree to take it away and have a look at it again?
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is being at his most persuasive, but I regret that he has not worked his magic on me.
Lord Banks: I regret that the noble Baroness has not agreed to think about it again. After all, I should have
682
thought that the amendment on the Marshalled List that he must consider:
"whether it is reasonable to expect that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet it"
would have left the flexibility, and left the noble Baroness with all the power that she feels it is essential for the officer to have, and all the guidance. However, the noble Baroness thinks otherwise. I do not intend to pursue it tonight, but perhaps we can come back to this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 43, line 5, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: When determining whether to make an award, the officer must have regard, where the payment is repayable, to the likelihood of repayment. Before the social fund officer reaches the stage of deciding the likelihood of repayment, he will presumably have satisfied himself that the applicant has a need, has no resources from which to meet the need and that no other person or body can meet the need. Is the applicant then, having shown that he has no resources, to be refused a loan on the ground that he has no resources to repay it? I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord has once again touched on an important point in moving this amendment. He has echoed reservations which have been expressed before during debates in another place. Clause 33(9) sets out a number of the factors which a social fund officer should take into account when making a decision. The particular consideration with which the amendment is concerned is one which we believe quite reasonably refers to a feature which must be taken into account when considering a loan.
I accept that we are not likely to reach unanimity today on our policy of recoverable loans from the social fund. But as payments will be recoverable, I would suggest that it makes sense that when a social fund officer reaches decisions about whether to award a payment, or what the value of the recovery could be, he should pay regard to the effect on the person receiving help. Primarily the payment will be aimed at meeting the need of the individual. But there is a balance to be struck between this and ensuring that either too great a strain is not put on the person concerned or that the repayments extend indefinitely. Similarly, in deciding payments, some regard must be paid to whether recovery is likely at all. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am not sure that the answer, for which I am grateful, was entirely satisfactory. I do not think the noble Baroness answered my question, when I asked if the applicant, having shown that he had no resources, was to be refused a loan on the ground that he had no resources to repay it. But I shall not pursue it further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 43, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove the requirement on the social fund officers to consider the amount of money in the social fund when deciding whether or not to make an award. If we may take a particular case: Mrs. M. is a single parent with two daughters. She receives £57.70 per week in supplementary benefit and child benefit. She has no other income. Her electric cooker, purchased second-hand five years ago, is now beyond repair. The cost of a replacement will be £90. Under the present regulations Mrs. M. will receive a grant. Under the proposed scheme, if the social fund is running low in
684
a particular area—we touched on this earlier and if this is an incorrect interpretation perhaps the noble Baroness would explain to me why—an application in, say, February, would result, it would seem, in Mrs. M. and her daughters having no home-cooked meals until April when a fresh injection of cash is made into the social fund.
It is difficult for any person on any income to save an amount equivalent to 1½ weeks' income. But for someone on supplementary benefit this feat is, to all intents and purposes, impossible since the amount is calculated to provide only the basic necessities of life—that is to say, fuel, food and clothing. There is no justice in the idea that Mrs. M's claim should be decided not on its merits but according to how many other people had made similar claims in the same financial year or on how many births or deaths there had been that year.
It is clear from the Bill that the officer has to take allocations to the fund into account. Perhaps the noble Baroness would explain why that is so if it does not mean that in certain circumstances the condition of the fund will determine whether a loan or payment is made.
Baroness Trumpington: May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the matters to which he has been referring are matters that we shall want to consider as we decide how to respond to the vote earlier today.
Lord Ennals: That really is no reply to a question that absolutely strikes at the heart of the whole of this new social fund. In earlier debates we have said it is quite wrong that the social fund should be cash limited. If you cash limit a social fund, you are saying that regardless of the personal need of any applicant during a particular year, unless there is some supple-mentary estimate—and there rarely is—the social fund officer is going to have to take note of the amount of money that is available. In other words, he must take note not of the need of the person involved, but of the amount of money that is available.
That strikes at the whole root and it is, I believe, the cancer in the social fund. It puts aside the principle of a welfare state which gives according to needs, not according to the ability of the Government, in a cash limited exercise, to be able to pay. If the social fund officer has to do as he is asked, before he looks at any need at all, he has to ask, "How much money have we got left for the rest of this week or this month? Can we afford to pay this old lady or this crippled person?" And the answer may be, "I am afraid not, because we had to spend all that money last week."
Surely the essence of any welfare state system must be based on the needs of the persons who apply to it. The judgment ought to be based on their needs and not on the financial situation of a cash limited fund at any given time. The noble Baroness really must answer the question that was put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Baroness Trumpington: I have never heard such a fuss. I said perfectly plainly that this was a matter we would have to consider in the light of the vote this afternoon. I have also explained at some length why

685
the fear that money would run low in February is totally exaggerated. We will of course monitor the expansion and the expenditure and take appropriate action. We have made it perfectly clear that maternity and funeral payments would not be subject to the budget. We shall also always want to pay special attention, whatever the time of year, to absolute financial crises. This is the purpose of Clause 33(9)(e), and in the overall framework of the fund it is a useful purpose. I suggest to the Committee that it makes sense to retain it.
Baroness Seear: Do I understand that maternity and funeral benefits are safeguarded, but other things are not?
Baroness Trumpington: No; the noble Baroness will know that funeral and maternity payments are grants. Other things may be grants, but they may also be loans.
Baroness Seear: Then why did the noble Baroness mention maternity and funeral benefits, if they come under a different heading?
Baroness Tumpington: In order to make sure that it was understood by the Committee that these were perfectly safe and not included in the budget.
Lord Ennals: I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness was really saying. She was trying to reassure me and was saying that I was making a fuss about nothing. Was she saying that if there is a claim which has to be dealt with at a particular time by a social fund officer and if that officer is running short of money he will, by some means, be able to get some extra money from the Government? If that is so, it is interesting news; but it is not cash limiting it. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that cash limiting means imposing upon an authority a limitation above which it is not allowed to go. That is how the health service operates. When the noble Baroness made her comparison with the health service she put her foot in it absolutely, because there it means waiting lists or ward closures. In this case it means refusals. However, if she is now saying that that is not really so and that steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that the money will be available, then I should be absolutely delighted. If she would simply say to the Committee that the Government will think again about this in the light of earlier decisions, we should all be happy.
Baroness Trumpington: I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, simply has not listened to what I said earlier about flexibility in the early years of the budget to ensure that money does not run out. I accept that I shall not take noble Lords opposite with me on the question of the need for budgetary control. But, having decided to adopt such a system, I suggest that it is only sensible to provide that social fund officers should have regard to their budget allocation when making decisions. Otherwise the effects of the greater financial control that we are seeking will be lost.
If I may just return to those maternity and funeral payments, if the conditions we set are met, a payment will be made. In the Bill as drafted the Secretary of
686
State has power to pay into the fund certain amounts. He can then allocate amounts for different purposes. This means that he can separate out and identify the elements directed for maternity and funeral needs. I hope that that gives a fuller answer to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: I am very sorry to come back to this. I do not want to be contentious about it. but I think the noble Baroness does not quite understand the reason for the anxiety on this side. We are dealing in the social fund with people who are at the very bottom of the pile and in the greatest need. Of course, we appreciate that over a whole range of matters there have to be cash limits, but is the noble Baroness telling us that there can be people in the position outlined by my noble friend Lord Banks, who are desperate to have a new cooker because otherwise they cannot cook, and where it could arise that the answer would have to be "No", because of cash limits? It is to that that we want an answer, because we are dealing with the most necessitous cases in the country. We are not trying to plague the noble Baroness. We are trying to establish that there is a fundamental principle of meeting the wants of people in real need.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes. I fully understand why the noble Baroness is expressing those fears, but I must tell her that they are totally misplaced. This brings us back to the budget that we discussed earlier. We aim to set up quick and effective mechanisms for monitoring the fund, but we intend to do more than that. We will develop budget profiles, so that local offices can tailor their expenditure according to the seasonal patterns of demand. We aim to be in a position where, as well as knowing what is happening to the budget, we can reasonably gauge why it is happening, so that we can make an appropriate response.
It is the need to respond flexibly and appropriately to pressures on the budget which explains the importance we attach to budget monitoring. We may need to be able to move resources from offices which are lightly loaded to offices which are under pressure. I have said all this before—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was in the Committee when I said it—but we shall always make sure in financial crises that they are the first call.
I do not think I have anything else to say. I am totally convinced that the Government have got it right, that we are not going to run out of money—how could we propose anything like that?—and that we shall have the needs of the very poorest as our first attention. We are, on the whole, talking about exceptions when we talk about people who will not get a grant immediately. If you are talking about people who are going to have to wait and appeal to the social fund officer if the decision is against them, that is one thing. But money we are not going to run out of and I really do not think this argument can go on.
Lord Ennals: In which case, how can it be said to be cash limited if the noble Baroness says, "We are not going to run out of money"? She cannot have it both ways.
The Countess of Mar: I support the noble Lord, Lord Banks. From my own experience under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act 1972, local authorities were empowered to provide telephones for chronically sick and disabled people. Many noble Lords will know that I worked for British Telecom for a number of years. Every January, people used to apply to us for telephones and then, when they had been advised that perhaps the local authority could help them, the local authority would come back to us and say, "We are very sorry but we cannot help this person, because we have run out of money. Come back to us in April." This happened only after the Conservative Government at that time, which was the late 1970s-early 1980s, had imposed cash limits on the local authorities. I know from my own experience what happens when there are cash limits.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I have given our side of the case. I have given assurances over and over again that the social fund will not run out of money. I am afraid that I have no more to say.
Lord Banks: This position is very unsatisfactory. It is clear that the officer must have regard to what is in the kitty. That is written into the Bill. The amendment would have taken it out. The noble Baroness opposes the amendment. She must feel it is necessary for some reason that the officer should continue to look in the kitty, although she says that there is no possibility of it running out of money. The two things seem to be at odds. We shall certainly want to come back to this issue, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 43, line 9, leave out ("general directions issued") and insert ("regulations made")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 88. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
("(11 A) A person applying for a social fund payment may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal constituted in accordance with section 97(2) to (2E) of the Social Security Act 1975 against any determination or direction of a social fund officer with respect to the application.
(11B) On an appeal under subsection (11A) above the appeal tribunal may—

(a) confirm the determination or direction appealed against;

(b) substitute for that determination or direction any other determination or direction which a social fund officer could have made; or

(c) if the appeal is against a direction, set aside that direction.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 88 and was considered when that was agreed. I therefore formally beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved. ]
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Widowhood]:
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 104ZA:
Page 44, line 32, leave out from ("4") to end of line 33.
The noble Baroness said: I hope to be brief in moving Amendment No. 104ZA, which seeks to take out one short line:
"she survives him by at least seven days".
We are talking of the new £1,000 tax-free amount that the Government have decided shall be given to widows when they are widowed. As the Bill is drafted, the widow will have to wait for seven days before she can claim the £1,000; this is just in case she survives her husband by less than seven days. That presupposes that the two of them are in a motor-car accident; that one is in hospital and the other dies. Perhaps the widow dies three or four days after the husband; in other words, within seven days.
I hope that the Government in their wisdom will agree to this amendment because it seems to us that, although the £1,000 is tax free, the widow needs it there and then. There are bills to be paid, and we all know the high cost of dying these days. The widow would have to pay for the funeral, and very few widows, unless they are in exceptional circumstances, have enough small change in the kitty to pay. Therefore, this plan will work if the widow is able to get the £1,000 within a short time, which I am sure is what the Government intended when they brought it forward, but it will not work if we leave in these few words. Having said that, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: On reconsideration we think that this is a useful simplification of the provisions which I am happy to accept. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister—more grateful than I can say at this late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 104A is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 104B.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 45, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment challenges the alterations in the ages affecting widows' payments. In sub-paragraph (a) the age will be increased from 40 to 45, and in sub-paragraph (b) the age will be increased from 50 to 55. I and my noble friends would prefer the Bill to revert to the existing age limits of 40 and 50, instead of having a five-year increase to 45 and 55.
We do so because it is very difficult at those ages for many women who have spent a long time at home bringing up their children to find jobs and get out to work. They need the remuneration that they can receive at the existing age limits, whereas many women at 45 and 55 years of age have to rely on part-time jobs that are not always very well paid. It seems harsh to us that there should be a five-year increase in the qualifying ages. We hope that the Government will examine that point again.
On June 3rd, at col. 686 of Hansard, the Minister told me that as a result of changes in widows' payments on page 45 of the Bill 15,000 widows would suffer some cash loss. I hope that those 15,000 widows will remember that on polling day. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The raising of the age range for age-related widow's pension is a modest proposal in the Bill which seeks to relate national insurance protection for widows a little more closely to present and future social trends. The Committee will, I am sure, accept that the national insurance scheme has to change with the times if it is to serve any useful function. I hope the Committee will accept also that we have to re-think benefits designed to protect against financial difficulty if the danger of financial difficulty recedes. Social change has nowhere been more marked than in the economic position of married women. Over 60 per cent. of married women now work, and nearly all women with children now return to work after the birth, often quite quickly. That enormous social change means we must look again at the rationale behind our widow's benefit structure, which is based on the presumption that women will have been dependent on the husband's earnings and that they will have difficulty in supporting themselves after the husband's death.
The present age-related taper from 40 to 49 was introduced only in 1971. With hindsight, it was a provision that was moving against social trends even then. Between 1948 and 1971 benefit was not paid to widows below the age of 50 unless they had children. That was in itself an advance on Beveridge's proposals. He had said:
"There is no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life; if she is able to work she should work".
And had gone on to say that:
"The principle that any person physically fit for work should be entitled to retire from work upon pension before reaching the minimum pension age of 60 for women or 65 for men cannot without grave danger be admitted in any scheme for social insurance".
Our proposals continue to recognise that older widows are less likely to have been in the workforce and to be able to support themselves than are other groups. But we believe that to set the minimum age for receipt of widow's pension by a childless widow at 45 rather than 40 is a change that is demanded by changing circumstances. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: The noble Baroness quoted Beveridge, but I remind her that the Beveridge Report came out in the context of full employment. The noble Baroness says that these women are entitled to work,
690
but she did not tell us whether they can get work. It is in the context of increasing unemployment that we have to look at these facts and figures. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government should tell women of 45 or 55 that they should go out and get a job. There is such unemployment in the country as a result of deliberate Government policies that that is quite unreal. It is a difficulty which affects many older women. I very much regret that the noble Baroness has replied in that way, and I assure her that it is a subject to which we shall return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 104B:
Page 45, line 9. at end insert—
(" ( ) In the case of a widow whose husband died before the commencement of subsection (3) above, section 26 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall apply as if it had not been amended by that subsection.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment affects very many widows in the country where the Government appear to be unsympathetic. So far as I can understand the position, and perhaps the noble Baroness can assist me, it appears that if a widow is under 50 when her youngest child leaves school she will not be able to receive the widowed mother's allowance at the personal rate at that time.
Many widows have calculated and budgeted that after their widowed mother's allowance ends they will go on to the standard pension. It seems cruel to change that anticipation. We now have a situation where the pension is to be reduced if they are under 55 and there will be no pension if they are under 45.
So far as I can make out from this complicated Bill it appears that in future it will be necessary for a woman to give birth at the age of 39 or over in order to qualify for a standard pension if her husband dies when she is under 55 and the child leaves school at 16. I am sorry if that sounds complicated but it sounds even more complicated to the many widows who have written to me and who I know have been in touch with the Minister on this subject. It is unfair and puts a serious burden on older widows. I cannot understand why a woman has to give birth at 39 years of age or over in order to maintain her benefits. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I must make it clear at the outset that all existing beneficiaries will remain on any benefit they are already receiving when the new age groups come into effect; and if that is what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve her amendment is unnecessary.
Where, however, a widow moves from one category of widow's benefit to a succeeding benefit after the change then the new rules will apply. Thus, a widow who ceases to be entitled to widow's allowance or widowed mother's allowance after the new age limits come into force would be considered on the basis of the new rules. This is perfectly justifiable and, quite apart from the administrative difficulties in doing so, we see no reason to perpetuate transitional arrange-ments which would lead, perhaps many years later, to different provisions being applied to widows in ideal circumstances (for example, on cessation of the widowed mother's allowance).

