Sitting of 25 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COUNTY OF CLEVELAND BILL [Lords]
  Considered: to he read the Third Time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Industrial Knowledge (Security)
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department has made in providing for the secure storage of industrial knowledge in the event of war.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The secure storage of industrial knowledge is a matter for the companies possessing it.
    Mr. Thorne: As the Government consider it prudent to spend over £17,000 million a year on defence, would it not be advisable seriously to consider the need to preserve industrial knowledge so that if the worst were to happen we would have something to fall back on, and not have to rely on other countries which are taking these precautions to preserve this knowledge for us?
    Mr. Pattie: It rather depends on what my hon. Friend means by "industrial knowledge". The House is aware that an inter-departmental study led by my Department is currently under way to identify the military and civil needs for industrial products in times of crisis and industry's ability to meet them. It may be that my hon. Friend has that in mind, in which case I can tell him that the study is currently in train.
    Mr. James Lamond: If the worst were to happen, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said, surely that would mean the complete annihilation not only of the industrial buildings but of the people of this country? There would be little need, if any, for industrial knowledge following that.
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is taking a particular view of certain future events. It is perfectly in order for my hon. Friend to ask his question to see whether contingencies are being worked on.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the likely reduction in the capacity of the steel industry in the United Kingdom
    252
    during 1987 and 1988; and what measures he plans to adopt to meet European Economic Community proposals during or after 1989.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I have made no such estimates. There are no European Community proposals concerning steel capacity for 1989 or beyond.
    Mr. Hardy: Has not Britain borne, since 1979, a most unfair share of the cuts in Community steel capacity while we have watched other member states pursuing policies and making arrangements which are clearly unfair? Does he accept that there is an obligation that Britain shall maintain its present capacity in steel and special steels industries, and will he offer the House a firm commitment that the Government accept that obligation?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Any reductions that ever took place would have to be within the context of statements that have been made within the framework of a strategy agreed with the Government and announced in August 1985.
    Mr. Holt: Is not the way to increase and maintain our share of steel capacity the way that it is being done in Redcar and Skinningrove, in my constituency, where there is record output? Would that not be much helped by proceeding with the Channel tunnel, which will bring work to the steel industry for many years ahead?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points.
    Mr. Crowther: Is the Secretary of State aware that in recent weeks a study by Anthony Bird Associates came to the conclusion that demand for steel in Europe is likely to increase up to 1990 at least? Another study by the American analyst Payne Webber reached the conclusion that the BSC is now producing the cheapest steel in Europe. In view of that, would not further capacity cuts in Britain be nonsense? Is A not in our interest for the quota system to be ended so that British industry can use its competitive strength?
    Mr. Channon: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I agree that the British Steel Corporation is highly competitive. As I said, any future reductions must be within the framework of that strategy.
    Mr. Hickmet: Is not the BSC the most profitable steel business in Europe? In that context, if there have to be capacity cuts, to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), are we not the best placed in Europe to compete against the European steel producers? Accordingly, we should not go along the lines of the Eurofer proposals. Let us do away with quotas and price restraints. We are more competitive than the European steel producers and we can beat the pants off them. Why should we cut capacity when the Italian, French and German industries are almost bankrupt and are inefficient?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes many important points. The Eurofer proposals have not yet been presented in their final form. There is an advantage to the United Kingdom having as stable a market as possible, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the great success of the BSC over the past years. I am grateful for his robust support.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that it is no reassurance for him to say that anything done will be done within the context of the strategy already agreed, because within that we have Ravenscraig, which has a guarantee that runs out next year? Therefore, if there were to be cuts on the scale that is envisaged, Ravenscraig would be vulnerable. Will he give us an assurance here and now, so that it can be understood in Brussels, that if figures of the magnitude being talked about in the press and in Brussels come forward, they will have to be without any co-operation from this country and we shall not accept any share of them?
    Mr. Channon: I have already tried to explain that Eurofer has not yet put forward proposals. It has been invited to submit more detailed proposals by the beginning of March, in co-operation with the independent producers, as appropriate. Any contribution that the BSC has to make would have to be consistent with the present strategy, and it cannot prejudice any subsequent strategy agreed between it and the Government.

    Caterpillar Co., Uddingston
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on what action the Government propose to take as a result of the announcement of the proposed closure of the Caterpillar factory at Uddingston.
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was informed about the proposed closure of the Caterpillar factory in Scotland.
    Mr. Wareingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when any representative of his Department last met any representative of the Caterpillar Co. Ltd. to discuss the future of the company.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): My Department was informed on 13 January. I attended the meeting between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the president of Caterpillar on 20 January. DTI officials, together with Scottish Office officials, last met senior representatives of the company on 2 February. While I greatly regret the decision, and the manner in which it was taken, it is ultimately a commercial issue for the company to resolve. I have no plans at present for further discussions with Caterpillar, but in the time available before the planned closure takes place the possibilities for maintaining manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston will be urgently explored. To this end, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has put in hand a study of the facility and its marketability.
    Mr. Fatchett: While it is possible to understand the desire of Trade and Industry Ministers to hide behind the embarrassment of the Secretary of State for Scotland, is it not about time that the Minister did something in these circumstances and took some action? Is this another case of the Department washing its hands of British manufacturing industry, and a further sign of the Government's planned retreat from manufacture?
    Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. I robustly deny those accusations. I make it clear that we stand solidly behind the actions of
    254
    my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in seeking to persuade the company to review and reverse its decision. It is not just my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who has written to the Caterpillar company on this issue, seeking a review of the decision. As the hon. Gentleman fully understands, at the end of the day the company has to arrive at a decision in relation to its assets.
    Mr. Thorne: What public funds were put into this company and how were they used?
    Mr. Shaw: There is another question on the Order Paper which relates to that. The hon. Member will be aware that when public funds are invested in a company and when closure takes place, rules apply for the recovery of such funds as are then extant.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that it is less than four months since the executive vice-president of Caterpillar promised that there would be a £1 billion funding of schemes at all of the company's 30 sites throughout the world, and that that included a £62 million investment at Uddington? Is it not an absolute shambles when the Government are prepared to be a doormat for the Americans and to resign their public responsibility? Are we now to see all such machinery imported into this country? Do the Government not have a responsibility, if only for the balance of payments implications?
    Mr. Shaw: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I must remind him that there is massive investment in Britain by American companies to provide jobs in most important parts of our manufacturing industry. In this case the company took a decision to make the investment in good faith last Sepetember and then apparently reviewed again its worldwide capacity. That is what gave rise to a change in the decision that the company announced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rightly took the view that the company's review of capacity was hardly compatible with the decision about the investment. I wholly share that view.
    Sir Hector Monro: In this serious situation created by Caterpillar, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, proportionately, some areas where there are factories supplying major components to Caterpillar are equally severely hit? Will he extend the area of the inquiry by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to those areas as well?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, and I shall certainly pass it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. James Hamilton: As the Minister has correctly said, he met the president of Caterpillar in London about the proposed closure. Since that meeting has he made any overtures to the Americans, because there is no possible chance of anything happening if he does business with the local management? Their jobs are also on the line. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that at this stage the Government should try every possible way to get a meeting with the Americans to try to persuade them to keep the factory open in the interests of the 1,221 workers who are employed there?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in response to the pressure applied by the Secretary of State for Scotland there was a meeting with the president and a team from Peoria who came over here for these discussions. He will be further aware that as a result of that meeting the company was asked to review and reverse its decision. That request was backed up by a letter from the Prime Minister. The company reviewed the matter but, unfortunately, it decided to confirm the decision. As far as I am aware, no further meetings are planned at the sort of level to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Caterpillar has behaved dishonourably and deplorably, first in accepting a generous offer of financial support for its major investment programme and, secondly, in abruptly cancelling the programme and announcing the closure of the plant? Bearing in mind that no Government can oblige a multinational company to remain in the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that Ministers from the Prime Minister down have done all that they possibly can to persuade Caterpillar to change its mind, and that the Government have acted with commendable speed in putting in contingency plans to maintain manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston?
    Mr. Shaw: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend makes an eloquent case, and by raising the matter recently on the Adjournment he demonstrated his commitment to this issue. I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Scottish Office and others have played a significant part in trying to reverse the Caterpillar decision. As my hon. Friend says, this is ultimately a matter for the company. Having met, in company with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, representatives of the Caterpillar work force who came to the Ravenscraig plant on Monday, I can quite understand the real anger that they have been evincing.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not fully understand the utter outrage and lack of comprehension in Scotland about the fact that this factory, which was supposed to have been boosted by a £62 million investment programme and which is already very modern, is now to be closed? Does he not realise that this may well be a consequence of the cut in regional development grant affecting Scotland? Furthermore, as there is now a Scotland-England divide in terms of unemployment, will the Government do something to prevent yet another plug being pulled on the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intemperance on these issues, but he will know that much of the last part of his question is a matter not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. With regard to his first comments, there has been a full discussion of the issues involved in this case and there is no question but that this issue has raised a very real question mark over the extent to which such investments can be guaranteed by those who are making the decision. However, it is a fact that manufacturing industry in this country is subject to major competitive pressures, and certainly the manufacture of heavy equipment such as this is not exempt from those pressures. The review of worldwide capacity has nothing to do with regional grant policy in Scotland.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister believe for one moment that an assessment of worldwide capacity changed so dramatically in a matter of weeks? Does he not appreciate that the Caterpillar company has deceived the Government, the unions, the work force and the local management in a wholly calculating and ruthless manner? Surely it is not tolerable for a multinational company to abandon the interests of a work force and community which has given 30 years' service to that company. Does the Minister not understand that only a week or so ago the Secretary of State for Scotland was assuring Scottish Members that the decision was not accepted by the Government, and that only yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that? The hon. Gentleman appears to be taking a different line today. What is the Government's policy, and what action do the Government propose to take in the face of a company which has deliberately and calculatingly deceived them and this country?
    Mr. Shaw: I note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I take it that he is making an extremely strong attack upon the way in which the investment was made and the consequences in the light of the decision that the company has taken. I feel that I should warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman about whether those remarks will have a beneficial effect on American investment in Scotland. There are very real issues at stake. The fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does not believe that the end of the road is nigh. He has not been persuaded of the company's statement that ultimately it has to close. Not many people can be persuaded of that. However, the realism has to be faced. The company has taken that decision, it has been asked to review it, has reviewed it and has confirmed it. In the statement issued by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland he makes it clear that while my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State remains unpersuaded regarding the company's decision to close at Uddingston, it is most important now to use the time available before the planned closure takes place to explore all possibilities for maintaining manufacturing operations and employment at the Uddingston facility. That is the policy being pursued, and it is the correct policy.

    Civil Protection
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to promote the formation of a consultative body consisting of representatives of the trade unions, industry and his Department to co-ordinate the role of industry in civil protection.
    Mr. Pattie: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bowden: I must confess to being somewhat disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he not recognise the importance of the fact that all parties to industry should be prepared for emergencies and should plan for disasters. Against the background of the new responsibility of so many local authorities, is it not right that my hon. Friend's Department should give some lead in those consultations?
    Mr. Pattie: What my hon. Friend asks is not to deny that the civil contingencies unit exists and that the Government engage in planning for the sort of eventuality

    257
    that he describes. In response to the second part of his question, I should say that information that enables worthwhile civil contingencies plans to be drawn up is not made any easier by the fact that certain local authorities seem to decide that they will not co-operate in the provision of the necessary information.

    Rover Group
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the trade unions concerning the recently announced redundancies at Rover.
    Mr. Channon: I met a delegation including trade union representatives from Leyland Trucks yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister not realise that contrary to the announcement made three weeks ago by Mr. Graham Day and the Government that 1,265 staff jobs were to be lost through voluntary redundancy only 300 people have volunteered so far? Does he not realise the anxiety and distress that will be caused to families in Oxford and Birmingham if compulsory redundancies have to be forced through?
    Mr. Chanon: Of course I understand that, and the hon. Lady is right to say that those are the facts. However, we are less than four weeks into the 90-day period allowed for responding and the company tells me that it will continue to work hard to achieve the total by voluntary means. I hope that that will be possible. The hon. Lady will be encouraged by the fact that the week before last 500 extra people were taken on at Cowley, so there is good news as well as bad.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am particularly grateful, as are the members of the delegation who came to see him yesterday, for the way in which he received them and heard their representations? Does he recognise that it is a continuing cry of many trade union leaders that the consultation they receive from the top of Leyland vehicles is perhaps not as good as it should be? Therefore, I am grateful to him, on their behalf as well as mine, for the fact that we have been able to arrange a meeting with Graham Day tomorrow, so that the trade unions may put their case to him. Which will be beneficial for future consultations on the future of the company.
    Mr. Channon: Consultation is a matter for the company and the unions to resolve under the normal consultation procedures, but I am pleased that a delegation is to be received tomorrow and I am certain that that point will be debated.
    Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of 400 redundancies to be called for among white-collar workers at Cowley, followed by the announcement of 500 new production jobs there, is evidence of a company which is at last coming to terms with its management costs and production effectiveness? Does he agree that that is an encouraging sign for future prospects?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has a point. It has been extremely encouraging to see since Christmas an important improvement in the Rover Group's market share. That is encouraging and bodes well for the future of the company.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: When the Secretary of State next meets the trade unions, will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to sustain the Rover Group as a volume producer on into the future? With that in mind, will he give a clear commitment to support the company's plans to introduce the AR6 Metro replacement, which will be a vital component in retaining the Rover Group as a volume producer?
    Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present last week when I announced the acceptance of the Rover Group's corporate plan in its totality, so I can assure him that I am backing that company. I also answered questions on that detailed point last week. We are doing exactly what the Rover company has asked us.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the delight and satisfaction of the trade unions within the west midlands area at his statement last week, which gives them the confidence on which to build a successful business in liaison with DAF trucks and as part of the Rover Group?
    Mr. Channon: The Government have done everything in their power to help the Rover Group and now it is up to it to win its share in the market place. I see no reason why it should not do so.
    Mr. Terry Davis: If the Government and Mr. Graham Day want to improve the quality of Austin Rover vehicles, does it make sense to sack engineering and technical staff?
    Mr. Channon: That must be a matter for the company. It must decide on the best commercial prospects for it and the best way to realise them. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to run the company; it is for the management to run it. If he has a detailed point that he wants to raise, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would also be constructive and sympathetic to the original question to point out that in the midlands there are additionally in the private sector 700 jobs available at Jaguar, which is released from the Leyland Group?
    Mr. Channon: That is a very good point. I notice that we do not hear so much about Jaguar from the Opposition Benches. I never quite understand why.