691
In view of the assurance that no one will lose the category of widow's benefit already in payment, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before I decide what to do about the amendment, the noble Baroness has not answered her own sentence on 3rd June—reported in col. 686 of the Official Report—that 15,000 will suffer some cash loss. Can the noble Baroness explain that to the Committee before I decide what to do about this amendment?
Baroness Trumpington: Returning to the widowed mother's allowance, which is not covered in this Bill, the provision is covered in regulations but it is proposed to withdraw the widowed mother's allowance from widows without dependent children. Whatever be the figure that the noble Baroness quoted to me from a speech that was made some time ago, I must tell her that 55,000 widows will gain.
Baroness Jeger: We shall have to come back to this point again because obviously there is some unfairness in the proposals but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Industrial injuries and diseases.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 99, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("not").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. At a very late stage in Committee in the other place an amendment was introduced which takes away from workers injured at work who have a less than 14 per cent. disablement the right to any disablement benefit at all.
Disablement benefit, which has existed since the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1948, compensates for the severity of physical or mental injury suffered from an accident or disease, the associated pain, suffering and disfigurement, and the effects upon the individual's ability as compared with another person of the same age and sex who has not had an accident. Its introduction was a major step forward since, until 1948, workmen's compensation had only compensated for loss of earnings. I understand that a similar benefit operates in the war pensions scheme and no equivalent cut-off is proposed so far as that scheme is concerned. I hasten to say, of course, that I am not advocating that it should be proposed.
The abolition of the benefit for victims who are assessed as being less than 14 per cent. disabled would mean that a very large number of work accident and disease victims would receive no compensation at all for their injuries. The large majority of current disablement awards are below the 14 per cent. figure, so it would affect most accident sufferers and sufferers of the common prescribed diseases such as industrial
692
dermatitis, occupational asthma, and vibration white finger.
There has been a steady decline in the number of new claims for disablement benefit from a peak of over 200,000 per year in the mid-1960s to around 120,000 currently. This means that the cost of the benefit should be falling. The decline has been partly due to improved health and safety standards but also, I regret to say, to the contraction of the more dangerous heavy industries as a result of industrial decline. However, there are some working environments that are inherently more dangerous than others and which are likely to remain so despite efforts to improve health and safety.
The amounts of money involved for individual victims are quite substantial so far as they are concerned. A life gratuity for a 13 per cent. disablement is currently worth £2,905; for a 10 per cent. disablement it is nearly £2,300; and for a 5 per cent. disablement it is £1,245. I have with me some examples of actual cases of people injured at work. In the case of one individual there was a scaffolding which fell on to his neck and spinal column, causing injury to neck, shoulder and back. The assessment was 4 per cent. for life and the amount of the award was £1,037. In another case in which a bus braked sharply and the conductress was thrown against a hand rail, the injury to chest and neck was assessed at 7 per cent. for life and the amount received was £1,600.
The loss of a whole middle finger is assessed at 12 per cent., and the award for that is £2,697. The loss of a whole ring or middle finger is a 7 per cent. assessment nowadays, and that is £1,660. The loss of four toes on one foot is 9 per cent., at £2,075. All those are awards paid under the current industrial injuries scheme. Under the proposals contained in the Bill none of these people, if they sustained the injuries after the passage of the Bill, would get anything at all.
It will be argued that the individuals concerned will still have their rights at common law; they will still be able to sue their employers if the injuries come about as a result of employer negligence. All too often, however, that is difficult to establish. Indeed, seeking to do so can be a costly process. Often the injury is not due to employer negligence but is simply an accident; an unfortunate occurrence for the individual.
The industrial injuries scheme, which was introduced in 1948, was the first attempt that we had in this country to provide for compensation on a no-fault basis. Many countries have no-fault systems of compensation, and that is the nearest that we have to such a system. It applies whether or not earnings are affected. An injured worker may still suffer from his disability or disfigurement even if he or she is able to work with undiminished earnings.
The industrial injuries scheme accepted that we had a public responsibility to those injured in the production of goods and services and that those goods and services were worked on for the rest of us. We should not turn back on that responsibility now. I know that it will be argued that there are other gains to be made; I believe that the Government intend to improve allowances for people who suffer from diminished earnings. However, overall I am told that the gains that the Government hope to make as a

693
result of the scheme will in total amount to some £40 million. There will be losses overall, even though some people may gain. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which people who have those injuries have no compensation whatsoever. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I support the amendment, which seeks to remove the provision that the cut-off for entitlement to industrial injury benefit should be a 14 per cent. instead of a 1 per cent. degree of disability. It is a remarkable coincidence, as the Government confirmed at the Committee stage in another place, that the proposal will mean that about 90 per cent. of the people who now have awards under the industrial injuries scheme will no longer receive an award of any kind. From my years in the engineering industry I know of the injuries to workers and the effects on their future employment prospects; and most of those would be affected by the provisions in the Bill. The Government have said that they want to simplify disablement schemes. Unfortunately, whenever they propose any simplification it invariably results in worsening the existing position.
My noble friend gave examples. It is worth noting some further examples that were recently given in the Guardian. A 49 year-old bus driver sustained severe hand injuries after intervening to protect a passenger from being attacked in Regent Street. After going to the social security commissioners he won compensation of £1,245 from London Regional Transport Board, but under these proposals his award would be abolished. A lady succeeded in claiming compensation for occupational asthma, but her award of £1,867 is not due until the autumn. She is afraid that she may lose that award. A drayman, injured while unloading beer casks, is not due to receive his final award of £1,452 until next May. He also expects to lose under the proposals in the Bill. There are many other similar examples. At the same time as that is happening, appeals to the social security commissioners on points of fact will be abolished, making it even more difficult for people injured at work to claim the remaining benefits.
I understand that in Great Britain there are about 400,000 industrial accidents every year, leading to nearly 200,000 claims. The new rules will exclude 180,000 of those claims. As my noble friend said when she moved the amendment, in another place the Government explained that the expected total savings will be between £46 million and £56 million and that net of any improvements it would be between £40 million and £50 million. It seems to be a squalid way to save that amount of money. The Government are removing a benefit to which people have contributed, which has been negotiated, fought for through the courts on appeal, and won after considerable difficulty. Workers have always derived no little comfort from the fact that they have an insurance contract which means that if they are injured they at least receive some compensation. That will no longer apply under this Bill.
Workers are still entitled to as much protection, in whatever circumstances they work, as we can possibly give them. I deplore this further attack on the basic principles of the social and welfare schemes. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: While I sympathise with the aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee. The Government have to take into account the much lower levels of benefit paid to people disabled outside the workplace, especially when that disablement results in a loss of work. We all know that disablement is difficult to bear, but how much harder that burden is when combined with a low income. That is why we propose to devote substantial additional resources to the less well off sick and disabled, chiefly with the disability premium to be paid with income support.
It is against that background that I ask the Committee to view the Government's proposal. Of course we should have preferred to bring other disabled people up to the level of benefit paid to the industrially injured but that is impracticable. The estimated cost is about £4 billion. I also ask the Committee to bear in mind that the average lump sum payable for disablement below 14 per cent. is less than £400, although I accept that some payments are higher than that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said.
A further important change to be set against this proposal is the planned improvement to reduce the earnings allowance which will enable it to be paid to the most severely disabled. They will gain up to £25 a week extra as a result. Moreover, the allowance will continue to be paid even at levels of disablement below 14 per cent. That will ensure that those who lose earnings as a result of minor injuries will still receive compensation for that loss.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested that people awaiting finalisation of claims may lose under the Government's proposals. I am pleased to be able to reassure him that those claims will not be affected. They will be settled under the scheme's present rules.
The Government's aims are twofold: to strike a fairer balance between help for those injured at work and other disabled people, and to focus the industrial injuries scheme more clearly on the more severely disabled. I ask the Committee to support those aims and reject the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Committee will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed at the response from the noble Baroness. I repeat what I said when I moved the amendment: the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1948 because it was accepted then, and it has been accepted by governments since, until this one, that if one goes out to work, particularly if one works in a hazardous environment—and the environment of many manufacturing industries is hazardous no matter what one does about it—there is a case for a special industrial injuries scheme.
With this Government we have seen the gradual whittling away of that industrial injuries scheme, firstly with the disappearance of injury benefit and now of course with the disappearance of disablement gratuities for people with 14 per cent. or less disability.
It has been said that the Government want to concentrate benefit on compensation for loss of earnings, but in fact no attempt has been made to remove the cash ceiling which exists on the special hardship allowance at the moment. Overall, 90 per

695
cent. of special hardship awards are currently at the maximum rate, which suggests to me that many victims will suffer a drop in earnings in excess of the current cash limit. I do not think it is acceptable to say, as the noble Baroness has said, that we want to treat everybody who is injured alike. Not everybody is at the same risk and it is because people are not at the same risk and because they have to work in hazardous environments about which very little can be done that we have an industrial injury scheme at all. I am not intending to press the amendment at this time but I intend to come back at Report stage because I regard the response of the noble Baroness as entirely unsatisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 103, line 20, at end insert—
("8A. Where an employed earner dies as a result of personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of the employed earner's employment or any prescribed disease or injury, which occurred or developed after July 4 1948, there shall be payable to their widow or widower a lump sum death benefit at a level to be fixed annually by the Secretary of State as being equivalent to half average annual earnings ")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to attempt to write back into the Bill provision for compensation for the families of people who are killed at work. The abolition of industrial death benefit would mean the end of special benefits for widows and families of people killed by work accident and diseases.
It can and probably will be claimed that there is provision and that it is possible for widows, widowers and families or people who are killed in industrial accidents to claim at common law. However, the fact remains that common law claims are very difficult to pursue and they do depend, as we all know, on establishing that such accidents have arisen because of negligence on the part of the employer. Sometimes that is very difficult to establish. A man could be killed at work at a relatively young age, leaving young children, and the normal widow's pension is expected to make up for the loss of the victim's income and family support from it over a period lasting many, many years. Therefore, nothing at all would be payable for the fact that a person's life has been lost in the production of goods and services which the country needs. We believe that there is a strong case for compensation on a no-fault basis for the families of those who die as a result of industrial disease or injury. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Successive Governments have left the main preference paid to industrial widows unchanged at 55p per week. We propose to end the nonsense of maintaining a separate scheme to pay such paltry sums. While we all sympathise with the tragic loss faced by a widow who loses her husband in an industrial accident, we must remember that the tragedy is just as great for other widows, whatever the cause of their husband's death. For these reasons the Government propose to treat industrial widows no differently from national insurance widows.
696
We will ensure, however, that no industrial widow is denied national insurance widow's benefit for want of sufficient national insurance contributions. That will make them automatically eligible for the new tax-free £1,000 lump sum payable on bereavement, provided they meet the other conditions of entitlement.
The noble Baroness also proposes that industrial widowers should receive a lump sum payment. That would be an attractive step in the direction of greater equality between the sexes in the social security scheme. Unfortunately, it would be too costly to extend the lump sum to all widowers and, for the reasons I have given, we would not wish to restrict the payment to industrial widowers. I therefore cannot recommend this amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In view of the noble Baroness's response to the previous amendment, I am not really surprised at her response to this one, and she will not be surprised to learn that I am not at all happy about it. I repeat what I said earlier. In my view, there is a case for an industrial injuries scheme for those who go to work and who are involved especially in hazardous circumstances. Many countries have an industrial injuries scheme with a no-fault basis. If there is no continuation of a separate scheme with benefits for people injured at work, or their families, we shall see an increase in the number of cases that eventually come before the courts as people try to get some compensation on a common law basis.
It is a great pity that we cannot have a proper industrial injuries scheme on a no-fault basis. I hear what the noble Baroness says. I shall not press my amendment at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 104, line 30, leave out ("of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I propose to take with it a number of other amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 111G, 111H, 118H, 130D, 130M to Y inclusive, 131ZC, 131ZD and 131ZE. The Committee may be relieved to know that these are technical amendments consequential upon the changes to the industrial injuries scheme in the Bill. They amend or replace existing references to provisions altered by Schedule 3. They do not alter the provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Death grant

.—(1) A death grant shall be payable in respect of each death which occurs after the commencement of this section on receipt of an application in the prescribed form by the personal representative of the deceased.

(2) A death grant shall be of a prescribed amount intended to cover the basic costs of a funeral and the Secretary of State may prescribe different amounts for different geographical areas.

(3) An amount under subsection (1) may be recovered in its entirety out of the estate of the deceased if that exceeds £10,000.

697

If the aforesaid estate is less than £10,000 but greater than £5,000, a fraction of the amount may be recovered out of the estate of the deceased which is equal to the fraction by which the estate exceeds £5,000 compared with £5,000 as quotient.

(4) Circumstances may be prescribed in which the value of a house owned by the deceased or part thereof may be disregarded in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of this section.").

The noble Lord said: With the lights dimming around us, this is an appropriate moment to move the amendment on the death grant. The Bill proposes to abolish the death grant of £30 and replace it with discretional awards under Clause 32(1)(b) from the social fund. We believe that it is totally wrong to require people to apply for help with funeral costs at the time of bereavement. The noble Baroness has said that funeral grants are protected under the social fund; that is, that they will have priority for funding. Even so, an applicant will have to establish the case for his or her need at a time of severe personal distress. I invite the Committee to imagine the additional distress if death occurs over a weekend or during a long public holiday when the social fund office is closed and there is no certainty anyway of an award. In such circumstances it would be impossible for very poor people to instruct an undertaker pending a decision that might take some days. Natural distress would be further compounded by fear of being forced to accept a pauper's funeral which local authorities still have an obligation to provide for the destitute.
Our proposal in the amendment should commend itself to the Government. It is, in effect, a flexible loan/grant proposal, according to circumstances. It says that a death grant shall be payable in respect of each death that occurs after the commencement of the Bill on application in the prescribed form by the personal representative of the deceased. It also provides in subsection (2) that the prescribed amount can vary according to the differing costs in differing areas. We have published a "green paper" including recommendations on this subject in which we mention a sum, in the region, I believe, of £250 to £300. That might vary in different parts of the country, and subsection (2) provides for that.
In subsection (3) the new clause provides that the grant can be recovered in its entirety from the estate if that eventually turns out to be more than £10,000. A fraction of the grant may be recovered on a sliding scale on estates between £5,000 and £10,000.
In subsection (4) it is set out that,
"circumstances may be prescribed in which the value of a house owned by the deceased or part thereof may be disregarded in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of this section."
That takes care of the obvious circumstance of the widow or widower continuing to live in the home and therefore there being no realisable asset in that respect.
I submit that this is a much better system than that proposed by the Government with the hurdle of the social fund to be surmounted before any action can be taken in these extremely distressing circumstances. On our proposal a person may confidently engage the undertaker, and the undertaker may confidently make the necessary arrangements for the burial in the knowledge that an application has been made under this new clause. The motto behind this new clause is "no means test at the time of bereavement". The
698
means test comes later when the decencies of burial have been completed. All civilised societies attach great importance to the proper arrangements for the burial of their dead. This Bill as drafted does not measure up to that standard at present. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 107A. I believe that these two amendments are lumped together, although this amendment has a slightly different approach. The death grant was introduced by the National Insurance Act 1946. Contributions under that Act commenced in July 1948 and payment of the death grant commenced one year later. Originally the grant was designed as one of a package of benefits intended to introduce the cradle-to-the-grave security concept inherent in the philosophy of the welfare state. The £20 grant was the amount recommended in the Beveridge Report as a reasonable estimate of the necessary expenses of a decent funeral for an adult, including cemetery fees, and so there is no doubt that it was intended to cover the full cost of a funeral. In 1949, moreover, the National Association of Funeral Directors agreed with the Board of Trade that their members would not charge more than £20 for a simple funeral—that is, a hearse, four bearers and one following car.
Beveridge hoped that the death grant would replace the millions of industrial insurance policies through which most working-class families tried to save for their funerals. These policies were a public scandal because of the large proportion of the premiums that went in commission and expenses, and because most of the policies lapsed before the money became payable. Funeral insurance was clearly something that the state could do more cheaply, more efficiently and more fairly.
Within a few years inflation had raised the cost of even a simple funeral above the level of the death grant. The agreement with the Board of Trade lapsed in 1956 and the last increase in death grant—to its present £30 maximum—was in 1967. Today the death grant is by univeral admission woefully inadequate to meet funeral costs. It covers only about 10 per cent. of the cost of the cheapest cremation and there has been substantial evidence of considerable hardship in cases of tragic bereavement. Old-age pensioners struggle to save up to meet the costs of their own burial, sometimes finding that their savings prevent them from qualifying for other benefits.
The Government now propose to abolish the grant altogether, limiting the state's role in meeting funeral costs to cases where the family is poor enough to qualify for a payment from the social fund. It is not clear—certainly not yet to me—precisely how the new means test for death grant will operate. Will people on income support, family credit, and housing benefit be passported into the scheme? Will the new lump sum widow's allowance count as capital in any means test, or will it count as a resource from which the grant can be recovered? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can give some replies to these questions when she winds up.
In failing to increase the death grant all governments have behaved in the way commercial insurance companies behave when they sell without-profits life assurance policies. If the policy turns out to be worth

699
a fraction of its originally expected value, that is too bad: it is what you paid for. The state has no excuse for behaving in this way. National insurance operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. That has the enormous advantage that, as average earnings rise, the scheme's contribution income can rise in line with earnings, and benefit rates can also rise in line with earnings without causing any financial problems.
Recent calculations have shown that, for a national insurance contribution of about 20p per week, the death grant could be increased at once to £380, which is the cost of a simple funeral which certainly two London boroughs have recently arranged for local funeral directors to offer their residents. By raising that very modest weekly contribution in future years as prices rise, the death grant could also be increased so that it remained adequate to meet the cost of a simple funeral.
To abolish the grant altogether is equivalent to the Prudential saying to its policy holders, "You have paid your premiums on this policy regularly for 38 years, without missing a week; but we have now decided that the policy is worth so little, as a result of inflation, that we are going to cancel it. You will get nothing for your premiums—not even a surrender value". Although the sums may be small, the Government are taking away a contributory right from those who pay national insurance. The Government's proposal is therefore yet another erosion of the welfare state. It is a switch from a universal benefit to a means-tested benefit.
When the Government abolished earnings-related supplements to sickness and unemployment benefits a few years ago, there were complaints that they were abolishing an insurance benefit for which people had paid by their contributions. On that occasion, the Government argued that these were short-term benefits, earned by recent contributions. However, the death grant is a benefit for which people have paid contributions throughout their working lives. The fact that payment is subject to minimal contribution conditions does not alter this fact.
Amendment No. 107A would ensure that anyone who has already paid enough contributions before April 1987 would remain entitled to a death grant if he or she died after April 1987. Another purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the death grant is an insurance benefit for which people have been paying contributions for 38 years. It is important to emphasise that fact. It is one thing to say that people now entering the workforce should not qualify for it, but it is quite another to abolish a benefit that people have been paying for throughout most of their working lives.
I said that for a national insurance contribution of 20p a week the death grant could be increased to £380 now. I know, from my connections with all the voluntary organisations concerned, especially with youngsters, with the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Fund, the Council of Churches, Age Concern and the Dignity in Death Alliance, that most people, if asked, would agree to that simple proposition. The Government, in proposing this clause, have completely failed to understand the needs of the people and have totally misjudged the mood of the people in the matter of the death grant. This
700
amendment, therefore, is an attempt to retrieve the dignity and respect of people in those unhappy circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, cannot move Amendment No. 107A, but can merely speak to it. I shall speak to both amendments, which aim to preserve universal assistance with funeral costs. It is the Government's firm belief that neither can be justified in the 1980s, and that our proposal to abolish death grant and give better and more selective assistance to those who need it most is the right and realistic course. Indeed, £30 does not go far towards the current cost of a funeral, which ranges between £350 and over £600. For the great majority of people, who have no difficulty in coping with funeral costs, the £30 grant makes little difference one way or the other. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that I simply cannot think of how one will get the £30 grant over a long weekend or over a long holiday. Indeed, the difference between the number of deaths and the number of death grant claims suggests that about 40,000 people a year do not bother to claim the grant, despite the ease with which the contribution conditions can be satisfied.
We can see no justification for preserving a grant which is not needed by the vast majority but does not give adequate help to those who really do need assistance. For this reason we could not accept Amendment 107A, which would effectively preserve the existing grant for the foreseeable future. The contribution conditions for death grant can be satisfied by the payment, or crediting, of 25 contributions in any year between 1948 and 1975, or its equivalent since then, by either the deceased person, his or her spouse, or a near relative. Consequently, the death of almost anyone who is currently of working age would continue to give rise to a death grant for decades to come. The Committee will understand that I am not thrilled at this perpetuation of what is already a historical relic.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about the death grant as a contributory benefit, and its abolition meaning the removal of an entitlement for those who have already paid for it by their national insurance contributions. At present, payment of contributions provides entitlement to the death grant, but like other national insurance benefits the grant is not a funded benefit, it is a pay-as-you-go benefit and is therefore paid out of current contributions. The reduction in expenditure resulting from the abolition of the grant will be taken into account in setting contribution rates.
Amendment No. 107 does at least attempt to address the twin issues of the inadequacy of the present death grant for any useful purpose and the lack of targeting on those who need help most. The proposed new clause would provide for a non-contributory grant payable at a higher level, but recoverable from those with estates over £5,000 or £ 10,000. May I say at once that I sympathise with what they are getting at, but I cannot agree with it. The effect of this proposal would be to spend considerable amounts of public money—£230 million if we assume a funeral cost of £350, but ranging up to £400 million at a funeral cost of £600—to give interest-free loans to people who do not need help at the moment.

701
The noble Lords may say that people will not bother to claim a recoverable grant if they know that the deceased person's estate is worth more than £10,000. Economics would tell us that if someone is offered a free loan of that size for the length of time it takes to settle the value of an estate, he is likely to take it. I would myself. So I think we have to accept that the gross cost of the noble Lord's proposal could be anything up to £400 million, against about £17 million at present on death grant. The net cost would depend on the number of estates worth more than £5,000 or £10,000. Our best estimates are—and they are rather rough—that the net benefit cost would be of the order of £185 million. The administration cost would be very considerable. If resources of this magnitude were available, I can think of much better uses for them in the social security system. I submit that our existing proposals to give greater help through the social fund and to recover from the deceased's estate will actually achieve the same purpose as the noble Lord's amendment, and I would ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, these two amendments approach the problem of the funding of funerals from two slightly different angles. I agree with him in his comments on the dignity and respect which are vital to proper burial arrangements. The noble Baroness misinterpreted what I said. My amendment is trying to get the security of knowing that assistance is available. That is what is required in order to enable the deceased's relative to go ahead with making the necessary arrangements. Frankly I find it rather difficult to understand why the Government do not like my amendment because it targets on those in need. I find the argument of the noble Baroness on the enormous costs which might result from this new clause to be absolutely extra-ordinary. It is surely most unlikely that people would claim assistance under this clause where there was no real need. I was extremely surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that she would do it herself. I found that most extraordinary. This gives a cynical view of the way people might behave in these circumstances. I do not accept that at all.
Our amendment is a very reasonable way of dealing with people's real needs while ensuring that those who do not have the same financial need are not assisted or, if a payment is made and it eventually turns out that the estate is worth a certain amount of money, the sum can be reclaimed. That is a sensible way of going about matters and so far as I am concerned I shall return to this at a later stage in the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Abolition of death grant]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 46, line 2, at end insert ("except by virtue of contributions paid or credited before the commencement of this section.")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 107A. I must confess that I was not satisfied with the reply given by the noble Baroness. She failed even to comment on the alternative proposal I made that it has been calculated that for a
702
20p per week contribution the death grant could be increased to £380 for all deaths from now on, to be upped with the rate of inflation. There are 22.5 million national insurance contributors. If they all paid 20p per week that would bring in £225 million a year. These are different statistics from those that the noble Baroness quoted. If this were divided by 600,000, which is approximately the number of deaths annually in Great Britain, that works out at £375 per funeral.
We could also add something for the cost of administration, although I have always argued and failed to see why it costs more to administer a £380 grant than it does to administer a £ 100 grant, or a £50 grant. The costs of administration cannot continue to go up and up. That must be limited. If the noble Baroness were seriously to consider the alternative proposal that I and millions of people in this country support, I think she would come to a more positive and constructive conclusion. However, having heard what she has to say, something which she will no doubt repeat, I too reserve my freedom to come back to this on Report. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of this Bill?
Lord Winstanley: On this Motion, I seize this opportunity to ask the noble Baroness to expand a little on her answer to my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock on the last amendment. Her principal objection to his amendment was on grounds of its greater cost: that its cost would be greater than the Government's own proposal. The Committee would find it helpful if the noble Baroness would tell us precisely what will be the cost of the Government's proposal. The Government have told us that they intend to pay the equivalent of a death grant from the social fund to many people in need. They have not said to how many people such a grant will be paid, nor have they said how much it will be. If the proposal in this clause is to be of greater cost, it would be helpful if we knew how much the Government's proposal would cost. How much is the grant to be and how many people will it go to?
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: It is quite impossible to say how many people would be involved unless we know how many people died. Most people do not need the death grant. Over 90 per cent. of funerals are paid for by private resources and for those who need help the amount of grant, maximum £30, is totally inadequate when compared with the cost of a simple funeral, which varies widely in the range of £350 to £650. The cost of increasing the grant to its original value would be £140 million. The abolition of the death grant will enable the Government to concentrate resources from the new social fund on more of those who really need help.
I cannot give the precise cost, but I should like to come back to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the £380. That would cost about £250 million; but even then it would not ensure that the full cost of a funeral would be met. As I said before, costs range between £350 and £650. The other point is that

703
the widow's lump sum of £1,000 will be disregarded in assessing entitlement to social fund payments.
Baroness Seear: If the noble Baroness does not know what the cost of the Government's scheme is going to be, how does she know whether it is more or less than the scheme proposed by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock?
Baroness Trumpington: The Government's proposals for payment of funeral costs out of the social fund extend considerably the existing arrangements under which less well-off people are helped. This is because these proposals will enable housing benefit and family credit recipients to make claims as well as those receiving income support. As a result, the number of people who, subject to the capital rule, will have full cover for the cost of a reasonable funeral will be increased from about 4·5 million to about 8 million. I cannot give the precise cost. We estimate that it will mean around 60,000 funeral payments being made each year—roughly 10 per cent. of the number of deaths. This represents about a four-fold increase on the number of single payments made to supplementary benefit claimants for funeral costs at the present time. I hope that reply satisfies the noble Baroness.
Clause 39 agreed to. Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Unemployment benefit—disqualification]:
[Amendments Nos. 107B to J07D not moved.]
Clauses 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Invalid care allowance.
. For subsection (3) of section 37 of the Social Security Act 1975 there shall be substituted the following subsection:
" (3) A person shall not be entitled to an allowance under this section if he is under the age of 16 or receiving full-time education; and a woman shall as from 20th December 1984 be treated as having been entitled to an allowance notwith-standing that she may be married and either residing with her husband or in receipt of maintenance or living together with a man to whom she is not married as husband and wife." ")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of those who have tabled this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, not being here—I should like to say that in view of the recent Government statement we do not propose to move this amendment at this stage.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Annual uprating of child benefit.