    Securities and Investments Board
    Mr. Cashasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations concerning the Securities and Investments Board's application to be the designated regulatory body for the financial services sector referred to in his answer on 10 February, Official Report, column 165, to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
    Mr. Hanleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 10 February, Official Report, column 165, if he is now in a position to make a statement on progress on his consideration of the Securities and Investments Board's application to be considered as the designated agency for the regulation of the financial services sector.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): My right hon. Friend received the SIB's request for transfer of powers on 10

    259
    February. As required by the Financial Services Act, my right hon. Friend has sent to the Director General of Fair Trading a copy of the material submitted by the SIB. My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters concerning the SIB's proposals, which will be fully considered. If, after considering the Director General's report and any other points put to him, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met, he will lay the necessary order as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that important questions on competition arise in relation to these rules? Will he confirm that it is the intention that the smaller bodies, those which do not necessarily come within the more recognised activities but which nevertheless are important, should be maintained and need to have a fair opportunity to get into the financial services sector? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should do nothing that would in any way discriminate against those bodies and that we should make sure that they have a fair deal together with everybody else?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. These are matters which, no doubt, the Director General of Fair Trading will look at in the context of competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider his report carefully, paying particular attention to the considerations to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How does the Minister distinguish between the powers of the Securities and Investments Board, the powers of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors and the powers of the fraud squad? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not let the fraud squad go into Guinness to sort it out? Is it that the Government are deliberately trying to duck a full investigation into what is going on in that company?
    Mr. Howard: It is difficult to see how this matter arises out of the Securities and Investments Board's proposals. The position on Guinness is that, as soon as it is appropriate for the fraud squad to be involved in criminal aspects of the investigation, it will be.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the article in The Guardian on 9 February to the effect that the SEC's embarrassment over the Boesky affair shows that no matter what form of legal framework one has, and no matter what sort of sophisticated computers one uses, what is needed is not that sort of framework but political will? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Financial Services Act contains that political will? Will he assure the House that the Act will be implemented as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I can certainly give him that assurance. The article in The Guardian to which he referred was particularly interesting. After an analysis of the differences between our system and the SEC, it concluded:
    "None of this seems terribly encouraging for advocates in Britain of an SEC."
    Mr. Nelson: I welcome the proposal to transfer these powers to the SIB. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the additional powers which were enabled to be transferred to the SIB will, in fact, be transferred and that the SIB will be a watchdog that is able to bite as well as to bark? In particular, following the whingeing of some
    260
    of the major banks about how they will be prejudicially affected by the polarisation issues, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that the smaller entrants, especially the independent intermediaries, will not be prejudicially affected by any such order?
    Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, carefully consider all the applications which have been made by the SIB for the transfer of particular powers in the Act. Of course, my right hon. Friend will have full regard to the interests of the intermediaries, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the light of such considerations as may be drawn to his attention by the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister never read the business pages? Against the background of the City scandals which have dominated those pages, does the hon. and learned Gentleman really intend to ask the House to approve the desgination of a board which will not comprise public servants, the only formal status of which is as a private company limited by guarantee, whose only income will be from the City that it is supposed to police, and which will have no powers over the takeover panel or Lloyd's insurance, where the worst scandals have occurred? Why do the Government now insist that trade unions need an independent statutory commission, but say that regulation of the City can be left to self-regulation by their friends there? Why do the Government not accept that the City needs a system of supervision at least as tough as the system that they are imposing on the trade union movement?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that to characterise the system under the Financial Services Act 1986 as self-regulation is a gross misnomer. He knows that a firm and tough statutory framework is provided by the Act. When I invited the hon. Gentleman in the last debate that we had on this matter in the House to identify a single power that resided in the SEC that was not in the possession of the SIB, the only power that he rose to mention was a power that the SEC does not possess.

    Research and Development (Departmental Expenditure)
    Mr. Brandon-Bravoasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning spending by his Department on support for research and development in the current year.
    Mr. Channon: My Department has received a number of representatives, including from the technology requirements board which was set up to advise me on the development and implementation of policy for industrial research and development.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I know my right hon. Friend will agree that no one underestimates, or should underestimate, the role of research and development. Can he give us any figures today on how current R and D compares with the position five or 10 years ago? Can he also comment on the co-ordination that exists in R and D between his Department of State and others? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there can be no more vital a subject for the welfare of the nation.
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is frequent co-ordination and the very closest collaboration between my Department and other Departments involved in research and development. That collaboration has never been greater than it is at present. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, my Department's support for R and D has trebled in cash terms and doubled in real terms since 1979. It will further increase from £383 million in the current year to £445 million in 1989–90.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the Secretary of State explain why his Department refused to finance research and development into the oil and gas engine industry, especially when that development would lead to the creation of a new manufacturing base in the north of England for the next 50 years? Is he aware that the information that he has been given by his departmental officers is wrong and that, as a consequence of his Department refusing to finance that R and D, the Japanese are willing to finance it provided that the manufacturing base is created in Japan and not in this country? Why does the Minister refuse to meet me on this matter? Why does he refuse to meet my constituents who have an interest in this issue?
    Mr. Channon: I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that we have not offered to meet him. We suggested that when the matters have been clarified—and I have written to the hon. Gentleman and the company about these matters—we shall be delighted to have a meeting at which either one of my hon. Friends or I will discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the project to which he has referred must offer exceptional national benefits, and the evidence from boiler and burner manufacturers is now being provided. When that arrives, we shall be delighted to look at the matter again.
    Viscount Cranborne: Would not British industry be more likely to produce more saleable goods if the Government encouraged it to do a little more of its own research and development instead of relying purely on Government sources?
    Mr. Channon: We need both, and my hon. Friend made a good point when he said that expenditure by industry on research and development is, with many shining exceptions, nevertheless still inadequate. I believe that more should be done.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State take note of the representations that he has received from the west Yorkshire area about the need for more research and development following the rundown of the textile and clothing industry and the mining industry? Will he also take note of the representations that he has received, especially from the Wakefield and Dewsbury travel-to-work area, which covers my constituency, where unemployment is now in the region of 16 per cent.? Will he accept that there is a need for further research and development, and will he act to ensure that there is an industrial base in the area to ensure job opportunities?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has referred to, and any others that he may care to raise with me. It is common ground on both sides of the House that there should be more expenditure by industry on research and development.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the decline of traditional industries in the Yorkshire and Humberside region there has been a fall of about 35 per cent. in employment in six years, whereas the business expansion scheme seems to have gone to service industries in London and the south-east to the tune of more than 60 per cent.? Will he give an undertaking that his Department will look at the impact of the various schemes on the north and its industries at and particularly the eligibility of Yorkshire and Humberside for the new EEC Comett scheme— the Community action programme for education and training in technology?
    Mr. Channon: Of course I shall look at that, as my hon. Friend asks me to do so. I have seen the figures for the amount of money going to the south as opposed to the north. One must also consider what applications have been received. This is a complex matter which we are studying in detail.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only do we have a smaller GDP than Japan, Germany and the United States of America, but that we spend a smaller proportion of it on research and development, with the inevitable and inexorable result that we are slipping further behind in our competitiveness in high technology? Does he also accept that an even more insidious and dangerous consequence is the accelerating brain drain, which is demonstrated by the fact that 20 per cent. of elected fellows of the Royal Society who were educated in Britain are permanently resident abroad?
    Mr. Channon: I am extremely surprised that any member of the Labour party dares to talk about the brain drain. The Labour Government's policies of high taxation, which the party promises to introduce, caused the brain drain of the past. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had his way, the brain drain would become a brain flood. That must be common ground.
    As for the proportion of national output spent on research and development, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave some specific examples of this in questions last Thursday. It is more complex than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Takeover Bids (Costs)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to empower the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to order a company whose takeover bid has been judged to be against the public interest to reimburse any reasonable costs incurred by the company or companies which were the subject of that takeover bid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, which will be considered in the work of the Department's present review of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there has been a substantial increase in the number of takeover bids, both hostile and against the public interest? Does he agree that something must be done to help companies which are fighting hostile bids and which are

    263
    cramped in their style in terms of taking on staff or of promoting their products because they must fight back through the national media? I cite especially Allied-Lyons.
    Mr. Howard: There has been an increase in contested bids, although they are not necessarily against the public interest. My hon. Friend's point will be taken into account in the context of the review, but it is important not to overlook the advantages that can follow takeovers.
    Dr. Godman: Would it not be a good idea to recover some of the costs from the predator? For example, now that the Secretary of State has rejected Ferruzzi's bid for the British Sugar Corporation, why should not that Italian company pay some of the costs of its predatory activities in Britain?
    Mr. Howard: This point will be considered in the context of the review. When we talk about proposed takeovers of British companies by foreign companies, we should remember that companies from Britain are frequently engaged in similar activities overseas.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that I have written to him in connection with the future of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the hostile bid for that company from Highams and Mr. John Whittaker, who in my view are involved in unacceptable commerical practices, not least share splitting, in seeking to overrule the long-established articles of association of the company, which were set down to aid and promote the long-term interests of the small shareholder? Will he treat this matter with great urgency, bearing in mind the fact that Highams has sought an extraordinary general meeting on Friday to oust the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and to impose its own? It has little or no interest in the long-term future of the company as a whole, only in its land and assets.
    Mr. Howard: I certainly confirm that my hon. Friend has written to me on this matter. Indeed, I hope that by now he has received my reply. I am happy to assure him that the matter is the subject of urgent consideration in my Department.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister not yet fully understand that the spate of takeovers that have been permitted in recent months and years has led to chronic "short-termitis" in British industry, which means that companies will not make long-term commitments to capital development, research and development or education and training? Despite all this evidence, why do the Government stick to only one criterion— that of competition? Why do we have to keep reviewing policy? Should it not simply be changed to take account of the industrial realities of Britain today?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept that the consequences of takeovers are as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It is important not to overlook the beneficial consequences that can flow from takeovers, which can frequently lead to sleepy management being given a shake-up and the assets of the target company being used more productively than would otherwise be the case. Nor is it correct to say that competition is the only criterion on which references are made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, these matters are under review and all aspects are being considered in the context of that review.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a hostile takeover that concludes in an unsatisfactory manner, which may be unlawful and against the rules of the takeover panel, must eventually, if it damages the locality, be against the public interest? Is that not an area that is new to us and one that we must examine carefully?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that these matters must be carefully examined, but I am not certain that I can accept his proposition that such a situation will always necessarily be against the public interest.

    Counter Trade Agreements
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy towards counter trade agreements with developing nations.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The Government's policy is to support the further development of an open cash-based multilateral trading system. However, counter trade is a requirement in certain markets and I hope that British exporters will consider carefully the commercial opportunities that exist.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that some Third world countries are obliged to resort to counter trade because they are starved of hard currency? What steps will the Government take against the failure of the Baker proposals, the burgeoning problems of international debt and the lack of financial liquidity in the Third world to promote the open, multilateral cash-based system that he seeks to achieve?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those offers are most prevalent in Third world, developing countries that are suffering from currency difficulties. My Department offers advice, information and general guidance. We publish an annual guide to counter trade and we also have a list of specialist counter traders to whom the inquirer can refer for further information.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister confirm that the developing countries are among the few nations with which we have a healthy trade surplus? Will he also confirm that this month's figures show that our deficit with the European Community trebled last year and that our deficit with Japan increased by one fifth? Does his Department have any policy to counter our ballooning trade gap, other than praying that the Prime Minister calls a general election as soon as possible?
    Mr. Clark: An election fever-type general question does not sit happily with a detailed, thoughtful, constructive question about counter trade. Were it possible for us to correct some of the imbalances in our internal trade with the European Community by recourse to counter trade, no one would be happier than me.
    Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to a policy of free trade? What journeys does my hon. Friend have it in mind to make in these coming months to promote the Government's excellent trade record and enhance his own high reputation?
    Mr. Clark: Certainly, on whatever journeys I make, I am always keen to explore all trading opportunities,

    265
    especially those in the area of counter trade. That is a growing sector and one in which, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the United Kingdom has a favourable balance.