PART IVA
BENEFITS UNDER THE CHILD BENEFIT ACT 1975
. Whenever the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the draft of an uprating order under section 61(2) below, he shall at the same time lay before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations for the purpose of increasing the weekly rate or rates at which child benefit is payable under the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the general level of prices is greater at the end of the period specified in section 61(2) below than it was at the beginning.")"
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain that I had tabled an amendment (No. 121) on the same subject which I withdrew because I was advised that it was not all that satisfactory. Also I wanted to get an amendment sufficiently close to Amendment No. 122 of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I believe that the two amendments could go together now and if mine is accepted I do not think the other one will be pressed.
Your Lordships will remember that child benefit was brought in by the 1975 Act and came into effect in 1977; so we have now had nine full years' experience of it and I think it has brought enormous comfort to an enormous number of families. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the difference between this form of benefit and other forms is that it is non-discriminatory—in other words, it is not means-tested—it is tax free, and it is paid to the mother. I am glad that the noble Baroness has said that that will continue; and that has given a great deal of satisfaction to a great number of people.
The other point to make is that there is nearly 100 per cent. take-up. On the family income supplement and so on, the take-up is about 50 per cent. The cost is high—it is £4.4 billion or something like that—but that is because there is 100 per cent. take-up, and if there was 100 per cent. take-up on the other benefits it would look very different in proportion to this expense.
I believe that the main objection that will be put forward to this amendment is that horrid thought that some people who do not need it will get benefit. There is a misapprehension here. All the family researches that I have seen over many years show that a number of families with children go through a period of their lives in considerable financial trouble. They get into debt, even if they are way up on the wage scale. So this is not something which is simply for the very poor. Therefore, it is extremely important that this benefit scheme should continue.
Another point is that we must all put a very high priority on the welfare of children. It seems to me that if we want to have an efficient and healthy population in this country, we have to take every step we can to see that children are brought up in some form of comfort, particularly nowadays when the cost of things like children's shoes and clothes is soaring. The child benefit scheme has brought an enormous amount of comfort and will go on doing so, if it continues in its present form.
The amendment is simply to index this benefit as the other benefits will be indexed. There will be no increased cost whatsoever in real terms. It is simply continuing the child benefit scheme in its present form. I do not wish to say any more on this amendment, because it is self-evident that it is an extraordinarily good form of benefit and it is unique in the ways that I have explained. Therefore, I want to see it kept separate as an entirely different form of benefit from any of the others. I hope that this amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I fully support this amendment and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 122. This amendment has precisely the same effect as Amendment No. 122 in the names of my noble friend

705
Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and myself and, in the circumstances, we shall not be moving that amendment.
The alarm bells rang last year when child benefit was not up-rated in line with prices, but was allowed to decline in value. The White Paper and the Bill have given rise to some concern that the Government could be going to allow the real value of child benefit to decline, and the role of income-related, income support and family credit to increase. Can the Government deny that they have any such intention? We have seen the death grant and the maternity grant gradually reduce in value, and we know what has happened to them. We see the same process repeated with the pensioners' Christmas bonus and we want to make sure that this process is not applied to child benefit.
Baroness Faithfull: I have a working relationship with both statutory and voluntary child care agencies in this country. Indeed, last week I spent four days in Birmingham meeting social workers, both in the voluntary sector and in the social services, and talking to mothers in a very poor inner city area. What I knew before was reinforced by what I learned last week; that not only should we increase child benefit in line with prices, but should go further and try to increase it in line with tax allowances.
It will be remembered that the Women's National Committee of the Conservative Party has for many years been promoting child benefit as the key benefit for the family. The benefit fell in value from 1979 to 1981. In 1981 the number of children living in poverty or on its margin in families with an income up to 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level— the definition of a low income—reached more than 3½ million. Half of these children were living in families supported by at least one wage earner. The numbers living below supplementary level, conventionally taken as the poverty line, were more than half a million in 1981—nearly twice as many as in 1979. We still await the figures for 1983.
This amendment would be a small step towards rectifying the situation by at least ensuring that the real value of child benefit was not eroded further. This amendment, if passed, would be widely welcomed, not least in the other place, where child benefit receives remarkably strong support right across the political spectrum.
Lord Ennals: I want strongly to support the amendment. In my view, the introduction of child benefit was one of the most important measures that was taken by the last Labour Government. It was a measure that had the full backing of the other political parties and, I believe, of all the organisations working in the field. However, it was never the view of the Labour Government at that time that the level of child benefit achieved at its point of introduction represented the ultimate target. It is therefore rather depressing that seven years later the real value of child benefit is actually slightly lower than in 1979 as a result of the cut that was made in 1985. It is also depressing that we have no guarantee or commitment
706
that even its present inadequate level will be maintained. That is why this present amendment is so important.
In 1980 the then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, committed the Government to up-rating child benefit in line with prices,
"subject to economic and other circumstances".
Presumably, that is why the Government are not prepared to do it—because of the economic circumstances. That is a very depressing situation. That commitment apparently no longer stands. The Government's position now is that:
"The future level of child benefit will be determined up-rating by up-rating, according to all the circumstances at the appropriate time, including in particular the pattern of family support as a whole and the needs of the families on low incomes".
I must say that if I had said that when I was Secretary of State I would have been shouted at by the Conservative Opposition at that time; but I did not say that.
Child benefit is currently £7. The l0p increase for July is in line with prices but it does not make good the 35p cut in real value imposed in 1985. It is known that the Treasury would like to see child benefit frozen completely. I am sure that that is what the Treasury would wish. The importance of child benefit both to poor families and to families generally is underlined by the strong all-party support it receives and by the rapid growth of Save Child Benefit, a widely based coalition of more than 70 organisations committed to maintaining and improving the level of child benefit. The Members of another place were prevented from debating a similar amendment which had the support of about 40 Conservative Members of Parliament.
The case for index-linking child benefit was summed up by the Conservative Women's National Committee in its 1985 pre-Budget memorandum. It said:
"For many years the Conservative Women's National Committee has been promoting child benefit for the family. We argued strongly that child benefit should have a high priority in our welfare system. Of all our social provisions it is remarkable in that it has an almost universal take-up. It is comparatively easy and cheap to administer and is paid directly in response to the needs of children. We"—
the Conservative Women's National Committee—
"strongly ask you"—
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"not to overlook the significance of child benefit being paid directly to the mother or whoever is responsible for the child. We recommend that as economic circumstances permit"—
and the Government tell us that the economic circumstances are steadily improving—
"child benefit is increased in line with increases in tax allowances or at least"—
that is something less—
"protected against rising prices".
Child benefit is widely seen as the most effective weapon for attacking child poverty and the employment and poverty traps. It is an important source of income for mothers. I must say, frankly, that I find it sickening that an issue of this importance— child benefit, which goes to 7 million mothers—and the proposed amendment are being debated at a quarter to eleven. I find that deplorable.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord will forgive me, when we take Bills through this Committee the fact that a particular amendment comes on at this time at night depends, as the noble Lord must realise, on how much time one spends discussing the other amendments—and we have had three days on this Bill. The noble Lord must not complain if an amendment comes on late at night, however important it is. Many amendments come on late at night; that has nothing to do with it. When we take Bills through this Committee we agree through the usual channels how long they shall have. If a particular amendment comes on late in the evening, it does not mean that we think of it as being less important. It means that the amendment just happens to fall later in the Bill.
Lord Ennals: I heard the Chief Whip's long intervention on the subject. I just want to say that we have not had three days on this Bill. The first day of debate on the Social Security Bill began at half-past six in the evening. On the second day of debate on this Bill, two hours were taken up by the dinner break. Today, nearly two hours were taken up by the dinner break. So it is not correct to say that there have been three full days on this Bill. I submit to the Chief Whip and to the Committee that it is in fact the management of the business that is at fault, in not ensuring that a Bill of this importance—
Lord Denham: Will the noble Lord-
Lord Ennals: Of course I will give way.
Lord Denham: I cannot accept that. We agree these things through the usual channels. We agree the amount of time that will be allowed. The noble Lord is trying to make a point about when a particular amendment is reached. If the Opposition want to make much of a particular amendment then they should make sure, as we did when in Opposition, that it reaches the Committee earlier in the day. The noble Lord's point is not a reasonable one to make. The noble Lord may by all means debate the points that he wants to make, but he should not debate the way in which the business is done.
Lord Thorneycroft: May I, with diffidence, say just a word, not about the time but about the merits of the amendment? I have the deepest respect for those who moved the amendment, all of whom I count among my friends. However, I am bound to say that I hope they do not press it to a Division; and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will advise the Committee to reject it if they do.
It seems to me that the amendment offends against most of the principles that stand behind this Bill. As I understand it, the Government are trying to introduce a really important measure on social security. It has principles behind it. The Government are trying to target the amount of money that they have to the most important causes that they can find. They are trying to have flexibility. Above all, they are trying to ensure that social security has a financial scale that could be supported by other Governments and other generations than this one. It is in the interests of all of us, on all sides of the Committee, that the Government succeed in that.
708
We come now to child benefit. Child benefit is, as other noble Lords in the Committee have said, a many splendoured thing, and not what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was saying just now about each according to his needs. This is a quite different world that we are in. This is from those who do not manage to produce children to those who do, which are different categories in the world. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right when he says that it is supported by all parties. It falls upon the rich and upon the poor. It goes to families who would have been amazed in any other generation that the state should assist them in keeping their children. It goes to the richest wage earners and to the poorest people. All of them receive it. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is right in saying that it costs just over £4 billion. That is a substantial sum of money.
We are all agreed that it goes on. That is common ground between us. It is maintained in the Bill. But to select this, of all benefits, and say that it should be added to the rather select group of items which are to be linked is, I am bound to say, pushing our luck pretty far. It is true that there is a 100 per cent. take-up. I am not altogether surprised at that. It is attractive to have a bonus that is handed to you, tax free, whether you need it or not, and it is tempting to take up bonuses of that kind. Therefore, there is a 100 per cent. take-up. But we should be cautious on how we suggest that there should be added expenditure.
I have had totted up what the Opposition amendments to this Bill would cost if carried. In total they would cost nearly £1 billion. To propose amendments costing £1 billion to a Social Security Bill aimed at the purposes I have described is asking the Government to undo much of what they are trying to do. It is pushing our role rather beyond that of a revising Chamber. It is a substantial demand.
I agree that this amendment is difficult to cost. Under a Conservative Government it would cost practically nothing, because prices are being held down and inflation is being held. Under a Labour Government—I do not want to make a party point, but I am speaking for Mr. Hattersley and perhaps I am on his side rather than others—it would face Mr. Hattersley with a considerable problem because an increase in inflation is written into their whole system. They would then have to rely on this Bill.
Therefore, we ought to be careful about urging very large and additional amounts of expenditure. Above all, it would be quite wrong to take a benefit of this kind—politically popular, and taken up 100 per cent.; of course it is, and always will be—and to spoil matters by adding it to that list of exceptional items which happen to be, by general agreement, linked to the price index. That would indeed be spoiling matters.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Baroness agrees with me, may I first say how much I disagree with (I must call him) my old friend, who is a typical Chancellor of the Exchequer? I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have not asked, in real terms, for one more penny.
Baroness Trumpington: I can well understand the wish of some noble Lords to link child benefit to the general level of prices, irrespective of the competing claims for resources which have to be considered in the

709
context of very substantial expenditure on the totality of social security. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft for his wise words. We have made quite clear our appreciation of the importance of child benefit, and, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, it provides a measure of financial support for all families. In our review of social security we recognised and accepted that a substantial body of opinion, including the Women's National Committee, called for its continuance as a non-means tested benefit, free of tax and paid primarily to mothers. Indeed, that is the Government's policy.
Our overall programme will give to all families a valuable contribution to the cost of bringing up children while directing extra help to low income families. That is why since coming to office in 1979 we have increased family income supplement in real terms and by a minimum of 13 per cent. One-parent benefit—the increase in child benefit for single parents—has increased significantly in recent years. It is now 22 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979.
I welcome the opportunity to repeat our commitment to child benefit and our undertaking that it will remain a universal benefit, not means tested, tax free and paid to mothers. I should like to emphasise that there is nothing in the existing legislation, nor in the Bill, to prevent an increase in child benefit in line with the movement in prices, and when practicable this has been done.
The rate of child benefit does not affect people who receive supplementary benefit—the poorest families. It is taken into account when paying supplementary benefit. However, we cannot accept the commitment contained in the amendment which would abolish the flexibility which we believe is essential.
Lord Seebohm: I am disappointed in that reply, though there was a glimpse of light in it at one stage, when the noble Baroness said that the Government intended to continue with child benefit. I have with me sheets of ammunition which we do not have time to go into tonight and so I think I shall have to bring this matter back again on another occasion. In the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Statutory maternity pay—entitlement and liability to pay]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 48, line 25, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 26 and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 110 and to speak also to Amendment No. 111, which is concerned with the same question. If the Bill leaves your Lordships' Chamber unamended, it will mean that the maternity pay provided for in Clause 44 will be paid by the employer rather than by the Secretary of State. The object of my amendments is to ensure that the benefit is paid by the Secretary of State.
I may say in moving this amendment that the people who are very keen on it are employers, because
710
they have already pointed out in regard to family credit that this will be an additional burden. I have with me a copy of the CBI handout in which they say that their members have considered the Government's proposals on family credit—on which the Government have already changed their view of course—and maternity allowances. They have expressed strong opposition to the transfer of adminis-trative responsibility for social security payments from the state to employers. They believe that the Government have not provided adequate justification for adding to employers' costs or involving employers in benefit administration. Indeed, the proposals clearly contradict moves by other Government departments designed to reduce burdens imposed on employers by the state. Employers believe that social security benefits are a state reponsibility and should be clearly identified as such. Payment of benefits through the wage packet may adversely affect the perceived relationship between work done and wages received and is certainly not appropriate where there is no contract of employment. That could well be the case, of course, so far as maternity pay is concerned because the woman may have left the employment.
The Retail Consortium has written to me to say that it was pleased to learn of the Government's decision to withdraw the provisions within the Bill to make family credit payable by employers. However, retailers are equally opposed to the provision that employers should assume responsibility for the payment of maternity allowances. The consortium objects strongly to that proposal both in principle and on the grounds of the administrative and subsequent financial costs that its implementation would involve, particularly as there is no provision for compensation to employers to cover the additional administration costs.
I need say little more in support of the amendment. The Government having given way and made a sensible statement in regard to family credit—and this is very much the same issue—I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I simply wish to support the noble Baroness in the amendment. The Retail Consortium has also been in touch with me, and I shall not repeat what she said on its behalf. The argument is totally valid. The proposals make a complete nonsense of the principles embodied in the Government's programme to lift the burdens of businesses and small businesses in particular. Incidentally, it is not only the retailers who are concerned; it is also the pharmacists, the self-employed and small businesses in general.
How the policy of turning these businesses, some of them very small, into an agency for collecting state revenue can be married with the Government's rhetoric about their help and encouragement of small business is hard to understand. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to explain it to us.
Baroness Hooper: I should point out that if the amendment were passed as it stands we should be left with the worst of all worlds. In order for the DHSS to establish whether there was title to statutory maternity pay and at what rate, it would be necessary to contact

711
the employer. The employer would thus still be involved in all processes except the actual payment, and delays could occur to the detriment of the employee. Operational and manpower costs would be high for both the DHSS and employers, with no return for the employee.
Furthermore, as was made clear in both the Green and White Paper, on the reform of social security which preceded this Bill, the present maternity allowance is badly targeted. Many women become entitled on the basis of distant contribution records and have not worked at all during their pregnancies, while others do not qualify even though they have a full record of employment over the immediately previous 12 months. That is obviously wrong.
In a scheme on which entitlement is to be related to a recent employment test, the person best placed to judge that is the woman's own employer, who in any event is already responsible for making payments of maternity pay under the scheme currently adminis-tered by the Department of Employment. Over 130,000 such payments are already made by employers each year, added to which an employer may also be operating his own occupational scheme of maternity provision for his employees.
We accordingly propose that the responsibility for paying maternity allowance to women still in the workforce should transfer to employers. In many ways that is a logical extension of the statutory sick pay scheme. The vast majority of employers operate the SSP very successfully. Moreover, our research shows that most employees prefer to receive SSP from their employer rather than benefit through the state. There is no reason to believe that that will not also apply to statutory maternity pay.
I understand the concern expressed about the extra work for employers, particularly small employers, to which the noble Baroness referred. The Government are fully alive to that. Indeed, I have only to point to the statement made by noble friend Lady Trumpington on family credit earlier in the Committee stage to emphasise that.
The Government recognise the need to keep the arrangments for statutory maternity pay as simple as possible. That is why we issued a consultation paper before Christmas. We have studied the comments made on that consultation paper most carefully and, as the Committee will know, have introduced significant easements for employers which are in direct response to the representations made.
Most notably, of course, we have provided for the integration of the present maternity pay scheme, which, as I said earlier, employers already operate, with our original proposals. One major advantage for employers from this approach is that they will be able to recover the whole of the statutory maternity payments they make by offsetting these against the regular monthly remittances of PAYE income tax and national insurance contributions that they make to the Inland Revenue. This follows existing statutory sick pay practice and is a major simplification over the present arrangements for maternity pay, where the employer has to make separate applications for a
712
rebate at a later date to the Department of Employment.
This will mean that employers will deal with only one Government department instead of two. Further-more, self-reimbursement also eases possible cash flow problems which might otherwise occur where there is some delay under the present arrangements for maternity pay.
On top of this, I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Government intend further to assist employers by following the SSP precedent and providing for employers to be compensated for the national insurance contributions that they pay on SMP.
Perhaps I may turn now briefly to Amendment No. 111, which we are discussing with this amendment. The amendment would remove the power to prevent an employer dismissing an employee solely or mainly to avoid his liability to SMP. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that the employee should be safeguarded against this. However, I accept that the amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 110 and stands or falls with that amendment.
With what I have been able to say, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her what is the Government's attitude to women who work part time? I understand from the Bill that a woman who works part time (between eight and 16 hours a week) must be with the same employer for five years. That will cause many difficulties for women who take occasional part-time work, especially women in agricultural areas who work during the harvest and people who work in seaside resorts and so on. I wonder what the Government think will happen to those people and why they have put a five-year limit on the time that they must spend with the same employer. That may cause difficulties for many women.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I can help the noble Baroness by saying that the requirement for SMP for a woman who works fewer than 16 hours a week with the same employer is extended from two to five years and follows existing rules for maternity pay. It applies also to other employment rights conferred by the Employment Protection Act. Where the employee works very few hours in the week, it has always been considered right that a longer qualifying period be required before she acquires the employment rights enforceable on employers for full-time employees. It provides greater freedom and flexibility for employers in recruiting part-time staff, who often work on a less rigid basis than full-time employees.
Our general principle in devising the statutory maternity pay rules has been to follow wherever possible existing maternity pay practice as regards service and rates. That ensures equality of treatment for both employers where statutory maternity pay subsumes maternity pay.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said, but I still feel that the case for my amendments is strong. This is a social benefit and it seems to me that there is a strong

713
case for it to be paid by the DHSS, or the appropriate Government department, rather than the employer. That was a view also strongly held by the CBI, to whose submissions I referred earlier. It rejected the claim that this would be a logical extension following the introduction of the statutory sick pay scheme. It said that there is no overlap in either provision or administration between employers and the state such as was abolished by the SSP scheme. Furthermore, employers do not believe that they should accept responsibility for statutory maternity allowance for women who may no longer be under contract of employment. Maternity payments are designed to encourage pregnant women to give up work in the interests of both mother and child. The CBI believes that they are a state responsibility and should be clearly designated as such. Payment by the employer only confuses that relationship.
I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness that there is an intention to simplify and streamline the provision, because that is helpful. But the basic problem remains. These are a state benefit and as such they should be paid by the state to the women and not via the wage packet or the employer.
I shall not press my amendments this evening, and I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said. However. I still believe that there is considerable strength in the arguments that I have advanced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111ZA:
Page 49, line 26, leave out ("woman's confinement occurs") and insert ("woman is confined")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which the eagle-eye of the parliamentary draftsman has identified as being needed to maintain a consistent approach in the wording used in the references to the statutory maternity pay provisions. They do not alter the effect of the provisions in the slightest way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [The maternity pay period]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111ZB:
Page 50, line 7. leave out ("week in which falls the expected day") and insert ("expected week")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Rates of payment]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111ZC:
Page 51, line 11, at end insert—

("(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to when a contract of service is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (5) above as normally involving or having involved employment—

(a) for less than 16 hours weekly; or

(b) for 8 hours or more weekly,

or as not normally involving or having involved such employment.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations when cases are to be treated as normally involving employment for fewer than 16 hours or more than 8 hours a week for the satisfaction of the service qualification test for part-time workers referred to in Clause 46(5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Statutory maternity pay etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 111A and 111B:
Page 108, line 25, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
Page 108, line 31, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
The noble Baroness said: These are purely drafting amendments to correct a mistake which crept into the Bill on its way from another place. The right reference in both cases is paragraph 5 and not paragraph 4. These amendments put the text back as it was. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 111C, 111D and 111E:
Page 111, line 24, leave out ("her confinement occurs") and insert ("she is confined").
Page 111, line 40, leave out ("the date of the confinement was") and insert ("she was confined").
Page 112, line 4, leave out ("is") and insert ("and "confined" are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interpretation of Part V]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 111F:
Page 51, line 31, leave out from ("and") to second ("of) in line 36 and insert ("where a woman's labour begun on one day results in the issue of a child on another day she shall be taken to be confined on the day of the issue of the child or, if labour results in the issue of twins or a greater number of children, she shall be taken to be confined on the day")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Adjudication]:
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 111G and 111H:
Page 114, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("Where") in line 34 and insert ("and
(e) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (7)—
"(7)")
Page 114, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 46 and insert—
("(2) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section—
(d)")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111J:
Page 117, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph—
"(bb) without an application review such a determination on any ground within the prescribed period;".")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend I would say that this is, again, a purely technical amendment that restores to the Attendance Allowance Board the power to review a decision where no application has been made by a third party. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 111K:
Page 120, line 18, leave out second ("under") and insert ("made by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of)
The noble Baroness said: Again I speak on behalf of my noble friend. This amendment provides that questions arising on statutory maternity pay and regulations made under Clause 44(8)(b), (c) and (e) will be for decision by the Secretary of State. It replaces the original provision that was too widely drawn. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Overpayments]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 57, line 19, leave out from ("that,") to end of line 22 and insert ("any person has failed to use due care and diligence through-out to avoid overpayment of benefit and in consequence of such failure to use due care and diligence.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. I shall be brief. The amendment is to provide that the test for the recovery of over-payments should be whether the claimant exercised due care and diligence. The amendment is to ensure that people are not prosecuted for over-drawing social security benefit unless there was a clear intention to defraud. It must be proved that a claimant made a false statement knowing it to be false.
Secondly, the amendment provides that the test for recovering over-payments from a claimant should be whether a claimant exercised due care and diligence. But legislation currently applies different tests for the recovery of over-payments. Because of the time I shall not go into the four different tests. The amendment recommends that the same test should apply to all four areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether I may speak in shorthand. Proving a person's intentions is more difficult than even establishing that due care and diligence has been used. In effect, the amendment would limit recovery of over-payment only to cases where there had been fraudulent intent. There is much more that I could say, but I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I was going to say that I would read in Hansard what my noble friend said; but perhaps I may discuss the matter with my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 59, line 16, at end insert—
(" (e) housing benefit").
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment to bring the criteria for recovering overpayment of housing benefit into line with the criteria for recovering overpayment of other benefits. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: There is a separate provision in Clause 29 to deal with recovery of overpaid housing benefit. This provides for the arrangements for recovering housing benefit overpayments to be set out in regulations, including the circumstances in which an overpayment can be recovered. As my honourable friend the Minister of State explained in another place when Clause 29 was debated, we have not defined the categories of overpayments which it will be possible to recover in the main legislation because this is something we need to discuss with the local authorities.
However, it was made clear in the Standing Committee's discussions on the HB clauses that we agreed in principle it was right for the main grounds for recovering overpaid housing benefit to be the same as those applying to other benefits; namely, that recovery is possible only where the claimant has misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact. It was also said that this would be the starting point for our discussions with the local authorities.
I should like to repeat that undertaking. But I am afraid that it has not yet been possible to take forward our discussions with the local authority interests on all the aspects of the new scheme which we need to discuss with them, including the arrangements for dealing with overpayments. These discussions would not be meaningful if all possibility of variation is ruled out before the consultation begins. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the relevant regulations once these discussions have been completed. I would once again ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall read what the Minister has said in Hansard, and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to. Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [False representations for obtaining benefit etc.]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 59, line 37, at end insert ("dishonestly").
The noble Baroness said: From the point of view of groupings I shall, with the permission of Members of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118. These amendments require a dishonest intention to be proved in a prosecution for a social security fraud. When these amendments were discussed in Committee and at Report stage in the House of Commons on 20th May, John Major,

717
Member of Parliament, Parliamentary Under-secretary of State, said that he had been impressed by the arguments on the question of recklessness, that the Government would look at them carefully, and would consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: As the Committee will know, the concept of recklessness is not new either to social security law or to the criminal law generally. As the noble Baroness said, in response to concern expressed about recklessness in another place the Government undertook to reflect again upon the concept. I am pleased to be able to report to the Committee that our deliberations have led us to the conclusion that the objections to recklessness offences, from both within and outside Parliament, are sufficiently persuasive to merit the removal of these provisions from the Bill.
I therefore give an undertaking to bring forward appropriate amendments at Report stage which will have the effect of restoring the status quo on social security offences, thereby meeting the broad thrust of the amendments of my noble friend. I hope, bearing in mind what I have said, that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: It is wonderful how my noble friend the Minister and I agree without my having given her a long description. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Consultations on subordinate legislation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert ("and, in so far as he does not propose to give effect to them, his reasons why not.").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to give his reasons when he proposes not to give effect to recommendations in the report of an advisory body on regulations made earlier by reason of urgency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118B:
Page 65, line 44, at end insert ("made by virtue of an enactment contained in this Act or in an Act passed before this Act, if they are").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 118B. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 118C. These two amendments ensure for the purposes of this Bill and earlier Acts that the period during which there is no requirement for regulations to be referred to an advisory body is 12 months, and for future Acts, unless specifically stated, the period will be six months. This is essentially a tidying-up exercise and as such I hope that it will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118C:
Page 66, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
("(5A) Nothing in any enactment shall require the reference to the Committee, the Council or the Board of regulations made by virtue of an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, if they are—

(a) contained in a statutory instrument made before the end of the period of 6 months from the commencement of the enactment under which it is made; or

(b) contained in a statutory instrument which—

(i) states that it contains only provisions consequential on a specified enactment or such provisions and regulations made under that enactment; and

(ii) is made before the end of the period of 6 months from the commencement of that enactment,

unless the Act containing the enactment by virtue of which the regulations are made excludes this subsection in respect of the regulations.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118D:
Page 66, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 118D. I should explain that such a definition is no longer required, given that the new subsection (5A) (as introduced by Amendment No. 118B), which provides for the reversion to the traditional six months sterile period for future Acts, contains an express reference to an enactment contained in future legislation.
I consider that it is clear from the context in which the other provisions of this clause operate that they relate to past legislation, without the need specifically to define that that is what we intend. I therefore commend this minor change to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Annual up-rating of benefits]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118E:
Page 68, line 10, at end insert—
("(dd) specified in section 41(2B) of the Social Security Act 1975;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118F:
Page 69, line 17, after ("(1)(d)") insert ("(ii)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 118F. This is a drafting amendment. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 118G, which is also a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118G:
Page 69, line 18, at end insert ("and an increase in a sum such as is specified in subsection (l)(d)(i) above shall be added to and form part of that pension but shall not form part of the sum increased").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 64 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Christmas bonus for pensioners]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118H:
Page 121, line 26, leave out from ("allowance") to end of line 27 and insert ("means—

(a) an unemployability supplement payable under section 58 of the Social Security Act 1975 by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to this Act; or

(b) any corresponding allowance payable—

(i) by virtue of section 7(3)(a) of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975;

(ii) by way of supplement to retired pay or pension exempt from income tax under section 365(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;

(iii) under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939; or

(iv) by way of supplement to retired pay or pension under the Polish Resettlement Act 1947;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Entitlement to mobility allowance—general]:
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 74, line 22 at end insert—
("(2D) In determining whether a person is unable, or virtually unable to walk, account shall be taken of

(a) the distance, speed, time and manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort;

(b) the need for guidance, supervision or assistance;

(c) the ability to conceive and achieve a desired destination").