    Caterpillar Company Ltd., Uddingston
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been received by the Caterpillar Company Ltd. in Government support since it was established.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: It is not customary to provide details of the Department's grants to individual companies beyond the limited information published in "British Business on Regional Development Grants" and certain support schemes under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and its predecessor. This shows that, since 1975, individual direct payments to the Caterpillar Company of sums of over £25,000 of regional development grant have totalled £4·7 million. Offers of selective financial assistance to Caterpillar UK under sections 7 and 8 of the Act, in respect of which some payment has been made, amount to £3 million for investment at Glasgow and Leicester.
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the figures and the humiliating defeat for the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter, what action does the Minister intend to take to try to get some of that money back from Caterpillar? How will he spend that money to ensure that the tragic loss of jobs in Scotland is at least alleviated in some way?
    Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's fair supplementary question. If the company proceeds with its closure, the recovery of earlier grant in respect of the Glasgow plant is a matter for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible. There are rules regarding repayments, as I said in response to an earlier question. They will indeed be followed.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The House will be reassured by what my hon. Friend has said. In the light of the serious economic consequences for the area if the regrettable closure decision is confirmed, will his Department, with the Scottish Office, sympathetically and urgently review any applications for selective financial assistance for the area that have been turned down in the past few months?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is looking urgently at the marketability of the Caterpillar site for the continuation of manufacturing and employment. Obviously, if opportunities attract regional grant I have no doubt that they will be most urgently considered.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why were the Government so completely out of touch with the corporate thinking of a company which is so heavily assisted by the Government? Will the Minister comment on the disturbing statements that were made yesterday by the chairman of the company about the future of the Leicestershire plant?
    Mr. Shaw: I do not understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Had he been present earlier when the matter was fully discussed, he may have gained the information that he seeks. If I have misunderstood him, I know that he will write a pertinent letter to me on the issue.
    I can confirm that information has been sought and received from the chairman of Caterpillar, which confirms
    266
    that the commitment to the Leicestershire plant is total. The remarks reported in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times about the supposed devaluation of the dollar were made off-the-cuff in reply to a hypothetical question in Las Vegas. It does not appear to me that currency speculation in Las Vegas is always a true record of what takes place.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the comparable figure for the same month seven years ago.
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Member will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. However, since the trough of the recession in 1981 manufacturing output has increased by 14 per cent. to reach a level of 106·0 in December 1986, based on 1980 equal to 100. This was some 5 per cent. lower than the level of output in December 1979. Productivity, however, is now 31 per cent. higher than the 1979 figure.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the present figure and that for seven years ago show that manufacturing industry has made satisfactory progress in the past seven years?
    Mr. Pattie: The recent trends show that it is doing so. For the past eight months up to and including December 1986 we have seen consecutive growth in each month in manufacturing output. Indeed, if the forecast in the autumn statement of 4 per cent. growth, which has been confirmed as a forecast by many outside observers, is achieved in 1987 it will be the best year for manufacturing output and growth since 1973.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that he should compare the figure with that of 1979? Is not productivity still below that year's figure? Indeed, if we had an economic recovery, we could not meet the output needed in the steel industry and other basic industries. Is it not once more a case of measuring from a small base, the decline of which must be attributed to the Government?
    Mr. Pattie: I said in my first answer, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard, that the figures I gave were 5 per cent. lower than the level of output in December 1979. It is somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that what happened in the 18-month period from May 1979 was anything other than the consequence of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the companies which have come through the trauma of the recession are now more competitive and have better prospects than before? In particular, the companies which have kept themselves to the forefront of technology have prospered. In Lincoln, in the past seven years Marconi has doubled its employment and has more than doubled the value of its output.
    Mr. Pattie: There are many examples, like those that my hon. Friend adduced. We can all express satisfaction about GEC's record in Lincoln.

    Airbus Project
    Mr. Allen Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about Government support for the Airbus project.
    Mr. Channon: My Department has received representations about the provision of Government support for the Airbus A330/A340 project from a number of hon. Members, from trades union representatives and from others with an interest in these projects, including Airbus Industrie and British Aerospace.
    Mr. Adams: Following the successful launch last week of the A320, will the Secretary of State assure the House of the Government's continuing financial support for the A330 and the A340? Will he also assure the House that the Government will continue to resist American pressure—pressure that seems to be absolutely determined to destroy, once and for all, the British aircraft industry?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, on the latter point I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology met American trade officials on 2 February and made that absolutely clear. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think the House knows that the Government are considering an application at this time, and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's views in mind.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the many reasons why the A330 and the A340 should be supported is the fact that they will end the Boeing monopoly on the long-haul airliner market, a monopoly that Boeing abused, to the detriment of the aerospace industry in Britain and in Europe?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear that point of view in mind, too.
    Mr. Pike: In dealing with the application this time, will the Secretary of State not be quite so slow as the Government were about the Airbus 320, which is already proving to be such a major success? The A330 and the A340 are vital to the aerospace industries in this country. The whole country is waiting for a favourable decision—for the Government to say yes and to allow British Aerospace and all the other companies to go ahead.
    Mr. Channon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall reach a decision within a reasonable time scale. This is a very big decision. It involves a great deal of money. The taxpayers' interests are involved. It is very important that it should be considered very carefully, but there will be no undue delay.
    Mr. Warren: Having visited Airbus in Toulouse yesterday, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a decision by Her Majesty's Government is long overdue and that the whole project is very vulnerable, unless the British Government go ahead? If they do not, the Germans and the French will not pursue either of those projects. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bring into his consideration the fact that the British equipment industry is not at the moment included in the proposals and that it looks forward to some initiative from Her Majesty's Government to support it?
    Mr. Channon: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the decision is not overdue. We are acting at the moment in parallel with the decision-making
    268
    timetables of the French and German Governments and with the collaboration of Airbus Industrie and its partners towards fulfilling the desired conditions for the launch. The A340 specification was changed as recently as December, so I do not think that there has been any undue delay.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Given that the uncertainty is causing some damage to the prospects, and given also that the Government are bound to support Airbus and British Aerospace, why will the Secretary of State not stop dithering and announce a decision?
    Mr. Channon: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is causing no damaging uncertainty at all. There is no uncertainty; there is no damage. I am extremely surprised that the House should not wish me to consider carefully an application for the spending of several hundred million pounds of taxpayers' money. It seems to me to be only right that the matter should be very carefully considered. That is what we shall do. We shall announce the Government's decision within a reasonable time.

    Statutory Auditors (Education and Training)
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his response to the representations which he has received on his Department's consultative document on the European Community's eighth directive.
    Mr. Howard: I shall make an announcement as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will appreciate, though, that it may take some time to complete our analysis of the many responses to the consultative document and carry out such further consultations with the accountancy profession and other representative bodies as may he desirable before decisions on future policy can be taken.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. However, will he confirm that the overwhelming consensus of the representations that he has received through his Department's consultation paper have confirmed that there should not be a rotation of auditors and, moreover, that there should not he any ban on accounting firms being able to offer a range of professional services to their clients?
    Mr. Howard: As the analysis is not yet complete, I am not sure that I can accede to my hon. Friend's question in quite the terms that he puts it. However, I can tell him that the suggestions to which he has referred have proved to be somewhat less than universally popular.

    North of England (Economic and Industrial Expansion)
    Mr. Lawlerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken by the Government to foster economic growth and industrial expansion in the north of England.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Recognising its problems, we redesignated many parts of the north of England as assisted areas following the 1984 review of regional industrial policy. Taking the north as the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside regions, 70 per cent. of its working population are within assisted areas.

    269
    Since 1979 firms in the north have benefited from nearly £2 billion of regional assistance, creating or safeguarding around 219,000 jobs.
    Mr. Lawler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that he is only too well aware of the problems in the northern cities. Does he agree that constant talk of the north as a depressed region only perpetuates its negative image? Instead, will he support Bradford's approach, which, through its "Bradford's Bouncing Back" campaign, highlights the positive aspects of economic life in that city?
    Mr. Shaw: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is ridiculous that we should, as it were, attempt to paint the north as an area where there are clogs and cloth caps and nothing else. "Bradford's Bouncing Back" is assuredly an exceptionally fine slogan. If Bradford bounces back, Pudsey will prosper too.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the catastrophic fall in the real value of manufacturing investment in the north of 41
    270
    per cent. since 1979, what is the sense of the 50 per cent. cut over the coming year in the value of regional development grants, especially as they have been halved since 1979? If the Minister will not support the Labour party's proposals for a northern development agency, will he at least listen to the proposals from the unholy alliance of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who now support, outside the Cabinet, proposals for development agencies which they did not support when they were in the Cabinet'?
    Mr. Shaw: I cannot disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is a fact that we are engaged in developing a number of agencies which can promote beneficial investment in the regions. As the Northern Development Company is one of those, he will be aware that it is a substantial recipient of Government funds. The budget proposition made by the company is currently under discussion and I hope to make an announcement very soon.

Cancer Screening and AIDS Research
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on health developments in cancer screening and AIDS research.
The Government attach particular importance to reducing death from breast cancer and cervical cancer. In both cases early detection can lead to successful treatment. Breast cancer is the commonest form of cancer among women in this country. Each year there are something like 24,000 new cases, and 15,000 deaths, from the disease. In July 1985, the Government appointed a working group under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Forrest to consider the position. I am today publishing its final report and I would like to express the Government's thanks to the group for its work.
The report has concluded that screening by mammography—X-ray of the breasts—will enable us to reduce deaths from breast cancer. The Government accept the proposals made in the report and accordingly have decided to implement a national breast cancer screening service. This will provide for screening every three years for all women between 50 and 64 throughout the United Kingdom. My colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be putting into effect proposals broadly similar to those I am announcing. We are determined that breast cancer screening should be implemented as efficiently, as effectively and as quickly as possible. This will need careful planning to ensure that all the necessary back-up facilities, as well as the screening centres, are available. It will mean assessment and diagnostic facilities, treatment facilities, counselling and after-care and training for key groups of staff. We have, therefore, decided to provide additional funds for each regional health authority to have at least one centre in operation within the next 12 months. The funds will also enable four of these centres to provide a training facility for the whole country. We shall expect the locations of the first centres to be announced by May of this year. An extra £6 million will be provided in 1987–88 for the first centres.
In addition, I shall shortly be sending to the professions and to health authorities a draft circular containing my detailed proposals for implementing breast cancer screening in England. I shall be calling for plans before the end of this year from each region to extend the service over the next three years to cover all women in the age groups concerned. The report envisages that up to 100 centres are likely to be needed in England. I shall also be setting up an advisory committee to advise on the development of screening and to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency. Breast cancer is a major scourge. We believe that these measures will achieve a substantial reduction in the mortality from this disease among women of this age group.
Cervical cancer kills 2,000 women each year and we are no less committed to reducing that figure. The great majority of those 2,000 deaths are among women who have never had a cervical smear under the existing screening programme. We have already taken urgent steps to increase the effectiveness of that programme and, in particular, to increase the proportion of the population at risk who are being screened. Computerised call and recall systems should be operating in 109 health authorities in
272
England by next month and in the remaining 82 over the next 12 months. They will enable women to be sent personal screening invitations, usually from their own general practitioners.
Our first priority is to persuade more women to come forward for screening. We shall closely monitor the success of the system and we shall keep under review ways of making further improvements. In addition, I shall be asking health authorities to make two specific changes. First, since the number of cases among younger women has been increasing, health authorities should rationalise existing arrangements for screening women under 35 by ensuring that the call and recall system begins at the age of 20. Second, I shall be asking each health authority to make a specific named individual responsible and accountable for the organisation and effectiveness of screening.
Our proposals for both breast and cervical cancer screening take account or the wide range of evidence available from other countries. I am convinced that these proposals will make a substantial contribution to the cause of women's health, which is a key priority for the Government.
On AIDS research, as the House is aware, there is at present no vaccine against the virus or cure for AIDS. It is for that reason that the Government have mounted their major public education campaign. It is also important, in addition, that we in this country should make an effective contribution to the international effort to develop a vaccine and a cure.
In recognition of that need, the Medical Research Council has recommended a new directed research programme aimed both at developing a vaccine that will prevent infection and also at new anti-viral drugs to treat people who are already infected. The research would be directed from the centre by two scientific steering committees, which will consist of some of the country's leading scientists. There will be two specially appointed full-time directors and the programme will be built up by letting specific contracts to the most appropriate laboratory—public or private. That proposal goes beyond the usual approach of research initiated by the investigator.
The Government are extremely grateful to the MRC for taking a lead in formulating those proposals, which are based on wide consultations among outstanding British scientists by Sir James Gowans, the secretary of the MRC, with Sir David Phillips, the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. This country has scientific strengths that should enable it to make a distinctive contribution to those important lines of research. The Government commend the readiness of the scientific community to collaborate in tackling this major problem.
Accordingly, the Government welcome the proposal and accept it in full. We will, therefore, launch in 1987–88, through the Medical Research Council, a new directed research programme on the lines that the council has proposed. For this purpose my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will increase the grant in aid to the MRC by £14½ million over the next three yeas. The grant in aid will go up by £2·5 million in 1987–88, by £5 million in 1988–89 and by £7 million in 1989–90. The programme will be closely monitored by the council, with my Department and the Department of Education and Science. This will enable us to review