The noble Lord said: With the best will in the world I cannot move this amendment formally, nor can I do it in one minute. It is on an issue of great importance. When I was a constituency Member I had brought to my attention many cases of the difficulty of interpretation of the legislation that established the mobility allowance. This amendment has been worked out and now has the support of the all-party Disablement Group and several organisations representing the interests of disabled people, including the Disability Alliance, MENCAP, SENSE, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
The amendment will insert wording in the Social Security Act 1985. If we do not do this now, we may have to wait many years before we are able to do it. The amendment seeks to clarify several ambiguities that now arise in claims for mobility allowance made by people who, though literally able to make the physical movements of walking, are not capable of independent mobility. The point is that the mobility allowance was designed for those who cannot walk, or virtually cannot walk, and all the circumstances beyond that were not described in the legislation, and it could be said that they should have been. Well, we must now put it right.
Although paragraph (a) of the amendment repeats the wording of regulation 3(1)(b) of the mobility allowance regulations, paragraphs (b) and (c) are new. Inclusion of this wording will clarify the entitlement to mobility allowance of mentally handicapped people, deaf-blind people, and people who suffer some orientation problem. Under current regulations some disabled people who are incapable of independent mobility fail to qualify for mobility allowance. They receive no help with the extra financial burden imposed by their mobility problems.
It so happens that I have a son who works with people who are deaf-blind. He has brought many cases to my attention. Deaf-blind claimants experience difficulties in qualifying for the allowance. Even if they are not capable of independent mobility, they are physically able to walk. This is the problem that has led to a variety of different judgments.
The deaf-blind require a skilled guide at all times when walking outdoors. Their difficulties arise not only because they are unable to orientate themselves but also because they are able to communicate only by use of the deaf-blind manual alphabet, and they cannot ask passers-by for assistance as the blind can. They need to take taxis for all but the simplest journeys or need to be able to meet the travelling expenses of a travelling companion, and yet in most cases they cannot get the mobility allowance.
Mentally handicapped children may be able to make the physical movement of walking but have behavioural problems restricting their mobility. They run away. They have tantrums. They sit on the ground and refuse to walk. They need supervision at all times. Their parents are unable to take them on public transport because of their behaviour, and they are unable to contemplate walking far in case the child refuses to walk farther. For the parents a car is essential and yet the mobility allowance is not available to pay for it.
Much confusion has arisen because of differing commissioners' decisions about the definition of "to walk" and about which factors can be taken into account in deciding whether a claimant is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. I shall not go through the different commissioners' awards which, because they are contradictory, have caused such confusion. The first one was in 1978. The next one was in 1981. Then there was one in 1983 and the next one involved a tribunal of commissioners, also in 1983. The latest one, in the Lees case, has led to great confusion and extreme difficulty for those who have to determine whether mobility allowance should be granted. What is the interpretation of the law as it stands?
In conclusion, though I may have made a brief presentation that may have suffered as a result, the present interpretation of the regulations causes a great deal of confusion. Claimants are unclear why they fail to qualify while others in similar positions— sometimes in exactly similar positions—do qualify. Advisers cannot give clear guidance to potential claimants and because of this many claims are appealed by the claimant and the DHSS with the result that claimants can often wait a year or even longer for their claims finally to be decided.
The proposed amendment will clarify this by stipulating the factors that should be taken into account by medical boards and medical appeal tribunals in deciding whether a claimant is unable or is virtually unable to walk. It will be for the medical authorities to decide the extent to which these factors limit a claimant's walking ability. The new clause would not, for example, mean that all blind people would qualify for a mobility allowance. They would qualify only if they had some additional disability, such as deafness or orientation problems, that, combined with their blindness, means that they are able to walk only with a great deal of assistance.
I shall not give any of the examples I have which are now unresolved, but I think I have said enough in the amendment itself by setting out the considerations that the medical board (I stipulate that it must be a medical board) has to have in mind when reaching a conclusion to show that it will be greatly helped if Amendment No. 124 is carried. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I shall be as brief as I can but I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it would be neither right nor proper to try to deal with this matter briefly and formally. It is a matter about which millions of people are very deeply concerned and they would wish to know that it is being properly considered in your Lordships' Committee and will not care twopence about the time at which it is considered, nor do I make any complaint about that. I feel that the matter is one of sufficient importance for some of the facts to be put on record.
The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, is to remove some of the anomalies and the confusion that currently surround mobility allowance. That is not a new matter. Indeed there has been confusion and there have been anomalies since the days of the old invalid vehicle, the trike. Even in those days I, as a doctor, had to send patients along to the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, who were then the people who made the decision. Later, when I dealt with constituency cases as a Member in another place, one found over and over again that there were anomalies. Different cases were dealt with differently and we constantly had problems of this kind. Let me emphasise that it is no new matter at all.
What is happening and the real danger is that with the confusion that has arisen as a result of a number of the judgments and opinions that have been given by the commissioners and on appeal (indeed, on appeal to your Lordship's House) we are now in the situation where there is a distinct possibility, indeed a probability, that certain people who have been entitled to the mobility allowance will find on an application for renewal that it is refused. My experience, particu-larly as a doctor, is that few things cause more distress than for a person in receipt of some benefit or some form of assistance suddenly to find on an application for renewal that, while his condition has remained totally unchanged, he is deprived of a benefit which he previously enjoyed. This is a cause of immense frustration and resentment and is something that at all costs should be avoided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the amendment is fairly simple. He said that (a) merely
722
repeats the wording of Regulation 3(l)(b) of the mobility allowance regulations and thus should be acceptable to everyone in the Committee. As for (b), that was taken directly from a judgment of a Tribunal of Commissioners which said (and I quote):
"The need for guidance, supervision or support is a facet of the manner in which a person can progress on foot and should be taken into account by medical authorities."
As for (c), that comes from a number of cases concerned with mentally handicapped people.
I should emphasise that these are factors that need only to be considered, if your Lordships accept this amendment. It would still be up to the assessors to decide the extent to which they should apply. There has been much argument about how much this would cost. I think the various voluntary bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, who feel deeply about this particular issue and who are closely associated with the all-party disablement group, have done their own calculations and they believe that the numbers involved would be somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 rather than the enormous number which has been suggested by Government spokesmen, who have been anxious to resist the amendment.
I think we have more or less had an invitation to look at this matter again from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in a judgment in your Lordships' Chamber—and how much we regret his absence from our proceedings today and how very deeply we all regret the reasons for it! His guidance on this matter would be of great importance.
In the case of Christine Lees, to which reference has been made, that case finally came to the Law Lords in your Lordships' House, and I have here a quotation from the judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said:
"Mr. Drabble [the claimant's representative] would have us construe the ability to make progress on foot as an ability to advance from point A to a desired destination B. The context does not admit of such a meaning. The words clearly refer to the physical ability to move on foot not to the direction of that movement."
The noble and learned Lord then went on to refer to another commissioner's decision, and said:
"I am satisfied that Mr. Rice, the Commissioner who heard this case, reached the correct conclusion in law and that other decisions which differ from his on the law must be held to be to that extent erroneous. Mr. Rice considered that, had the legislature intended to include in regulation 3(1)(b) the inability to direct one's walking, it would have done so in clear terms".
I have no doubt at all that it was in fact the legislature's intention to do precisely that: and we do now have an opportunity to do it. For far too long after the disappearance of the "trike" we had people applying to the DHSS, who then became the authority for deciding whether or not mobility allowance should be granted. In this field the DHSS seem to me to begin to resemble increasingly a kind of inverted Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn down. We find that more and more often they have turned down applications because they did not conform with the kind of entitlement referred to in this amendment.
If this amendment were accepted, or if the noble Baroness could say that the Government could go some way towards accepting it, I think we would do away with many anomalies and a great deal of uncertainty. We will also do away with the (I think)

723
very dangerous situation in which many people who have previously been entitled to the mobility allowance will suddenly find they become unentitled to it. I hope the noble Baroness will give us a sympathetic reply on this very important amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I very briefly support the moving of this amendment and express the hope that even if it is not perfect (and I suspect that that is what the noble Baroness will say) somehow or other, between us, we shall be able to clarify the present confusion before the Bill leaves this Chamber?
I know that there is some difference of opinion about the effect of this amendment. The intention certainly is to benefit some 5,000 to 10,000 people, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, the Minister suggested it might be as many as a quarter of a million people. If there is that difference between the Minister and those who have put forward the amendment, as we have done in this Chamber, there must some room for a coming together to find a solution to the problem which has been created by the Lees case.
I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, whose judgment has been quoted, clearly was expressing what the law is. It is not surprising that he came to that conclusion, in that it is generally agreed that when the law was framed it was to provide assistance to the physically handicapped, and it has been developed by various decisions which led to the test case and that has now been judicially clarified. All we are asking is that the legal decision, which has been taken in this House sitting judicially, and which has led to a confusion, should be clarified before this Bill leaves the House. I myself would not ask any more of the Minister, but I would ask at least as much as that.
Baroness Trumpington: I, too, am glad that we have had an opportunity, however short, to debate the issue of the eligibility criteria for mobility allowance, because it is one which is of great interest and concern to many disabled people. The Government have great sympathy with that concern and I recognise the force of many of the arguments for change which have been put to us, but I cannot advise that the Committee accepts the amendment before us this evening.
Inability, or virtual inability, to walk has been the basic qualifying condition for the allowance since it was first introduced in 1976 by the then Labour Government. The meaning of "virtually unable to walk" was a subject of uncertainty and dispute until two recent judicial decisions; one by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and the other by a tribunal of social security commissioners. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee would accept the value of a clear legal definition which emerges from these decisions and which means that the confusion over the qualifying conditions is now effectively resolved. At the same time, though, I readily accept that it is now clear that some highly deserving and sympathetic cases, like those that have been mentioned, are not entitled to the benefit as the law stands. That is something which the Government will look at.
724
I have said that we will consider the arguments that have been put this evening. We have the power already to bring in other changes swiftly by means of regulations if, and when, a clear case is made for changes which we can afford. I recommend that the Committee rejects the amendment before us now, and I hope that noble Lords will take note of what I have said.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that together with her right honourable friend she will look at this. I should like in that consultation to be able to submit some information that might be helpful—not that the Secretary of State is not able to decide for himself. But I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the concession that she has made and, in those circumstances, I most willingly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 74, line 35, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Secretary of State has made a payment to a person who has claimed mobility allowance on the ground that if the person's claim had been received by the Secretary of State at a date later than that on which it was in fact received, the person would have been entitled to mobility allowance—

(a) the payment shall be treated as a payment of mobility allowance; and

(b) the person shall be treated as having been entitled to mobility allowance for the period in respect of which the payment was made.").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, may I say that Clause 68 restores the law to what it was believed to be before a recent decision of the Court of Appeal held that entitlement to mobility allowance could be considered only as at the date a claim is received or treated as received. It enables regulations to provide for the adjudicating medical authorities, including medical appeal tribunals, to determine the medical qualifying conditions for the allowance as at the date a claim is received or is treated as received or from a later date, and for the allowance to be awarded from whichever of these dates the qualifying conditions are found to be satisfied. Clause 68(4) validates awards of mobility allowance made from a "later date" which were rendered erroneous in law by the Court of Appeal decision.
However, following the Court of Appeal decision there have been cases where medical appeal tribunals, having found a claimant does not satisfy the qualifying conditions as at the date of claim, would have decided those conditions satisfied from a later date, and had the present law allowed it mobility allowance would have been awarded from that date. As it is, the only decision the adjudicating authorities can give is that the claimant does not qualify for the allowance and the claimant is faced with the chore of making a fresh claim in order to get his benefit.
We think it is wrong that these claimants should lose out in this way and be put to the trouble of making another claim. We are therefore making them extra-statutory payments on account of, and at the same amount as, the mobility allowance they would have received had the present law allowed "later-date" awards. To minimise the period of extra-statutory

725
payment and avoid any difficulties in the future about the entitlement to mobility allowance of the people receiving the payments, we propose to put the payments on a statutory basis, by treating them as payments of mobility allowance, and to treat the recipients of the payments as entitled to the allowance for the period the payments are made. The present subsection (4) is not wide enough to achieve these aims and the provisions of the new subsection (5) are therefore required. I am sure the Committee will recognise the entirely sensible and beneficial purpose of this amendment, and I commend it.
Lord Ennals: For my part, I greatly welcome the announcement and statement, and the amendment that has been proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 124B:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments relating to forfeiture of benefits.

(1) The Forfeiture Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 4 (Social Security Commissioner to determine whether forfeiture rule applies to social security benefits)—

"(1A) Where a Commissioner determines that the forfeiture rule has precluded a person (in this section referred to as "the offender") who has unlawfully killed another from receiving the whole or part of any such benefit or advantage, the Commissioner may make a decision under this subsection modifying the effect of that rule and may do so whether the unlawful killing occurred before or after the coming into force of this subsection.

(1B) The Commissioner shall not make a decision under subsection (1 A) above modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule in any case unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the Commissioner to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case.

(1C) Subject to subsection (1D) below, a decision under subsection (1A) above may modify the effect of the forfeiture rule in either or both of the following ways—

(a) so that it applies only in respect of a specified proportion of the benefit or advantage;

(b) so that it applies in respect of the benefit or advantage only for a specified period of time.

(1D) Such a decision may not modify the effect of the forfeiture rule so as to allow any person to receive the whole or any part of a benefit or advantage in respect of any period before the commencement of this subsection.

(1E) If the Commissioner thinks it expedient to do so, he may direct that his decision shall apply to any future claim for a benefit or advantage under a relevant enactment, on which a question such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above arises by reason of the same unlawful killing.

(1F) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1E) above whether the claim is in respect of the same or a different benefit or advantage.

(1G) For the purpose of obtaining a decision whether the forfeiture rule should be modified the Secretary of State may refer to a Commissioner for review any determination of a question such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above that was made before the commencement of subsections (1A) to (1F) above (whether by a Commissioner or not) and shall do so if the offender requests him to refer such a determination.

726

(1H) Subsections (1A) to (1F) above shall have effect on a reference under subsection (1G) above as if in subsection (1A) the words "it has been determined" were substituted for the words "a Commissioner determines".".

(3) In subsection (2) of that section, after the words "that subsection" there shall be inserted the words "or any decision under subsection (1A) above".

(4) In section 5 (exclusion of murderers) after the word "Act", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or in any decision made under section 4(1A) of this Act".").

The noble Baroness said: This new clause amends the Forfeiture Act 1982 to give the Social Security Commissioners the same powers in relation to granting relief from forfeiture of benefit as the courts already enjoy in relation to property rights. It will enable the commissioners to decide in cases where the rule of public policy applies whether, and if so for how long, an offender should forfeit benefit. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Earnings factors]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 124C to 1240:
Page 125, line 26, leave out from ("from") to ("and") in line 28 and insert (" "from" to "above" there shall be substituted the words in respect of each tax year from those of his earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid").
Page 126, line 9, leave out ("Class 1 contributions have been") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as")
Page 126, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5A)—
"(5B) Regulations may provide for requiring persons to maintain, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, records of such earnings paid by them as are relevant for the purpose of calculating earnings factors, and to retain such records for so long as may be prescribed.".")
Page 126, line 20, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 126, line 28, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 126, line 41, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 3, leave out ("a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 9, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 16, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 24, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were actually") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as")
Page 127, line 32, leave out ("Class 1 contributions were actually paid by him") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as paid")
Page 127, line 41, leave out ("liability to pay Class 1 contributions arose") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
Page 128, line 4, leave out ("Class 1 contributions are payable") and insert ("primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid")
The noble Baroness said: These are technical and clarificatory amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Refreshments for school pupils]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 124P:
Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
(" ( ) References in subsection (2) of each of those sections to supplementary benefit and family income supplement shall be treated as references to income support and family credit respectively.")
The noble Baroness said: In view of the grouping, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 125 and 126. I have been asked to be brief and I shall do my very best. The purpose of the amendment is fairly complex because it tries to preserve the status quo with regard to the three categories of children currently benefiting from a school meal. I shall not go into those three categories because the Committee will know them well; but the changes proposed in the Bill are that local authorities providing schools meals and school milk must charge for them except in cases where the parents of the pupils receive income support. That means that no fewer than 545,000 children currently benefiting from a school meal will lose their entitlement.
As the Committee will know, the Government intend to provide a notional amount of £2·20 per week throughout the whole year, which works out at 60p per day in the school year, to families on family credit to compensate them for the loss of the free midday meal. The Government argue that it is preferable to provide help in cash rather than in kind. However, I shall put forward the reservations of this side of the Committee as to the true outcome of that arrangement, which we believe will be rather different from that which the Government meant.
We doubt whether the children themselves will benefit from a cash payment rather than from a benefit in kind. First, we are concerned as to who will be entitled to the compensation and whether the sum will be adequate to cover the cost of the meals for those who do receive it. On the first count, we know that there will be no compensation at all for families not in work and not receiving family support. At present they are the families receiving help under local authority discretionary schemes. Can the Government guarantee that all children served by discretionary schemes will receive family credit? That is an important question that we have to ask the Government.
Secondly, as to the adequacy of the compensation, it appears to us that the very poorest of families may suffer, in that those receiving family credit who receive also housing benefit will be given only 44p a week cash compensation instead of £2·20. That is because family credit counts as income for housing benefit purposes. That 44p per week will hardly compensate for the present nutritional meal that is provided five days a week. Those are very complex points and I shall not go into them now, but perhaps other Members of the Committee may wish to elaborate briefly on one or two of them. However, I wish to express to the Minister the deepfelt concern that there is on this matter and to which I believe she should try to respond.
I wish also to express the anxiety that is felt as to the wisdom of providing help in cash rather than in kind
728
when it comes to school meals. This amendment has nothing to do with asking for more money. We are often criticised for wishing to throw money at things. Here we are asking only that children should benefit in kind rather than in cash. The Government have said that both ways cost exactly the same amount of money.
We welcome the Government's decision that family credit should be paid direct to the caring parent and not through the wage packet. However, given the many pressures on family budgets, we still have great reservations as to whether that part of the allowance apportioned to the cost of paying for a school meal will be spent on either a meal provided by the school or on another meal of adequate nutritional value. By that, I do not mean to suggest that poor families cannot be trusted, but, with the best will in the world, mothers could feel tempted to borrow the meal money to pay some pressing bill; any mother might be tempted to do that. Alternatively, she might be asked by her husband for some extra money for whatever reason.
In support I should like to quote a survey by the Child Poverty Action Group which shows that mothers themselves express fear that when money is tight they might not be able to keep separate the money for the school meal and that it might get swallowed up in the general housekeeping. Some mothers even said that they would prefer it if free meals continued to be provided even if cash compensation was worth more than the meal. That must be because of the peace of mind they would enjoy in the certitude that their children would be provided with a proper meal at lunchtime.
I visited some primary schools and any reservations I might have had about the high level of the school meals service were completely extinguished. I also took the opportunity of speaking with the teachers and members of the school meals service. I cannot over-exaggerate their concern. In one school in Lambeth 80 per cent. of the children are in receipt of free meals. Of the 140 children in the school, as many as 35 to 40 children will lose benefit altogether because at present they have entitlement from the discretionary scheme. The school was worried about what to do when the children arrive with no money. What can the school do? It can hardly leave the children sitting there without any lunch. Will it put the parents into debt, or pursue the parents for the money? The school was most concerned at the predicament in which it would be placed. It was also concerned that the children might leave the school and spend the money outside on it did not know what and the children might not return. There could be disruption to the school day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will remember that when I moved Amendment No. 66 there was a great deal of concern throughout the Committee. Even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he had a certain sympathy with my original amendment. Noble Lords throughout the Committee expressed their concern in different ways. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness that before we reach Report stage there should be wider consultation on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, put foward the suggestion during an earlier sitting that school meals need to be discussed further by the DES, the DHSS, by all concerned Peers and by all those organisations involved with school meals.
I conclude by asking the noble Baroness, most seriously, whether she will arrange for a meeting to take place on this whole issue well before Report stage. It will not cost more money, and the benefit of the children could be put foremost. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Kilmarnock: In rising to support the noble Baroness I note that she said that some noble Lords might want to elaborate briefly (that is a possibility!) and there are one or two comments that should be made.
This matter was not debated properly at the previous sitting of the Committee because it was in the debate on this issue that the noble Baroness chose to make her extremely welcome announcement about the payment of family credit to the mother. We were therefore sidetracked on that occasion from the real point at issue. To fill in one or two of the technical gaps, I could not initially understand how it was that, of the £2.20 which was designed to be paid in compensation. some families might end up with only 44p per week. The reason is that where families receive housing benefit the compensation will be clawed back because family credit, including compensation, will count as income when the housing benefit is calculated and will be taxed up to 80 per cent. The result of that is that some families will be left with only 44p compensation.
The Government suggested that out of the estimated 610,000 children to be compensated—that is, those who are expected to receive family credit—around only a quarter would be among families receiving housing benefit, who would therefore lose compensation in the manner I have described. But it does mean that around 150,000 children will receive less, and in some cases considerably less, than the £2.20 compensation suggested. Children from the poorest working families would be affected in that way.
Also, of course, there is the fact that was mentioned the last time we debated this point, and it is worth stating again, though I shall not go through the figures—that the cost of school meals is rising constantly and many authorities are now charging over 60p a day.
There is yet another very important point, which the noble Baroness did not mention—and of course she was trying to save time—that there is a minimal operational level for school kitchens. I do not know• exactly what that level is, but it may be 100 meals. Once one falls below a certain level, it may be impossible to operate a kitchen even for the children who need it. So there may be some superficial attractions to the Government's proposals, but I think that the noble Baroness has demonstrated, as I also tried to demonstrate, that there are some very serious drawbacks to them. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which we discussed earlier today, made the following comment:
"We do not believe that this [proposal] will fulfil the Government's aim of giving families adequate resources and the freedom to choose how to use them".
The nutritional considerations also have not really been considered and cannot be considered at length at
730
this time of the night. However, one must remember the opinion expressed in the Lancet in 1979 on the value of free school meals, the Black Report on inequalities in health, and indeed the report of the DHSS itself on the nutritional value of school meals. These all seem to me to be very good reasons why this whole question needs further discussion. It cannot simply be left as if it is a matter which has been set in concrete and which cannot be changed in any way.
On those grounds I very much hope to hear the noble Baroness say that she will take up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that there should be further consideration among interested parties, along perhaps with her and her officials, to see whether we can resolve some of these problems. It may be that the Government are not even achieving their own aims by the way in which the Bill is actually drafted. I must say to the Committee, and to the noble Baroness in particular, that if we cannot get under way some talks of this sort we shall certainly want to return to this matter on Report—as, I am sure, will the noble Baroness—and on that occasion we may have with us the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has expressed great concern on this matter and whose name is already attached to this amendment.
I hope that we shall hear from the noble Baroness this evening that she is disposed to reconsider the Government's proposals and meet with some of us who are interested in this matter to see if we cannot make some progress on it.
Lord Rea: I think it would be perfectly possible for me to make a speech of Second Reading length on the health implications of Clause 73, but I shall try to compress into a few minutes the matter which would fill out that speech.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, have shown how this clause will lead to a reduced number of the less well-off children in the country taking up school meals. Similarly and following from that, if fewer school meals are eaten, the cost of the remaining meals must inevitably rise, since the overheads will remain much the same. So the whole service will suffer and some kitchens may even have to close, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock has pointed out.
We already know that those who are entitled to school meals are shorter than average—and the noble Baroness knows the reference so there is no need for me to spell it out. We also know since the preliminary report on the dietary survey of school children that was published in April that those children who do not eat school meals perhaps eat snacks which are very unsatisfactory from a nutritional point of view. They contain far too much saturated fat, sugar and salt and too little essential—that is polyunsaturated—fats, fibre, minerals and vitamins. Particularly they contain too little iron, which is needed by adolescent and pre-adolescent girls.
School meals are also very important from the point of view of calories—the energy provided from the diet—for less well-off children. I quote from the DHSS survey:
"It would appear that, particularly for older children, the school meal whether paid for or provided free, represented a very important source of the energy".

731
The reason this country is falling behind others in health statistics is the persistence or even the widening of the gap between the health of the different social classes. That is now present in coronary artery disease even, which used to be the preserve of the well-off and well-fed. A major cause for that differential, not only in coronary heart disease but in all diseases, is increasingly being shown to be of nutritional origin.
It is not so much the quantity but the quality of the diet which is at fault. Poor people used to have too little of almost every kind of food. Now they have too little of some nutrients and an excess of others which do active harm—and the harm starts in childhood. Risk factors which lead to coronary heart disease can be shown to start in childhood.
As a member of the Coronary Prevention Group and as executive chairman of the National Co-ordinating Committee for Coronary Prevention, I am acutely aware of the need to influence the dietary habits and choices of children and their parents in a positive and healthy way. School meals are potentially an important way to do that. Many districts—I mention Sheffield and Nottingham, to name only two—are making considerable progress in improving the quality of the diet for school meals. It is not true that children like only chips, biscuits and Coke. Good food can be attractively served, and that can be backed up by health education in the classroom. Most nutritionists are convinced that school meals are an important way to improve nutrition in childhood.
To diminish the coverage of school children by the school meal service would be to miss a first-class opportunity to benefit every child's health, not only now but in future adult life. I think it might also influence parents to eat a little better. That has been shown where children have been given nutritional education in the third world.
I shall cut my speech short now. My Whip is anxiously looking at me as if to make me shut up. I am not quite sure why. I think that the clause as it stands would be a retrograde step and would damage the chances of success of what could prove to be an exciting venture in positive preventive medicine.
I should like finally to quote one passage of a document from the Coronary Prevention Group:
"The CPG fully endorses the views expressed by its Chairman Sir Douglas Black when he said (1980 Black Report) that … one of the most effective ways of reducing the inequalities in health was via school meals. Far from [reducing] free school meals CPG urges the Government to reintroduce nutritional standards for school meals and concentrate on making healthy school meals available to all children, free where necessary".
I think that it is perfectly clear why I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: This debate takes us back over what is now well trodden ground, but having listened carefully to what noble Lords have said in support of the amendments, I have to say that I do not think that we have heard any new arguments today. These amendments would take us back to square one so far as the arrangements for free school meals are concerned. Some of the arguments that we have heard this evening are, frankly, alarmist and out of all proportion.
732
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, acknowledged the payment to the mothers of the money in the future. It is not a question of an evil Government taking the bread out of the mouths of children: it is a case of the Government extending help to 60,000 more children and providing the help in a manner which enhances the dignity, sense of responsibility and self-reliance of families.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: I regret the fact that the noble Baroness did not give us a more encouraging answer. If any Members of the Committee think that we are sitting too late tonight, may I point out that we were supposed to rise for the dinner hour from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. Because of the nature of the business that the Government put into that dinner hour, we did not resume on the Social Security Bill until 8.41 p.m. That happened last Monday as well, when the dinner hour was so extended that the time on the Social Security Bill was curtailed. That is because the Government do not like the Social Security Bill and want to minimise the time that we have on it.
I wonder whether the Government have had any consultations with teachers and other people who will have to implement the school meals proposals. I, like my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, have talked to teachers about it. They ask what they are to do when a child whom they know is from a poor family arrives without its dinner money. The dinner is on the table but the child does not have the money. Is the teacher to throw that dinner in the dustbin and send that hungry child away?
The Bill takes away all discretion from local education authorities. It is an apalling situation. I agree with some of the Government's thoughts, and that parents should be responsible for their children. But we cannot make children responsible for their parents. If a child arrives without its dinner money, is it to have a lecture from the teacher about its irresponsible parents, and to be sent away hungry? I cannot believe that Members opposite want to see that happening in our schools. The more that happens and the more that children are not allowed to eat the dinner that is there, because they do not have the money, the more will there be a rundown in the whole school meals service. Fewer and fewer meals will be provided on the grounds that fewer and fewer children have brought the money.
That will undermine an important nutritional element. We should spend a great deal more time in the health service on prevention and less on curing people. I must put down this marker: we must come back to the question of school meals, which are so essential to the nutrition of our children and our future citizens. It is absurd for children to be penalised because their parents do not put the money into their hands to take to school. That view is shared by many of the school teachers with whom I have discussed the matter. I have not heard that the Government have had any consultation at all with school teachers.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister said that no new arguments had been brought forward, but she has not answered the arguments on either of the occasions on which they have been put forward. There is serious