273
progress against results. I should make it clear that the directed research programme will not affect or hinder any research initiatives by pharmaceutical companies.
The new programme should not be seen as an isolated venture. It is not. It will be part of an international research effort. We will build on the work already done, especially in the United States, and in turn contribute to the international body of research information that is being built up. In the United States, all the medical scientists whom I met in my recent visit were unanimous in their view that the United Kingdom could indeed make a distinctive contribution to AIDS reseach.
The House will appreciate that it is impossible to predict the progress of that research. In earlier statements I have made it clear that we cannot expect a vaccine or cure to be generally available within five years. But this programme will help us to make progress in three ways. It will enable this country to make a full contribution to AIDS research; it will mean that we are better placed to collaborate with, and benefit from, work that is being done in other countries; and it will increase the chances of developing a vaccine and finding a cure. I hope that the House will welcome the new proposals.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while we certainly welcome the increase in AIDS research moneys now being made available, even with that new input, it is still far, far less than other countries—[Interruption.]—it is still far, far less than other countries are allocating for this purpose, and also far, far less as a proportion of the health budget than public concern demands in this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States is currently spending over $340 million on AIDS research, while his own parliamentary answer to me a week ago said that AIDS research so far in this country totalled precisely £⅓million?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, even after today's increase, expenditure on AIDS research in this country will still constitute less than one 20th of 1 per cent. of the health budget, which is far, far less than the priority allocated to it in other countries? Is he aware that the Medical Research Council has stated that £20 million funding is required to find a vaccine and to develop new drugs, and that the MRC's budget could not cope with that? Will he give an assurance that the extra funding for AIDS announced today will not have any knock-on effect in reducing medical research in other areas?
What positive action are the Government taking to develop and distribute the drug AZT, where some promising trials have halted virus replication? What other specific research will be directed at a therapy to regenerate the damaged immune system? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what action the Government propose to take to overcome the reluctance of drug companies to undertake the necessary research work because of the dangers of litigation if the vaccine has unforeseen effects?
On breast cancer screening, is the Secretary of State aware that the extra funds announced today, again very welcome as they are, will fund only about seven new centres to add to the present two? Is he aware that that is a grossly inadequate response to the Forrest report, when 5,000 women have died of breast cancer while the Government have been sitting on that report since last
274
year? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that when one in 12 women get breast cancer, and when it is the leading cause of death among 35 to 54-year-olds, the £6 million announced today will fund only a very small part of what a potential effective screening programme could achieve? What specific commitment is the right hon. Gentleman making today for the vast bulk of the extra funds that will be needed.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the £6 million announced today will not even fund screening for all women over 50 when the success rate from screening is as high as 40 per cent? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one third of the mammogram machines in this country are obsolete, and the Government currently provide only one 10th of German provision? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £6 million cannot possibly fund the training and employment of the extra radiographers, the doctors to analyse the X-rays, the laboratory staff to test the tissue, and the female counsellors needed?
Is the Secretary of State aware that when, six years ago, the Government instructed district health authorities to set up call and recall systems for cervical cancer but failed fully to fund the development, by last year only one-sixth of those authorities had done so? Is it not clear that underfunding today will have the same tragic consequences?
Mr. Fowler: That was a disappointing and grudging response. The hon. Gentleman will not have the support of any informed commentator outside the House for what he said about AIDS and breast cancer, and some of the charges that he made are simply untrue and misleading. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Forrest report, he will find that what we are doing is exctly in line with what the Forrest committee has proposed. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points, such as they were, in turn.
The hon. Gentleman asked about finance. We are making available £14·5 million over the next three years. That is additional money for the Medical Research Council, which is exactly what it has asked for. In other words, we are responding in full to its request. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that, I suggest that he checks with the Medical Research Council. He is misleading himself and the House.
The United States has a bigger overall research budget, but a comparatively small percentage of that budget is going into vaccine development. In other words, gaps in the programme have been identified, not least by medical scientists in the United States. My announcement today will put Britain in a leading position in Europe. I would have expected the Opposition to have welcomed that rather than criticised it.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines will be taking a decision on AZT shortly—in the next few days—and we will then make our position clear.
The overall research budget of the private pharmaceutical industry is about £500 million. Not all of that figure, but an increasing percentage of it, will be spent on AIDS research.
With regard to breast cancer, I repeat that we are meeting in full what the Forrest committee has put to us. In 1987–88, £6 million will be available. In 1988–89, a further £13 million will be required. In 1989–90, £22 million will be required. Those resources will be made available so that we can have a screening service

275
throughout the country. I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to understand that what we are announcing is a major step forward for millions of women in Britian. The hon. Gentleman's response to both parts of the statement was inadequate and totally worthless.
Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the sum that is to be spent—I think that he said it was £14·5 million over three years— on AIDS research? He mentioned international co-operation. Will he tell us whether, and to what extent, there is international coordination, or will we be spending part of that £14·5 million on carrying out the same research that is being done in other countries?
Mr. Fowler: There is co-ordination between the World Health Organisation, Governments and organisations in different countries. On medical vaccine, we will want to keep closely in touch— as will the Medical Research Council—with the World Health Organisation on what is happening inside the United States. We will take every precaution to prevent duplication of research.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us when and in what form parallel statements about cancer screening in other parts of the United Kingdom will be made?
Mr. Fowler: I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will make announcements, probably in the form of written answers, which will be based on what I have announced on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to the churlish response from the Opposition Front Bench, his announcement was welcomed on this side of the House on all three fronts? Is he further aware that in my constituency there is some concern at the delay in results from cervical smear tests? To what extent will what he has told us help to accelerate the results of those tests for women who spend an anxious time waiting for the outcome? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work done by the organisation Quest for a test for cancer, which has developed an automated form of testing? To what extent, if any, will what he has announced this afternoon assist that organisation, either directly or through the MRC, in evaluating that test?
Mr. Fowler: I would need to give consideration to my hon. Friend's last point. On the first point, I accept the backlogs to which he refers as being one of the problems that we have had to encounter. The backlogs are being tackled by the districts, and they are recruiting more staff. The latest information that we have appears to show that the backlogs are decreasing. Clearly that is important. The priority must be not only to increase the numbers coming for tests but to improve the cervical cancer screening system overall so that we get a better system. It is worth remembering that annual deaths from cervical cancer have reduced by almost 10 per cent. since 1978. That is an improvement, but we want to decrease the number of deaths still further.
Ms. Clare Short: Any advance in cervical and breast cancer screening is welcome and overdue. Is the Secretary of State aware that the other
276
major killer of women is lung cancer? He will be aware that most cigarette advertising is aimed at women. When will he move to ban all cigarette advertising?
Yesterday I had a letter from a haemophiliac man in Birmingham saying that he and three members of his family, who are also haemophiliacs, are AIDS-positive. Is research or action needed better to protect haemophiliacs who are being given AIDS by contaminated factor 8? We have known this for a long time, so why cannot action be taken to prevent it from continuing?
Mr. Fowler: Action has been taken, and the tragic cases, which everybody regrets, are resulting from what has happened in the past. Action has been taken to ensure that factor 8 is heat treated. There is no evidence of new cases through infection over the past few months.
I share the hon. Lady's anxiety about lung cancer, and her concern that we should try to dissuade people from smoking. The way that we and successive Governments have tackled this is the best way. There has been no compulsory ban on advertising but a sensible agreement between the cigarette industry and the Government on what kind of advertising can be permitted and in what form.
Sir David Price: Both aspects of my right hon. Friend's statement are welcome by practically every hon. Member, and certainly by all those in the health and caring professions. What my right hon. Friend has announced about cervical cancer screening is a further step towards turning the National Health Service from being a sickness service into being a genuine health service in which prevention plays a much bigger part than it has in the past. Is not the ability of the MRC to come forward with this ambitious programme on AIDS due to the immense strength of our basic life sciences in our universities, particularly in molecular biology? Will my right hon. Friend talk with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that we maintain that standard in our universities?
Mr. Fowler: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's last point and certainly I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about that. In addition, I pay tribute to Sir James Gowans who has taken a leading role in this field.
My hon. Friend asked about health education. I hope that it is common ground that the Health Service should concentrate more and more on health education. That is precisely what we are trying to do through the kind of preventative measures that I have announced.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of my alliance colleagues, I welcome entirely and unreservedly the Minister's statement. However, I should like to ask one or two questions.
First, can the right hon Gentleman tell the House by how much his Department's budget and the Department of Education and Science budget will be increased to pay for these necessary preventative campaigns and courses of action? Secondly, will we see proper co-ordination between the work of the academics and that of the clinicians so that there can be maximum immediate use? Finally, in order to ensure a quick take-up by the maximum number of women of the tests for cervical and breast cancer, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Health Education Council and others will

277
be given adequate budgets immediately to make sure that all women are aware of the opportunities as soon as they are available?
Mr. Fowler: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded generally to the statement about AIDS and breast cancer. The £14·5 million for AIDS will be in addition to what the Medical Research Council has already been promised. The £6 million for regional health authorities will also be in addition to what has already been promised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about co-operation. I hope that I can assure him on that point. In health education generally, one of our purposes must be to try to increase the numbers coming forward. To some extent, that has quite a lot to do with the computerised systems that we are putting in the family practitioner system.
Already 109 districts have computerised systems, and we hope that over the next 12 months the remainder of the districts will have them. In that way we will be in a much better position than previously to bring in people who were missed in previous years. Too many of the people who died in the past were missed in the screening process, and that is why I aim to improve the system.
Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend has made an excellent statement which signals a major advance in the good health of the nation. The mean-minded carping by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not justified by the statement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the breast cancer screening facilities are fully operational we can look to the possibility of saving 2,000 to 3,000 lives a year? Will he also tell the House that, where possible, he will encourage the provision of screening facilities in the community rather than having them entirely hospital based?
Mr. Fowler: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point. He asked about breast cancer screening. Some 1·5 million women will be invited to use the system each year as soon as it has been developed. We are obviously aiming for maximum take-up, but Forrest estimates that the mortality rate in the 50 to 64 age group should be reduced by about one third.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How many extra staff in pathology and other paramedical specialties does the Secretary of State think will be covered by the £6 million for cancer screening? Is he not aware that in some areas where staffs have been cut administrative staffs have been cut by as much as 30 per cent? How does he envisage that it will be possible to designate people solely to deal with a subject of such urgency? Do we not urgently require a training programme now?
Mr. Fowler: That is precisely what we are doing. One of the reasons why we are having to do this by stages is to build up the trained staff, not only the surgical staff and pathologists to whom the hon. Lady referred, but radiographers and radiologists. Obviously the system will need equipment and premises. I should emphasise that Forrest envisages a build-up of that sort and we are following it exactly in formulating our plans.
Mr. Fred Silvester: Does my right hon. Friend's announcement mean that research institutes involved in vaccine research may now submit
278
new projects to the Medical Research Council? Does his statement on cervical cancer include any resources for getting rid of the backlog, which in some parts of the country is now severe?
Mr. Fowler: We have sought to tackle the backlog through the district health authorities by recruiting more staff, and clearly that remains a priority. On the matter of research, it is important to underline what the concept of directed research is. The usual approach is for the investigator to initiate the proposal and submit it to the Medical Research Council. Under this proposal the Medical Research Council will initiate and decide which are the most promising areas for research. That is a method used with great success in the United States, but it has been used rarely in the medical research area since the war, but it underlines the importance that the Government attach to medical research on AIDS.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Can the Minister be more specific about laboratory staff? He has been asked several questions on it this afternoon and has been vague in his answers. Can he tell us how, when and where the laboratory staff will be increased, because in parts of Wales we are having to wait for up to three months for the results of cervical cancer tests? That is intolerable because it means that people will be dying unnecessarily because of that sort of delay.
Mr. Fowler: It is not a question of being vague. There are two issues involved. On the matter of cervical cancer, the district health authorities are reducing the backlogs in the districts by recruiting more staff. That is taking place now and that is presumably what the hon. Lady wants.
On breast cancer, there is a need to train staff. I cannot give the exact figures for all 14 regions, but obviously, as the programme goes forward, we will be in a position to do that. The resources are being made available to the regions so that they can provide at least 14 centres by next March and then we will go forward over the following two years to provide 100 centres throughout England.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I think that the whole House, other than one hon. Member, welcomes the statement and would like to congratulate the Secretary of State on it. Does he recognise that, as some 4,000 deaths from AIDS are likely to occur by 1990, it is as serious as cervical cancer? Will he say that, in addition to the £14 million being spent in directed research from the Medical Research Council, it will increase the percentage it is giving in response to applications, which I gather is only £2·5 million out of a budget out of £150 million?
Mr. Fowler: So far £2·5 million has been spent on more than 20 projects through the Medical Research Council. Indeed, until the autumn the Medical Research Council was basically saying that no worthwhile project had been turned away. The Medical Research Council then asked us for an extra £1 million. That was made available immediately. In addition, these extra resources for directed research are being made available. I emphasise that I believe that the series of measures that have been taken, particularly over the past few months, gives us the opportunity to take a leading position in Europe on AIDS research.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I welcome the provisions being made, but, like Oliver Twist, I hope that as the five years pass, there will be better funding. I should