733
doubt about the increased number of children who will benefit, which is about the only point that the noble Baroness brought forward this evening. The increased number of children who will benefit is thought to be speculation.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not even mention our suggestion of discussing this issue, not to make it cost more but to try to get it right for the children. I presume that she has turned down the idea of consultations with representatives from the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and all the organisations, Members of Parliament and Peers who are deeply concerned. If she is unwilling even to accept that tentative suggestion, we shall most certainly bring it back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 125 and 126 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
[Amendment 126A not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 78 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Orders and regulations (general provisions)]:
[Amendment 126B not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 126C:
Page 133, line 30, at end insert—
("2A. In section 64 (modification of occupational pension scheme by order of Occupational Pensions Board) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The Board shall also have power on such an application to make an order—

(a) authorising the modification of the scheme with a view to achieving any one or more of such other purposes as may be prescribed; or

(b) modifying the scheme with a view to achieving any one or more of those purposes.".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 135, line 30, leave out ("(l)(a) (contracted-out rates of benefit)") and insert ("(contracted-out rates of benefit)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a),")
Page 135, line 33, at end insert—

("(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the words "this section" there shall be inserted the words "and sections 16(2B), 28(7A) and 59(1A) of the principal Act"; and

(ii) at the end there shall be added the words "or if as a result of a transfer payment or transfer under regulations made by virtue of section 38 below he is no longer entitled to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme by which the transfer payment or transfer is made and has not as a result of the transfer payment or transfer become
734
entitled to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme to which the transfer payment or transfer is made." ")

Page 136, line 11, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
("17. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 38(1) (transfer of accrued rights)—
"(1) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which and conditions subject to which—

(a) there may be made by one occupational pension scheme to another or by an occupational pension scheme to a personal pension scheme a transfer of or a transfer payment in respect of—

(i) an earner's accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under a contracted-out scheme;

(ii) an earner's accrued rights to pensions under an occupational pension scheme which is not contracted-out, to the extent that those rights derive from his accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under a contracted-out scheme; or

(iii) the liability for the payment of guaranteed minimum pensions to or in respect of any person who has become entitled to them;

(b) there may be made to an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme a transfer of or a transfer payment in respect of an earner's accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions which are appropriately secured for the purposes of section 52C below.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 138, line 17, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—
("25.—(1) Section 52C (cases where scheme's liability is discharged) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if the following subsections were substituted for subsections (I) to (3)—
"(1) A transaction to which this section applies discharges the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme from their liability to provide for or in respect of any person either the requisite benefits or short service benefit or any alternative to short service benefit—

(a) if it is carried out not earlier than the time when that person's pensionable service terminates; and

(b) if and to the extent that it results in—

(i) the requisite benefits; or

(ii) short service benefit or an alternative to short service benefit, for or in respect of that person being appropriately secured; and

(c) in a case where the transaction takes place on or after 1st January 1986, if and to the extent that the requirements set out in any one of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) below are satisfied.

(2) This section applies to the following transactions—

(a) the taking out or the transfer of the benefit of a policy of insurance or a number of such policies;

(b) the entry into or the transfer of the benefit of an annuity contract or a number of such contracts.".

(2) Subsection (5) of that section shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if"(1)" were substituted for "(2)0)".
(3) In relation to transactions which take place after the commencement of section 8 above section 52C(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 shall have effect with the substitution of the words "guaranteed minimum pensions" for the words "the requisite benefits", in both places where they occur.
25A.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 52D (supplementary provisions) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect—

(a) as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph

(b)-

"(b) either—

(i) the transaction wholly or partly securing them was carried out before 1st January 1986 and discharged the trustees or managers of the scheme as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section; or

735

(ii) it is carried out on or after that date without any of the requirements specified in subsection (5)(a) to (c) of that section being satisfied in relation to it and the scheme has been wound up;"; and

(b) as if for the words from "entitled" to "which" there were substituted the words "only entitled to such part (if any) of his or her guaranteed minimum pension as".

(2) In that subsection after the words "purposes of there shall be inserted the words "sections 16(2B), 28(7A) and 59(1 A) of the principal Act and".")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is to remove doubts as to whether Section 52C of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 fulfils the original intention that the circumstances in which it should provide a discharge for scheme trustees include those where the benefits secured by the policy are not identical to those that would have been provided by the scheme. They will apply from 1st January 1986. I beg to moved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 138, line 23, at end insert—
(".The following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "occupational pension scheme" in section 66(1)—
" "personal pension scheme" has the meaning assigned to it by section 80(1) of the Social Security Act 1986; "")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130ZA:
Page 140, line 7, at end insert—
("National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
28A. In subsection (3) of section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (charges to be made for local authority accommodation) for the words "(apart from any supplementation of his resources which he will receive under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" there shall be substituted the words "(disregarding income support)".
28B. The words ", whether before or after the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976," shall be omitted from subsection (6) of section 43 of that Act (recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance).
Maintenance Order Act 1950 (c. 37)
28C. In subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (jurisdiction of English courts to make affiliation orders) after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
28D. In section 4 of that Act (jurisdiction of English courts to make affiliation orders against persons in Scotland or Northern Ireland)—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons;" and

(b) in subsection (2), after the words "or the said section 18" there shall be inserted the words "or the said section 23".

28E. In section 9 of that Act—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of
subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons);" and

(b) in subsection (2), after the words "or the said section 18" there shall be inserted the words "or the said section 23".

28F. In section 11(1) of that Act (jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts to make affiliation orders) after "1977" there shall
736
be inserted the words "or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
28G. In section 12 of that Act (jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts to make affiliation orders against persons in England or Scotland)—

(a) the following paragraph shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—

"(d) for an order under any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 (which provides for the recovery of expenditure on income support from such persons);" and

(b) the words "or of any order falling within subsection (1)(d) of this section" shall be added at the end of subsection (2).

28H. In section 16(2) of that Act (enforcement of maintenance orders)—

(a) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after
paragraph (a)(vii)—

"(viii) section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986 or section 4 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 on an application made under section 24(1) of the Act of 1986;";

(b) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after
paragraph (b)(viii)—

"(ix) an order made on an application under section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986;"; and

(c) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph(c)(vii)—

"(viii) any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986;".

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (No. 1)
28J. In subsection (7) of section 55 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, as amended by section 1 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure 1974, (deprivation etc. of priests etc. after certain proceedings) in the definition of "affiliation order" the word "or" shall be omitted and at the end there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986".
Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c.31)
28K. In Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (maintenance orders)—

(a) in paragaph 5, the word "or" shall be omitted from both places where it occurs and after "1975" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) in paragraph 6, the word "or" where first occurring shall be omitted and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986".

Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c.32)
28L. In Schedule 1 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (maintenance orders)—

(a) in paragraph 6, the word "or" shall be omitted from both places where it occurs and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) in paragraph 7, the word "or" where first occurring shall be omitted and after "1976" there shall be inserted the words "or section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986".

Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (c.46)
28M.—(1) In section 24(l)(a) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (amount to be carried to credit of rent rebate account) for the words "under section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986".
(2) In section 25(l)(a) of the Act (amount to be carried to credit of rent allowance account for the words "under section 32 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982" there shall be substituted the words "under section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986".")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like, in addition, to speak to Amendments Nos. 130A, 130B, 130J, 131ZZAand 131ZZB. The amendments are consequential to a variety of legislation. I shall give any explanation that I can if further detail is needed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130A and 130B:
Page 140. line 27, at end insert—
("31 A. In paragraph 3(c) of Part I of Schedule I to that Act for the words "18 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" there shall be substituted the words "23 of the Social Security Act 1986.")
Page 142, line 9, at end insert—
("Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
38A. The following paragraph shall be added after subsection (1)(1) of section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (domestic proceedings)—
"(m) section 23 or 24 of the Social Security Act 1986;".
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27)
38B. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (proceedings excluded from Schedule 4)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after "1976," there shall be inserted the words "section 23 of the Social Security Act 1986, or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to it,"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (d), after "1976," there shall be inserted the words "section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986 or any enactment applying in Northern Ireland and corresponding to it.".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130C:
Page 144, line 36, at end insert—
("Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 (c.5)
"52A. In section 18(2)(c) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 (certain sums to be earnings for social security purposes) for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978".")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this amendment substitutes the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for the original words "that Act" in Section 18(2)(c) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Renton): I have to point out that Amendments Nos. 130CA and 130D are marshalled in the wrong order. They have, however, been discussed.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130CA and 130D:
Page 146, line 41, at end insert—
("63A. The words ", reduced earnings allowance" shall be inserted in section 165A(3)(c), as originally enacted, after the words "disablement benefit".").
Page 146, line 38, leave out ("industrial death benefit") and insert ("reduced earnings allowance").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No.130E:
Page 149, line 33, leave out first ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, this is again a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130F, 130G and 130H:
Page 149, line 39, leave out ("would be so disqualified if he were") and insert ("who would be so disqualified if).
Page 149, line 41, leave out ("him") and insert ("the person").
Page 149, line 43, at end insert ("or to be within the maternity period.
(2A) In subsection (2) above "the maternity period" means the period commencing at the beginning of the sixth week before the expected week of confinement and ending at the end of the seventh week after the week in which confinement takes place".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130J:
Page 151, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 43(6), the words ", whether before or after the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976,".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130K:
Page 151, line 7, at end insert—

("1965 c. 55.

Statute Law Revision (Consequential Repeals) Act 1965.

The whole Act.").

The noble Baroness said: This again is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 130L to 130Z:
Page 152, line 20 at end insert ("and (2C)")
Page 152, line 25, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert—
("Sections 64").
Page 152, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 84, subsection (3) and in subsection (5), the references to sections 65 and 66.").
Page 152, line 30, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 88(a), the words from "or", in the first place where it occurs, to "prescribed", in the third place where it occurs.
In section 90, in subsection (2)(a), the words from "(including" to the end and in subsection (3), the references to sections 79 and 81.
In section 91, subsection (l)(b)(i) and in subsection (2), the words "section 58 (unemployability supplement)," and the words from "section 64" to the end.")
Page 152, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 101(3)(c), the words "or, in relation to industrial death benefit, the deceased".")
Page 152, line 40, column 3, after (" 107") insert (", in subsection (4), the words", whether or not the claimant is the person at whose instance the declaration was made" and in subsection")
Page 152, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 117, subsection (4) and in subsection (5), paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following it.")
Page 153, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
("Schedule 5.")
Page 153, line 47, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 16, paragraphs 3 and 4.")
Page 153, line 48, column 3, after ("20,") insert ("the definitions of "The deceased" and "Industrial death benefit", in the definition of "Relative", the reference to sections 66(8) and 72(6),")
Page 153, line 51, column 3, leave out ("and the definition of) and insert (", the definitions of "Unemployability supplement" and")
Page 153, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
("and in the definition of "Week", the reference to section 64.")
Page 154, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 18.")
Page 154, line 37, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 52D(2) and (3).")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 155, line 21, column 3, leave out ("27") and insert ("26")
The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment to retain in force Section 26 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. I would be happy if my noble friend the Minister would write to me about this because it is quite complicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I gratefully accept the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 131 ZZA and 131 ZZB.
Page 155, line 29, after ("(d)") insert ("3(a),")
Page 155, line 29, leave out ("31") and insert ("23, 24, 31, 33")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131 ZZC:
Page 155, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert—
("Section 9.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: Before calling Amendment No. 131 ZA, I should point out that it is followed by another amendment on the Marshalled List that has not been numbered. I understand, however, that they go together.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 131ZA:
Page 155, line 31, column 3, leave out from (" 18") to end of line 33 and insert (", in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) the words "and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976" and paragraphs (c) and in subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b).").
The noble Baroness said: As well as Amendment No. 131ZA and the unnumbered amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 131ZB and 131ZC. These four amendments repeal references in the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 no longer appropriate due to the ending of the present maternity pay scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooperb Baroness Hooperb moved the unnumbered amendment, and Amendments Nos. 131 ZB and 131 ZC:
Page 155, line 57, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 133(l)(a), ",33" ").
Page 155, line 48, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 122(4)(e).").
Page 156, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 155(1), the words "44 to".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 131ZDand 131ZE:
Page 157, line 53, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 2, paragraph 6.").
Page 157, line 55, column 3, at end insert ("5,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Commencement]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 86, line 8 after ("68") insert ("(4) and (5)").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to Clause 68. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131B:
Page 86, line 10, at end insert—
("section (Amendments relating to forfeiture of benefits);")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 131C:
Page 86, line 13, after ("paragraphs") insert ("25(1) and (2), 25A,")
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend I should like to say that this amendment is part and parcel of an amendment to Schedule 10 and it ensures that it comes into effect on the day that this Bill is passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Transitional]:
[Amendment 13ID not moved. ]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The question is that this report be now received.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if I may intervene, with respect to the noble Lord in the chair, I believe that we wish to have a separate Report stage, and indeed this must be so as the Bill has been amended in Committee.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes indeed.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall)Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o'clock.

  YOUTH CUSTODY: CONVERSION TO IMPRISONMENT
  YOUTH CUSTODY: CONVERSION TO IMPRISONMENT
  FORESTRY: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE STUDY
  FORESTRY: NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE STUDY
  ARMS CONTROL: SOVIET PROPOSALS
  ARMS CONTROL: SOVIET PROPOSALS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION 1985 AND 1986
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION 1985 AND 1986
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO CO-OPERATION NORTH
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO CO-OPERATION NORTH
  BRITISH GAS. GAS BILL AUTHORISATION
  BRITISH GAS. GAS BILL AUTHORISATION
  BRITISH MUSEUM DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES: TERM OF OFFICE
  BRITISH MUSEUM DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES: TERM OF OFFICE