279
like to ask about mammography and cervical smears. Does the Secretary of State recall that we had a nationwide mobile system for the screening of tuberculosis, which only a few years ago most regional health authorities put into dry dock? Will his Department examine, as a means of easy provision of the facilities for screening, what the cost would be to resurrect that scheme which was, in its day, very effective?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, especially after the menopause, there is a tremendous impact of carcinoma, apart from cancer of the cervix, in the pelvic area? Will he look further at the possibility of screening, not just the priority groups, which he has mentioned and must obviously have in mind, but a much wider range, certainly up to the age of 65? Those women could be helped.
On the matter of AIDS research, has the Secretary of State noticed the bonanza that has been taking place on the stock exchange on the pharmaceutical companies' share prices? As there is heavy competition to hit the jackpot between each of the major companies, will he take steps to ensure that there is an exchange of information, not only with the Medical Research Council and the Secretary of State's Department, but within the pharmaceutical industry itself so that there is maximum knowledge?
Mr. Fowler: On the first two points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly consider the implications of what he is proposing. It needs to be said that the private sector of the pharmaceutical industry is doing a great deal of research in this area, and that should be welcomed on both sides of the House. An increasing percentage of research on AIDS is taking place. One of the benefits of a strong private pharmaceutical industry is that the research is taking place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must have regard to the fact that this is an Opposition day. I will allow questions to go on for a further 10 minutes. If hon. Members ask brief questions, they may all be called.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his swift and generous response to the request of the MRC. Will he assure the House that there will be no let-up in the Government's efforts to educate the public about the ways in which the AIDS virus can be contracted? Does he agree that in the short term responsible attitudes towards sex can play the biggest part in reducing the number of deaths from AIDS?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made an important point, which I mentioned in my statement but which should be underlined. There is no immediate prospect of a breakthrough in that area and everything we say on public education still holds good and, indeed, should be underlined. I am glad to make that absolutely clear.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: As someone who lost a close relative from cervical cancer, I welcome any measure that will help alleviate the problem. Many women do shift work in the catering industry and various other industries. May I ask the Secretary of State to give every encouragement to employers to ensure that those women are allowed time off for screening?
Mr. Fowler: That is a very important point. We will consider what further we can do to encourage exactly that.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I add my warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he consider again the possibility of giving an absolute priority in breast and cervical screening to the back log cases, since I feel sure that one of the problems in this desirable area is that of public and patient expectation? One way of dealing adequately with that problem would be to deal with the backlog as a priority before moving on to the new and extended schemes.
Mr. Fowler: Certainly, on the matter of cervical cancer, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The priority must be to ensure that the system that we have now works well, and that obviously means tackling the backlog.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I vigorously and positively congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing in the money for AIDS research. His visit to America was obviously most remunerative. Will he make a simple statement at the Dispatch Box that the budget for AIDS will never be cut and that whatever is needed will be found?
Mr. Fowler: We will certainly seek to meet that sort of challenge. The best way of answering that question is by looking at what the Government have already done. We have made massive new amounts available for public education and we are now making new resources available for research as well. That underlines the importance given to AIDS policy, not only by the Government but by both sides of the House.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the statement and the way in which it rises to the challenge— something which the Opposition Front Bench seems too churlish to recognise? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the £14·5 million towards research is in addition to the moneys which are already being spent or will be spent by the pharmaceutical industry in the same cause? Will he stress once again how important it is that we give higher priority even than this to education and prevention because they are the most important factors in dealing with AIDS in the short term?
Mr. Fowler: I confirm both points. First, this is additional money for the MRC and it is certainly additional to anything that the pharmaceutical industry is spending in this area. Secondly, I stress the importance of public health education. Indeed, at the end of this week we shall see a major campaign by the television companies, both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television companies. I take this opportunity to welcome their initiative. Not everything can be done by the Government or through advertising.
Mr. Max Madden: Is not the question hanging over the statement how much the Government are willing to spend to prevent death? Although the statement is welcome, does the Secretary of State understand that large numbers of people will consider that the money for cervical cancer screening is too late and too little? Is it riot cautionary to remember that the total sum that he has mentioned is less than what was spent on selling the gas industry to Sid and a tiny fraction of the tax handouts given to the rich in the past seven years? Can the right hon. Gentleman say specifically when the age groups of women for screening will be extended both to a lower and to a higher age group? What additional resources are to be

281
given to local health authorities, including my authority in Bradford, to deal with unbudgeted expenditure on AIDS care? Will additional resources be made available?
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is rehearsing his constituency speech on the Floor of the House, he has chosen the wrong issue to do it on. We have responded in full to what the MRC has asked for on AIDS. On breast cancer, again we are implementing the Forrest report. In 1987–88 the cost will be £6 million, which, again, will be in addition to the budget. It is not remotely a question of being too little; it is what the bodies have sought and asked for and the Government are responding to it.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us warmly congratulate him on his announcement of funding for AIDS research, we all agree that there must be further public education? Is he aware that we would like him perhaps to have a word with the television authorities on the timing of the AIDS programmes and request them to delay the programmes for a couple of hours, from 5 pm to 7 pm, to avoid young children seeing them and their parents being embarrassed? Could he give some guidance to the television authorities on that point?
Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the broadcasting organisations will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I understand his point. However, I must say that both the BBC and independent television have responded magnificently to the challenge of AIDS. They have responded exceptionally, and I praise their action, which has been invaluable.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend can be assured of the warm welcome of all reasonable people inside and outside this place and he has been most kind to consider some papers on AIDS research from a British team recently. In his busy day, will either he or one of his junior colleagues agree to meet members of that team to ensure that this encouraging opportunity is not missed and the British team receives the fullest possible support?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has indeed left me with papers on this matter. It is essentially a matter for the MRC, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I can consider that.
Mr. Tom Sackville: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his statement and point out that in Bolton, where a breast scanner was bought last year following a successful charitable appeal and where there is wide experience and expertise among the local medical profession, his announcement of a national screening programme will he extremely welcome?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he has a close interest in this area. He has raised the issue as it affects Bolton in an Adjournment debate and, certainly, I hope that Bolton will benefit in the same way as the rest of the country.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend do something about the dreadful AIDS advertisement that starts with the words, "Gay or straight", which seem to invite any adolescent who may read it to an equality of choice? Does he agree that, while he, as I, might like to he looked on in our private and public life as being straight in our dealings with people, in our sexual proclivities we would rather be looked on as being normal? Should not the sensibilities of the majority be more important than those of the minority?
Mr. Fowler: That takes us a little onwards from the issue of AIDS research, but I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I must say that the advertising must get its message over as directly as possible, not only to the general public but to the high-risk groups. Obviously, I regret it if any advertising offends individuals and the public generally, but the greater need and demand is to get the message over to the public.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: In joining the applause for the significant steps forward in research and preventive medicine announced by my right hon. Friend, may I invite him to remind those, such as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who call for unlimited research expenditure on AIDS, that there are other extremely debilitating, terminal diseases which are not self-inflicted and for which cures are desperately needed?
What are the reasons for the age limit between 50 and 64 for breast screening? Does the report conclude that the incidence of the onset of breast cancer before that age is so insignificant as not to deserve the full scheme? If so, is there not in any case some opportunity for those who would nevertheless like to have the breast screening service to have it on demand?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Obviously, the MRC has health and medical priorities other than AIDS. The Forrest report proposes an age range between 50 and 64 for breast cancer screening. One third of the 15,000 deaths are among women between the ages of 50 and 64 and research has shown that screening that group would be by far the most effective measure. Forrest proposes more research in the 40 age group and we accept that. Screening is also available on demand for those over 65. That, too, is proposed by Forrest and, again, we accept that.

Hinkley Point Power Station
4.18 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent attention, namely,
"the need for an independent inquiry into the safety of continued operation of Hinkley Point nuclear power station."
The matter was highlighted today in the front page piece of The Guardian written by Mr. Paul Brown. The issue is specific because it refers to admissions of falsification of quality assurance records for welds in pressure pipework at a nuclear establishment. Nondestructive testing is the best means yet developed to ascertain the integrity of' butt-weld joints. The reliability of recording such procedures is crucial and has been called into question, not for the first time, but on this occasion with a specific and verifiable history.
The issue is important because if these admissions are substantiated they call into question similar procedures applied during the construction of similar establishments throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Having worked in the industry, I can state emphatically and without fear of contradiction that, although actions of a kind similar to those of Mr. Brookes were not commonplace, they are by no means unique. What is unique in this instance is that we have an individual who has summoned up the courage to lay aside the threat of revenge and the fear of intimidation to square his maturing conscience with a threatened community.
The matter should be given urgent attention because there are three needs. First, there is the need for a truly independent inquiry conducted without prejudice of any kind. To highlight that, I can do no better than refer to the second paragraph of Mr. Brookes' letter to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. He stated:
"I am concerned that you do not intend to involve your department directly in the investigation and I am sure that the public will he equally concerned. You are after all the independent body whose concern is meant to be for the safety of the industry. It would appear from your letter that your primary concern is merely to investigate the possibility of bringing a prosecution against me."
That brings me to the second need for urgency—the need to grant to Mr. Brookes immunity from prosecution. If we can do that for supergrasses, can we not do it for infra welders?
The third reason why we need urgency is to offer amnesty to others who live with a similar burden of conscience. We need to do that not only to liberate them from personal guilt but to allow them to identify approximate times and locations where such malpractices may have planted the timebombs of flawed technology in reservoirs of nuclear spite.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for an independent inquiry into the safety of the continued operation of Hinkley Point nuclear power station."
I have listened with the greatest care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore. I cannot submit his application to the House.

Love Lane Bus Depot, Liverpool
4.21 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of"—
[Laughter.] Instead of laughing, Conservative Members should listen. The purpose of the debate is to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of 270 transport workers by the Crossville bus company, Liverpool."
The matter is specific because it deals with the sacking of 270 workers, many of them long-serving employees, and the closure of a bus depot in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment level on the British mainland.
The matter is important because more than 150 of the sacked workers have between 10 and 25 years' service. One has more than 30 years' service and is only two sears off retirement age. None of these workers has received or will receive a penny in redundancy pay. That is an absolute disgrace.
The matter should receive urgent consideration because the sacking follows a strike of bus drivers who refused to drive old second-hand buses— some 14 years old with no power steering. Crossville's action may encourage other bus companies to follow its scandalous lead, thus endangering the lives of not only bus drivers and passengers but pedestrians and road users. I hope, for those reasons, that you will grant my application, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of 270 transport workers by the Crossville bus company, Liverpool."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Member the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

High Court Injunction (Mr. Speaker's Order)
4.23 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to your order of 22 January preventing me and other colleagues in the House from viewing the Zircon film which was the subject of a court injunction. You will be aware that you specifically stated that you made your ruling in order that the injunction should be observed within our precincts.
This morning, Her Majesty's Government did not defend an application by Mr. Campbell in the High Court for the injunction to be withdrawn. Accordingly, it no longer exists. The Government have been unable to find any basis for a prosecution arising from the film. They face the prospect of a substantial claim for damages from the BBC, which has obtained a legal opinion from the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland that the raid of the Glasgow office was almost certainly unlawful, and have been unable to find a legal basis to defend the action for withdrawal of the injunction.
It would be inappropriate for me to invite you, Mr. Speaker, to reconcile last month's campaign to muzzle the press with this month's climb-down by the Government, but it would be entirely appropriate for me—
Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is making a political speech. He should keep to the point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter which is being addressed to me.
Mr. Cook: I think that you will agree, Sir, that in all these matters I have shown respect for the Chair.
I think that it would be appropriate for me to ask you to reconsider your ruling, which was clearly given on the basis that an injunction was in force. Now that that injunction is no longer in force, hon. Members may see in the House a film which many of our constituents have already seen in some of the largest cities in the land.
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, on 27 January I made the following statement:
286
"I can confirm that, if the House decides to refer the matter"—
my order of 22 January—
"to the Committee of Privileges, my instructions…will remain in force until the House itself can make a decision following the report of the Committee of Privileges, so long, that is, as the present injunction remains in force."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 273.]
I have now been informed, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said, that the injunction is no longer in force and, accordingly, my order of 22 January ceases to have effect as from now.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will welcome your statement not only because it so promptly and exactly fits what you promised the House on 27 January but because of the increasing absurdity felt by right hon. and hon. Members at finding themselves in the position where a film has been banned from being shown in the precincts of the House while it has been freely available to audiences in Cardiff, London, Glasgow, Coventry and elsewhere.
However, Mr. Speaker, given the most urgent promptings of Ministers to you directly, and later in the form of a motion before the House, that this film should be banned, surely it is right that, now that the policy has been totally reversed within 28 days, we should have an explanation by a responsible Minister as to why the Government dropped the injunction proceedings. I should like to know whether you, Sir, have been informed by any Minister of the Government's intention to make a statement and, if not, why not.
Mr. Speaker: I heard only today that the injunction had been dropped. I have been given no indication that there will be a statement.

High Court Injunction (Mr. Speaker's Order)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 13 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Michael J. Martin

  Mr. Peter Lilley

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

Landlord and Tenant
4.28 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to extend the existing right to buy to tenants in properties where the landlord's title to ownership is defective; to enable landlords to obtain fair market value for properties which are compulsorily purchased; and for connected purposes.
I believe that such a Bill will not be considered contentious. It is my objective to cut red tape and to be helpful to both house owners and tenants in certain housing matters where an element of injustice has arisen. The injustices are not inherent in the conception of the original housing legislation. However, they have arisen in the margin in some special cases.
Members on both sides of the House have, I believe, now accepted the right of home ownership—admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm from the Opposition Benches. The Housing Act 1980 gave secure council tenants a clear right to obtain the ownership of their homes. However, in Bolton many applications have been refused on the grounds of technical defects or uncertainty in the title.
Last year, the responsible Minister singled out Bolton as the worst council which still persistently denied the right to buy on the pretext of defective title. The defective title usually arises from compulsory purchase orders on long leasehold land of which Lancashire has more than most counties. Because of the difficulty in tracking down all those with reversionary interests, the council does not always have complete title. Although the council has powers to perfect the title, it has made a political decision to use this flimsy pretext to prevent a sale. The reason given by the council is a shortage of funds or personnel available to investigate the history of the title to its ultimate. Another excuse is that the Greater Manchester Council residuary body still has an interest, despite the fact that the council has the power to purchase that interest.
That obstruction is against the spirit of current housing policy where maximum incentives to home ownership are being provided. If such a situation arose in the private sector, a form of indemnity would be worked out to cover the vendor against action from people coming forward subsequently with claims to a legal interest in the site or property. I understand that that can be covered by an insurance policy.
I have been involved in mountainous correspondence with Ministers for many months on behalf of numerous unhappy constituents caught in this sad web of circumstances, not of their own making. I have suggested that a provision should be available whereby a purchaser could indemnify the vendor against such claims. However, on political grounds, that was not accepted by Bolton's Labour-controlled council. I have now been told that Wigan council has used this system and in Norwich, where there used to be a similar problem, the council is now cooperating with its tenants. Why is Bolton council not doing that? Must tenants consider bringing a court action to get justice?
Last year, with the guidance of a distinguished former Solicitor-General, I tabled amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill. I was informed by the Government that those amendments raised possible legal complexities which needed thorough examination. However, I believe that
288
Government legislation could be successfully introduced so that the landlord is deemed to have sufficient interest to sell. Anyone with interest in the land could then claim compensation from the landlord. Such a requirement would no doubt involve amendments to right-to-buy, land registration and compulsory purchase legislation. That would cause much work for the parliamentary draftsmen in the Department of the Environment where I believe that there is already a shortage of draftsmen.
I believe that the matter can wait no longer and that the nettle must now be grasped. I am therefore including these provisions in my proposed Bill which sets out in tablets of stone that council tenants who qualify under normal circumstances shall have the inalienable right to exercise their right to buy. Councils will be deemed to have sufficient interest to sell and will be given full compulsory powers against claimants. It is understood that if claimants have a proven case, they should be compensated fairly.
The other injustice which I wish to tackle in the second part of my Bill is the unhappy situation that arises where property is compulsorily purchased, but is classified as unfit or otherwise does not qualify for fair market value compensation, including cases where the property is empty or not owner-occupied. The effect is to reduce from market value to site value the compensation payable. In Bolton, that could mean the difference between £15,000 and a mere £1,200.
Definitions of fitness for the purpose of slum clearance are set out in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. Experts in housing law explain that, despite attempts to set out guidelines for assessing unfitness, the definitions are still variable and imprecise.
There is an additional unfairness in this form of virtual confiscation because properties in a clearance area are scheduled for demolition in any case. Therefore, owners are less inclined to maintain them fully or occupy those houses. Not to pay a fair price is a combination of institutionalised meanness and bullyboy bureaucracy. The problem was well recognised in the Government Green Paper, "Home Improvements, a New Approach."
To return to my original theme, the first part of my Bill is a humble attempt to help those who think that they have the opportunity to join the property owning democracy, but find that that opportunity is removed at the last moment. Their hopes are dashed and their spirits crushed. With very little effort, we can bring them the happiness that they deserve.
In the second part of my Bill, I show how we can provide justice for the house owner whose property may have become classified as not being owner-occupied or as being technically unfit because he could not afford to maintain it.
I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the objectives of my Bill even if they have had some reservations about what are believed to be legislative complexities. I believe that those can be overcome and that it would be a fine achievement in one Bill to bring relief to both tenant and house owner in this way.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Thurnham, Sir Ian Percival, Sir George Young, Sir John Farr, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Tom Sackville, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. John Heddle and Mr. John Powley.

Landlord and Tenant
  LANDLORD AND TENANT
  Mr. Peter Thurnham accordingly presented a Bill to extend the existing right to buy to tenants in properties where the landlord's title to ownership is defective; to enable landlords to obtain fair market value for properties which are compulsorily purchased: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Priorities for the Elderly
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that more than a quarter of pensioners now live in poverty at or below the supplementary benefit level, that the living standards of pensioners have fallen by an average of about 21 per cent. compared with the rest of the community since 1979, that pensioners are the main victims of the £650 million cuts in housing benefit and that pensioners have been badly hit by the large and increasing cuts in community services and in hospital beds, calls upon the Government to reverse its policy of reducing the resources devoted to the needs of elderly people and to accord pensioners the priority which they deserve and which the nation would wish them to have, not only in terms of income, but also in the range of community services they need for personal independence, security and dignity.
  Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have chosen the title for this debate—"Priorities for the Elderly"—with care and precision. It is our view, as I shall explain—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to delay the debate for a little while, while the Opposition assemble their Members?
  Mr. Speaker: That has patently nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Meacher: It is our view, as I shall explain, that in one area after another the elderly have been accorded a distinctly low priority by the Government. With 26 per cent. of people over retirement age now living in poverty at or below the supplementary benefit level—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will not give way.
  With pensions every year falling further and further behind living standards of the rest of the community, with huge cuts in housing benefit, a growing shortage of community services and hospital beds and a gross misallocation of resources in the development of residential and domiciliary care, one thing is certain: the elderly in Britain need a new deal.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way. I intend to make some progress with my speech, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen.
  The first and most important point that I want to make concerns the pension. The Government like to consider themselves as the defenders of choice. I wonder how much choice Ministers believe that pensioners get on £39·80 a week. However, the Government have decreased, not increased, the consumer choice of pensioners. Their buying power relative to that of the rest of the community has gone down sharply over the past eight years. Over that period the pension has trailed no less than 21 per cent. behind the growth of average earnings.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
  That is the effect of one of the first things that the Government did when they came to power in 1979.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are very experienced and have been in the House for a very long time. Will you draw on your experience and tell the House whether you have ever been in the Chamber during a major and important debate on the elderly when there have been only five Back-Bench Labour Members—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has also been here long enough to accuse one of my hon. Friends of a bogus point of order when he has just made two of the most bogus points of order that I have ever heard.
  In 1979, the Government broke the links with earnings which Labour had established in the uprating of pensions. As a result, the single pension has been cut by £7·20 a week and a married pension by £11·40 a week compared with what would have been paid if Labour's formula had been retained.
  Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government broke the link which the Labour Government had established. How many times between 1976 and 1979 did they keep to their formula?
  Mr. Meacher: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that during the five years when the Labour Government were in power the real value of the pension increased by 20 per cent., whereas under the seven and a half years of Tory rule that we have just experienced, the real value of the pension has increased by only 2·5 per cent. Labour did eight times better.
  Mr. Maclean: Answer my question.
  Mr. Tom Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that this will be taken as a serious debate. In the few minutes during which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has been speaking, there has been constant uproar in the House. It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no need for sedentary interjections. They simply delay a debate. This is a very short debate and many hon. Members feel strongly about the subject and want to speak in it. Sedentary interruptions from either side do not help.
  Mr. Meacher: The loss for a married couple in retirement as a result of breaking the link with earnings, which is now about £600 a year, would be enough to take thousands of pensioners out of poverty, to ensure adequate heating throughout the winter, to improve the quality of diet most days of the week, to enable more trips to see children or friends, or to buy a holiday abroad. Those may be small matters to those who take them in their stride, but to be deprived of them is to be shut out from the quality of life which others take for granted, and that is what hurts.
  Mr. Nicholls: Although the hon. Gentleman will not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member
  292
  for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), does he deny the historical fact that in three years out of five the Government of which he was a member and which had passed legislation for an earnings link failed to follow it?
  Mr. Meacher: That is a very silly point. What matters to pensioners is the amount by which their pensions increase relative to prices. I am glad to see the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled nodding. Under the Labour Government, it increased by 20 per cent. above prices—
  Mr. Nicholls: Will you deny it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that I have nothing to deny. Sedentary interventions are holding up the debate. We must get on with it.
  Mr. Meacher: I shall indeed get on with it.
  It is a cynical philosophy to pay people the going market rate so long as they are in economic employment but as soon as they are uneconomic or unproductive after a lifetime of work to discard them on the scrap heap of retirement. We know that pensioners today are being discarded when we consider that the basic retirement pension has fallen to only 18 per cent. of average earnings whereas in Germany the figure is 50 per cent. and in France no less than 60 to 70 per cent. We know t hat pensioners are being discarded when the Government Actuary has estimated that under current Government policies the basic state pension will fall during the next 40 years to only 9 per cent. of average earnings. Pensioners are being discarded because, in March this year, the Chancellor will dispense, in one way or another, up to £4 billion of largesse, but all that pensioners will get is an extra 80p a week.
  What is almost harder to accept is the fact that Government policies not only condemn millions of people to a miserable subsistence income, but have blocked any future escape route from poverty for millions of workers on below average pay. SERPS offered the one high road out of poverty in old age for the lower paid.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
  The Government's emasculation of that scheme. plus the worsening relative value of the basic pension and each successive uprating under the Government's price indexing policies, mean that up to a quarter of today's working population will spend their retirement in poverty.
  The significance of the Government's assault on SERPS is brought home by a written answer that I received on 12 January. It shows that the additional earnings-related pension received by someone retiring on average earnings this year is slightly over £20 a week. SERPS is already providing a 50 per cent. topping-up of the basic state pension. By 1992, the SERPS addition will have increased to more than £40 a week—more than the entire basic pension today—and by 1998 it will have grown to £78 a week, according to Government figures. For half the population, SERPS offers the best pension scheme that Britain has ever produced. It would for ever break the cycle of poverty in retirement.
  The Government repudiated the scheme because they said that it could not be afforded, yet it offers pensions no bigger than the state pensions being paid by the Germans and the French. If they can afford those pensions" why

  293
  cannot we? The Government's stated intention to whittle down SERPS is the biggest attack by far on the living standards of the poorer half of the population. The Government, who have heralded six or even seven-figure salaries among their City acolytes, are stretching poverty level retirement far into the 21st century for a large section of today's work force.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "poverty" many times in his remarks so far. Where does he get his figures and on what does he base his repeated assertion that there is poverty among this group?
  Mr. Meacher: Does the hon. Gentleman differ from the conventional view, which I certainly share, that anyone who must subsist on supplementary benefit is living in poverty? Could he live on £45 a week compared with his salary which, like mine, is more than £300 a week? That is an exceedingly low standard of living compared with average earnings of £200 a week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to share my view that that is a disgracefully low standard of living. The fact that the number of people on supplementary benefit has doubled under this Government is an indictment of their disgraceful policies.
  If tomorrow's pensioners are not much of a priority with this Government, nor are today's. In one year's time, the Fowler social security pack—if it is not repealed by a new Government after the election—will drastically worsen the position of many pensioners. According to the Government's figures, 2,250,000 pensioners will lose money, including 820,000 who will lose more than £2 a week and 120,000 who will lose more than £5 a week. They may be small amounts to grinning Conservative Members, but they represent substantial losses when the entire pension is only £40 a week.
  In particular, pensioners will be the main victims of the £450 million cut in housing benefit, which comes on top of the £200 million cut made recently in housing benefit and which also hits mainly pensioners. They will probably be the main sufferers from the abolition of single payments and the introduction of the social fund in a year's time.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman needs to learn a few manners and then I may give way.
  It is surely cruel to expect pensioners on low incomes to repay loans towards essential items. The likely effect of that Government policy must be that even more pensioners will refuse to ask for help. Indigence will once again be the price of self-respect. It is also harsh that loans will not be available to those with savings of more than £500, who will be penalised for setting aside money for funeral costs. It cannot be justified to end lump sum grants to meet exceptional circumstances such as high fuel bills and draught proofing, for which elderly people are unlikely to take up loans. The abolition of the death grant cheats generations of people who have paid insurance contributions all their lives.
  Even if pensioners' incomes and benefits were cut, that would not matter so acutely if the essential services on which they rely were increased. In fact, the reverse has happened after the scythe of rate support grant cuts and rate capping has hacked its way through so many local
  294
  authority services. Of all groups in the population, it is the over-75s for whom community health and social services are critical. On average, they use them four and a half times more extensively than the general population. Yet services have not kept up with the growth in the number of people over 75—some 17 per cent. since 1979. For example, the number of geriatric beds in hospitals has been virtually static—an increase of less than 0·5 per cent.
  The Audit Commission report published two months ago, which I recommend, has an excellent analysis of Government policy called "Making a Reality of Community Care". It states:
  "There has been no increase per person aged 75 or over in community based services central to supporting elderly people: home helps and meals-on-wheels."
  Mr. Forth: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair when making his arguments. Does he agree that the number of consultant geriatricians has increased under the Government by at least 34 per cent.? That one figure provides some balance to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Does he acknowledge that a balance should be struck in all these things and that great achievements have been made in some significant areas under this Government?
  Mr. Meacher: There has been a welcome shift in medical personnel towards geriatric, psychiatric and mental handicap. All Governments support that; we did so and I am glad that it has been continued and developed further. I am only sad that, although there are more consultant geriatricians and a considerable increase in the numbers needing their care, there has not been an increase in the number of beds available in hospitals. That is a great pity. The Audit Commission's report is a stunning indictment of Government policies which, it concludes, represent a fundamental misallocation of a total £6 billion budget between the National Health Service, social services and social security, devoted to the case of the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. It found that domiciliary care averages a cost of about £95 a week for an elderly person, while a residential home place costs about £135 a week and a bed in a National Health Service geriatric ward costs about £295 a week. However, because the paraphernalia of Government financial controls has decimated local authority social services, we have the absurd paradox that thousands of elderly people are now cared for in institutional settings, costing up to £300 a week, when they could be receiving more appropriate care in the community at a total cost to public funds of only about £100 a week.
  The Audit Commission endorsed a view that the Opposition have repeatedly expressed, that it is a ridiculous perversion of priorities that local authority social services, which are determined by need, have been continually eroded by Government financial cuts, while supplementary benefit moneys, to the tune of no less than £600 million a year, are now being channelled through the board and lodging regulations into a virtually open-ended subsidy of the private sector, with no test of the need.
  There is another nonsense in the system because it produces a strong financial bias in favour of residential care at the expense of domiciliary care in the community, although the latter is generally preferable wherever it is possible. The truth is that community care, for all the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government, is grossly neglected. Most social service departments are now

  295
  not achieving even the 2 per cent. growth that the Government consider necessary simply to maintain existing standards. The DHSS guideline published 10 years ago, laying down that there should be 12 home helps per thousand people over 65, has, frankly, become a distant dream in most areas. Certainly, the number of home helps, the most crucial arm—I am sure it will be agreed—of all social services, has not kept pace. The average has now fallen to about six per thousand, half of the level set 10 years ago.
  In practice, that means that in many areas today an elderly person who is confused, incontinent and liable to fall, now has a home help for perhaps only two hours a week and, in many areas, has to pay a significant fee for a limited service.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not dream of misleading the House. He will be aware that the number of home helps has increased by more than 14 per cent. since 1978 and that there has been a substantial increase—some 15 per cent.—in the number of day centres. The hon. Gentleman should not be so churlish.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should not accuse me, but should look at the Audit Commission's report. That is entirely independent and states that there has been no increase per person for those aged over 75 in the essential—[Interruption.] I prefer the Audit Commission's report to the figures given by Conservative Central Office, largely because it is a great deal more accurate. I suggest that Conservative Members read official sources and not biased and partisan notes from their party.
  In the face of that neglect, because we accord a much higher priority to the needs of the elderly, the Labour party is proposing a five point plan of community care. The first point is an audit of social need, to be carried out on a regular basis by each social services department, which would match the audit of health needs to be carried out in parallel by each health authority. The establishment of unmet needs is, I strongly suggest, the foundation of community care, and it is a huge omission that, for all the talk, that has never been done comprehensively by the Government during the past eight years. Only when needs are systematically known can services be realistically planned.
  Secondly, we propose community-based assessment teams to work closely with elderly and disabled people and their carers to draw up care plans tailor made for each individual, after consultation with them. We also propose that a named person be appointed to help each elderly and disabled person negotiate the maze of different agencies that must be tackled to obtain such services as rehabilitation, chiropody, day care, temporary respite care or whatever.
  Thirdly, we intend to produce a much better balanced distribution of services throughout the country. The Audit Commission makes a radical criticism of existing policies and states:
  "A very uneven pattern of local authority services has developed, with the care that people receive as much dependent on where they live as on what they need."
  There could scarecly be a more fundamental contradiction of a proper national service than that. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will wait to hear what I am about to say.
  296
  At present, home help provision varies by a factor of about 7:1, according to where one is in the country. Sunderland, for example, provides 70 hours home help per person each year, while Surrey provides only 11. It is noteworthy that, of the top 30 local authorities providing the most home help, all but three are Labour controlled, while the bottom 30 local authorities providing the least home help are Tory controlled. Such huge inequalities of service provision to meet the same needs in different parts of the country are unacceptable, and therefore we shall ensure that minimum standards are met.
  Fourthly, we propose a charter for carers. Current Government policies of neglect and cuts impose an intolerable burden on a great many of the 3·25 million women who provide essential part-time and full-time care for elderly or disabled relatives. Although many perform full-time caring duties, almost without relief, for 20 or 30 years, into their seventies or even older, often to the point of physical or mental breakdown, their unrecognised needs surely make them one of the most neglected groups in today's welfare state. Therefore, we propose a flexible respite care system. Carers need support, especially night sitting services, hospital nursing, holiday care, a more flexible home help arrangement, short-stay residential accommodation for members of their family, and self-help centres for counselling and support, because they are often isolated. To pioneer and carry through this new approach, we shall appoint a carers liaison officer in each local authority, who will be responsible for identifying carers and providing, as far as possible, the range of support services that are needed—
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again.
  Fifthly, and most important, in developing community care we recognise that choice is crucially important. If service means anything, it must mean that elderly people can voice their views and be confident of a response that takes them into account. That is why we support a statutory right for an elderly or disabled person to be represented by another person in meetings with local authorities or other officials, and an appeal system that can challenge unfavourable local authority decisions.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber. I shall no': give way—[Interruption.]
  That is why we support a pluralistic approach, including elderly—
  Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark. I have been in the Chamber for all of his speech, although it has been painful to listen to it. I hope that he will withdraw his remark and apologise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter is for the hon. Gentleman to decide.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for the course of the debate, I apologise to him. I did not see him. Indeed, I shall now give way to him.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has listed many admirable points. In fact, many Conservative Members will rather look forward to getting old if we can enjoy the

  297
  various services that he will provide should his party come to office. Will he give hon. Members the exact cost of the programme that he has outlined?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the seventh intervention, during a 20-minute speech, made by hon. Members who are waiting to catch my eye. They are prejudicing their own chances.
  Mr. Meacher: As there is a gross misallocation of resources in favour of institutional care, the provision of domiciliary care, although it will not be much cheaper, may work out at some significant saving. Of course, what we are proposing is highly labour-intensive, but it is wholly accommodated within the £6 billion budget for jobs by which we intend to put—we shall do so—1 million people back to work, including, probably, over 100,000 of them in the area to which I referred.
  At the root of the programme is a better allocation of public spending. The Audit Commission speaks of a
  "serious distortion of public expenditure priorities."
  It adds:
  "the social security policies of the Government appear to be working in a way directly opposing community care policies."
  At present, there is a fundamental misallocation in favour of residential care and against domiciliary services. There is a fundamental misallocation in favour of the private sector that is not based on need, and against local authority services that are based on need. There is a fundamental misallocation, which is characteristic of the Government, in favour of tax cuts for the better-off and against the interests of the pensioner. We shall reverse all of that. That is why we propose an immediate £5 a week increase in the pension for single pensioners and an £8 a week increase for married couples to be paid for by recouping the £3–5 billion in tax relief handed out since 1979 to the richest 5 per cent. of the population.
  Mr. Derek Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
  That is why we propose to restore the link with earnings in the uprating of the pension so that, once again, pensioners will share in rising living standards with the rest of the community. That is why we shall repeal the provisions of the Fowler Social Security Act 1986, which undermines SERPS as the high road out of poverty in old age. That is why we shall sweep away the piffling and fragmentary severe weather payments scheme, which is so pitted with holes, and replace it by a proper £5-a-week special winter fuel premium for each week throughout the winter to all pensioners on supplementary benefit and to a further million living in the margins of poverty only just above the supplementary benefit line. That is why we have published major plans for the development of community care which offer a charter of liberation for the elderly, the disabled and their carers.
  Those are all priorities for the elderly, and they are our priorities, too. Because they are the priorities for millions of families for whom the care of the elderly is a fundamental concern, they will be one of the central issues that will sweep away the Government in the forthcoming election and bring to power a party that believes in and shares such priorities and principles.
  5.5 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'believes that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement, whether their incomes come from state benefits, occupational pensions or savings, notes with approval that the Government's economic policies have reversed the previous sharp decline in the value of pensioners' savings; welcomes the higher level of expenditure on benefits for elderly people even after taking account of provision for one million additional pensioners since 1978; and congratulates the Government on its success in improving pensioners' living standards in both absolute and relative terms.'.
  I assume from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the substance of the Opposition's motion is largely—and inaccurately—drawn either from the low income figures published last summer, which are now nearly four years out of date, or from parliamentary questions based on them. That is clear from the hon. Gentleman's response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and it is frankly astonishing.
  The hon. Gentleman should know—the House has been told—that the statisticians who compile the figures that he has used so casually asked for a technical review of them because of their shortcomings. He should also know that the base line for including pensioners in those figures is 25 per cent. higher than for everybody else and that the heating additions, worth between £2·20 and £5·55 per week for pensioners, are excluded from those figures, as are all other additional requirements. Not one of these facts found a mention in the false and sweeping allegations that formed the foundation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The hon. Gentleman defined poverty as the supplementary benefit level and said that he had always regarded that as the level. That was in sharp contrast to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who, as Minister for Social Security, on a series of occasions expressly rejected that precise proposition. I shall refer to the details of poverty and matters of that sort a little later, as I have some accurate figures—not the fantasy figures that the hon. Gentleman used—that he may find rather unpleasant. They are not Government figures and the hon. Gentleman will be wise to wait to hear them as they will be enlightening to him and, I suspect, to many others as well.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend spoke of enlightening the House. Has it escaped his notice that, on this Opposition day, at this stage of the debate there are only five Labour Back Benchers, one Liberal Member and one SDP Member present? Is he not surprised at the lack of interest in the figures that he is about to give and worried that his message will not get across to enough Opposition Members?
  Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is a perceptive mathematician, but from the flurry on the Opposition Benches I fancy that he neglected to mention that 50 per cent. of Plaid Cymru is also present on this occasion.
  The claim of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the living standards of pensioners have fallen by 21 per cent. compared with the rest of the community would be greeted with alarm on this side of the House if there were a grain of truth in it, but there is not. Adult full-time earnings have risen in real terms by 21 per cent. since 1978

  299
  —itself a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies—but the hon. Gentleman ought not to mislead others as he should know that adult full-time earnings are in no way a reliable guide to the growth in incomes among the non-pensioner community. I shall come shortly to what is a reliable guide. Nor is the growth in the basic state retirement pension a guide to the growth in living standards of pensioners. Had the hon. Gentleman done his homework properly, he would know that the true position is precisely and absolutely the reverse of that which he has stated to the House in the last few minutes.
  Since 1979, pensioner living standards have risen by nearly one fifth—twice as fast as those of the community as a whole. The hon. Gentleman totally overlooked the dramatic impact of occupational pensions, investment income, the growth in disability benefits and the aggregation of the additional component of pensions that comes from the state earnings-related pension scheme. None of those matters found a mention when he talked so misleadingly about poverty levels.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Major: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
  I do not intend to spend too much time on misleading and irrelevant figures. I propose to deal with facts that are based on clear statistical methods, not on the unreliable facts that the hon. Member for Oldham, West chose to use.
  This debate is concerned with priorities for the elderly, so I shall deal immediately with those priorities, as revealed by the latest information from the family expenditure survey. I hope that nobody doubts its veracity as the family expenditure survey data are published, well known and well respected and the facts are unchallengable. if we look at the 1985 data, which the hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to do, some interesting comparisons can he made. These are the latest available data. We find, for example, that in real terms pensioners' incomes from retirement pensions and income related benefits increased at much the same annual rate between 1974 and 1979 as they did between 1979 and 1985, but since 1979 the reduction of inflation has meant that, on average, pensioners' incomes from savings have increased by 7·3 per cent. per year compared with a reduction of 3·4 per cent. per year between 1974 and 1979. That is a sharp and welcome improvement, but that is not all.
  Occupational pensions have also spurted ahead quite substantially, and in constant prices now add, on average, about £18·60 per week to pensioners' incomes, compared with £12·30 in 1979. These various increases mean that under the present Government pensioners' total average net incomes—net of tax and national insurance, where applicable—have grown by no less than 2·7 per cent. per year in real terms since 1979, compared with 0·6 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. I should make it clear that the net disposable income available to pensioners is rising four and a half times faster now than it did during the period of the last Labour Government. That fact is revealed by the family expenditure survey and the comparison should make not just the hon. Member for Oldham, West but his right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor think very deeply about their proposed policies on social security and the economy. I will, however, make a concession to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Meacher: Since those figures, which we shall have to look at very closely, are heavily dependent not on the basic pension but on the state earnings-related pensilon scheme and occupational pension schemes, why have the Government done their best to undermine both by whittling down SERPS and by replacing good occupational final salary schemes with personal portable pensions that are much worse?
  Mr. Major: We have done nothing whatever to damage occupational pension schemes. We have opened up a substantial opportunity for the 11 million people who do not have an occupational pension scheme to have one in the form of a personal portable pension, and we have made that pension transferable. The hon. Gentleman should know, but apparently he does not, that none of the SERPS changes will in any way affect anybody who retires this side of the year 2000. By that time, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the family expenditure survey, the difference will be more than adequately made up by the growth in the other factors that I have just mentioned.
  What is important to pensioners is the amount of net disposable income that they have to spend.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has said a great deal about income. Will he now please consider outgoings? Will he tell us what has been the impact on pensioners of the changes in housing costs brought about by the Government? What proportion of pensioners' incomes is now swallowed up by housing costs? And what has been the impact of the progressive cuts in housing benefits, upon which so many pensioners depend?
  Mr. Major: These are net disposable spending figures, as I tried to explain a few moments ago.
  Mr. Raynsford: Answer the question.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will know that the vast majority of people who are on very low incomes still receive a very high level of standard rate housing benefit, both for housing costs and for rates. He should know that as well as any right hon. or lion. Member, but I fear that he sometimes forgets it.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister is dodging the question.
  Mr. Major: I make this concession to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Percentage growth rates can be confusing for him and for others, so I will set out the points that I have just made in terms of actual pounds in the pocket—a phrase that Opposition Members may conceivably remember. I see one or two of them wriggling, so they clearly do remember it.
  At 1985 prices, pensioners had an average net income of £68·50 in 1974. By 1979, it had crawled up by £2·10 per week to reach £70·60, but between 1979 and 1985 it rose by no less than £12·50 to £83·10. That represents a rate of growth over those six years well over twice the rate of growth in incomes of the population as a whole. I shall repeat that in case Opposition Members have not heard me clearly enough. Under this Government, pensioners' total incomes—I emphasise "total incomes"—from all sources have risen, in real terms, more than twice as fast as the incomes of the whole population. When one looks at priorities for pensioners, that is the reality.
  Mr. Raynsford: Now will the Minister answer my question?
  Mr. Major: The Opposition occasionally accuse us of being uncaring and harsh towards pensioners. Frankly, that is both spiteful and ludicrous. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is always a fair man, will study carefully the family expenditure survey so that he may draw the conclusions that we have reached after having looked carefully at these matters in recent weeks.
  The state pension is not, of course, the only element in pensioner incomes. It tends, however, to be all that the Opposition ever choose to mention. Beyond that, to put it mildly, their view seems a little blinkered. Other elements, such as occupational pensions and income from savings, have been growing and will continue to grow. Occupational pensions now go to nearly one half of all pensioners and to as many as 70 per cent. of new pensioners. Of the remainder, many will have an additional component to their basic pension. That is entirely as it should be and entirely in line with the philosophy of Beveridge. Beveridge envisaged the state pension as providing a level of maintenance, topped up by savings and income from other sources. He never envisaged it—as sometimes I get the flavour that the Opposition do—as the sole source of pensioners' incomes, and it is a perversion of his ideals to suggest that. It is the Conservative side of the House that follows the Beveridge principles, and it does so in a fashion that the Opposition can never begin to comprehend.
  For the future, I believe that we can now look forward to a prospect that would have been unbelievable some years ago. We can now anticipate not merely the two-pension family with one state and one occupational pension, but also the four-pension family. Far more married women now work, and the abolition of the reduced rate married woman's national insurance contribution means that increasing numbers of women will have entitlement to a state basic pension in their own right, probably with an earnings-related supplement, as well as an occupational pension. Those trends mean that the steady improvement in pensioner incomes which we have seen over the past seven years should continue as the whole House hopes. That is our priority for pensioners— independence, security and choice—and that is what they have been getting since 1979.
  Let us now consider the Opposition's propositions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West again mentioned the increase of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for married couples that he proposes to make in Labour's first year of office, should that be achieved by the principal Opposition party. That may seem a clear-cut promise, but it is not. For one thing, despite repeated challenges and opportunities, the hon. Gentleman still has not clarified whether the full value of this pledged increase will go to the poorest pensioners through an increase in supplementary benefit scale rates and housing benefit needs allowances. Without this, the full benefit of any increase will go only to the better-off pensioners. I am glad to say that there are more of those around now than there were eight years ago, but it is extraordinary that the Opposition's policy is still apparently to help the better-off pensioner and to ignore the poorest. This is, after all, a debate on priorities for the elderly. [Interruption] The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) scoffs; perhaps he can answer this question. The Opposition have not made it clear whether the long-term sick and disabled and widows are to be included in their proposals. At present they get the same as retirement pensioners. The reason the Opposition have
  302
  been so coy is simple. Because of the cost, the poorest will be ignored in the electoral bribe that the Labour party will offer the people in the coming months.
  We have been told repeatedly that the Opposition expect to raise about £3·6 billion from tax increases. I stress again, for the umpteenth time, that unless the Labour party denies help to the poorest, to widows and to the disabled, the price of its pledges is not £3·6 billion, or even £4·6 billion, but £5·6 billion. To put it into context, it is a quarter of the spending on the Health Service. Most people can spend only the money that they actually have, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West promises to spend several times more than that every time he comes to the Dispatch Box.
  Moreover, the Opposition seem to have forgotten, if they ever heard it, the very sound advice offered to people in glasshouses. They have criticised the size of recent pension upratings and have offered increases of £5 and £8 as their alternative, but at no time in the two years since that alternative was first aired have they contemplated uprating that promise. Prices have risen by 7·8 per cent. since then, but the Opposition's offer to pensioners has not changed. I understand why, but something seemed familiar when it occurred to me that it had not been uprated, so I cast a backward look at the Labour party's record when it had the opportunity to do something about pensions.
  The Labour party came to office in February 1974 with a pledge to increase the single person's pension to £10 in the first Budget. The Labour Government fulfilled that pledge, and all credit to them for doing so, but that single increase accounted for about three quarters of the total increase in real terms over the whole life of their Administration—one large increase to implement their electoral bribe and then the pensioners were largely forgotten. Is that to be the pattern as they approach the next election?
  Between July 1974 when that manifesto promise was implemented and November 1978, the real increase was just over 5 per cent.—1 per cent. per year in a period when the Opposition like to claim that pensions were being uprated by the better of prices or earnings. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that Labour will go back to that golden age if they win the next election. It is curious that they have erased entirely from their memory the fact that in 1976 they switched from a historic to a forecast uprating method precisely to cut the pension uprating by a third. Pensions should have gone up by 21 per cent. to match the increase in prices, but they went up by only 15 per cent. and the 6 per cent. loss was never made good. That switch cost about £1·2 billion at current prices. Moreover, in November 1978 the forecast increase in pensions fell short of the statutory obligation by a further 2 per cent.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: For the third time.
  Mr. Major: Yes, for the third time, as my hon. Friend says in astonishment. That legacy was left to a Conservative Government to honour, as was the additional cost of SERPS and the abolition of the married women's half-test. Nor is that all.
  Broadening the horizon beyond the basic pension itself, the Labour record is one of total and unrelieved gloom. If we examine it—I suspect this will be painful to

  303
  Opposition Members—we find that savings, which on average accounted for 14·6 per cent. of pensioners' net incomes in 1974, had declined, both absolutely and as a proportion, to only 12 per cent. by 1979. For every year the Labour party was in office, the value of pensioners' income from savings declined by 3·4 per cent. in real terms because runaway inflation overwhelmed interest rates and pensioners had to live on their capital. That was the reality.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Has not my hon. Friend missed something in his account of the Labour party's record? Did not the Labour Government get the economy into such a mess that they could not pay the pensioners' Christmas bonus for two successive years?
  Mr. Major: I had not forgotten that—I was about to come to it—but there is now no need for me to do so.
  One further point should, however, be made. I am not talking about rich people whose losses might be regarded with equanimity by Labour Members. I am talking about the average of all pensioners, including many elderly people who worked hard all their lives to have a bit extra in retirement and found it utterly destroyed by the calamity of inflation engendered by the Labour Government's economic policies.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West might also like to know that under his party's policies pensioners' total incomes from non-state sources reduced steadily by more than 2 per cent. each year. The House will be interested to know that, on average, pensioners' total net income—the amount they had to spend—increased by a massive 0·6 per cent. per year over the period 1974 to 1979. That is the true record of the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office, and it is a melancholy record for the pensioners who had to live through that period.
  I will say this for the Labour party, however. It is true that pensioners did better than the rest of the population in that party's last period of office, but that is not saying a great deal as its record for pensioners shows. The harsh reality of that period was of pensioners becoming steadily more dependent on State sources because of the Labour Government's failure to provide economic security for the balance of their incomes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West tells me frequently, in the context of means-tested benefits, that pensioners do not wish to come to the Government for support, and I agree. They are proud and independent and they do not wish to do that. But that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman and his party brought about when they were in power. The House can judge the Labour party's policy by its results—0·6 per cent. per year growth in pensioners' incomes. We shall hang that figure round the Opposition's neck whenever they boast of their record on pensions, and we shall compare it with the 2·7 per cent. per year growth in real incomes after inflation since 1979.
  The Opposition chose today to debate priorities for pensioners, but their need to examine their own priorities before questioning ours is substantial. Their record in the past was appalling and their promises for the future are unachievable. I urge the House to reject with contempt their impudent motion and to support the Government amendment.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I wish to make a brief intervention in the debate because I have a deep respect for
  304
  pensioners. Indeed, I believe strongly that pensioners, having given the best years of their lives to the country, are entitled to expect a return that allows them to live in comfort and dignity. Having listened to the Minister's speech, while I do not doubt for one second a single statistic that he has given, I do not believe that his speech will carry much weight with pensioners.
  Mr. Forth: Why not?
  Mr. Smith: It is not that pensioners do not believe that the figures are true, but, frankly, they are interested in how much money they will get today, rather than how much they got in 1974. They are interested in what that money can buy them and the present Government's policies. A pensioner of 60, 75 or 80 is utterly bored with the long list of statistics about what this lot did and what that lot did or what happened in 1972 or in 1979. That means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of pensioners. I strongly advise the Minister and the Front Bench to abandon the statistical argument and get down to the realities of the position.
  It is nonsensical to imply that millions of pensioners are starving or living on the poverty line, but it is equally nonsensical to imply that pensioners have never had it so good. Despite all the statistics that we have been given, the fact is that the living standards of pensioners still leave a great deal to be desired. We have heard the Minister brag about how much money pensioners save and so forth, but one of my major criticisms of the Government, especially as they are supposed to believe in free enterprise and thrift, is that, with pensioners, such thrift is penalised. The more money that people save in their working lives, the less they receive from the state when they are pensioners. There is a penalty on pensioners' thrift. The Government should answer that complaint.
  Some pensioners live in extremely poor circumstances and that especially applies to single people living alone. Ever since 1980 when the Government broke the pension link with earnings pensioners have lost out. That does not mean that pensioners have received nothing or have riot been reasonably dealt with, but they have lost out. In statistical terms the loss has been £5·95 a week for single people and £9·40 for a couple. That loss is the result of the change in the method of calculating pensions.
  Today, I speak for the alliance and we are wholly committed to returning to a pension system that links pensions with earnings. It is impossible to say that every pensioner will receive an increase under that system as pensioners' present income and income from other sources must be taken into account. However, we shall also scrap standing charges on gas, electricity and telephones. We shall raise heating allowances and we shall certainly do something about the death grant, which is a source of extreme concern among pensioners.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that the alliance will restore the link that operated under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman and his party had a tremendous influence over the final two years of the life of the previous Labour Government. However, in 1978 the Labour Government did not adhere—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly.
  Mr. Maclean: They did not adhere to the earnings link. Moreover, in 1979 the Labour Government broke the rule on the proposed uprating that the hon. Gentleman's party had supported.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the link between the Liberal party and the Labour Government was broken. Certainly that link would have been broken much earlier if I had had my way. I accept that such points may be made, but they are not relevant in 1987—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members come to the House and get all worked up and get their knickers in a twist about all the statistics, but pensioners are not worried about them. We sit here arguing and mithering about all those silly statistics, but they have no relevance to the position of pensioners.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he return to what he said about standing charges? I am concerned about the proposal to abolish standing charges, because that would mean spending large sums to help many people who do not need that help. Is it not wiser to spend the money on those who are desperately in need?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is aware that I have a deep respect for her, but I do not believe that her argument is necessarily correct. It is possible to abolish standing charges and pass the cost of that abolition on to the cost of the consumption of the services. If one uses services, one pays for the portion of the services used rather than, as at present, paying for services one does not receive merely because one has a right to use them. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady does not understand, let me explain further. Let us suppose that we abolish the standing charge on electricity. That does not mean that, as a consequence of abolition, the electricity board's income must be met through public funds. Instead, the price of electricity is increased. Therefore, those using electricity pay for what they use and that replaces the present system whcrein pensioners, through the standing charge, pay for electricity that they never use.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I could understand the hon. Gentleman's argument with regard to a telephone because I regard a telephone as a vital link to the outer world for the elderly and frail. I cannot accept that argument with regard to electricity. In my constituency many pensioners have under-floor heating and they would be horrified if they had to pay per unit for the amount of electricity used. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this year electricity prices have remained static in the north-west. If pensioners had to pay a lot more for their electricity they would be in far worse trouble.
  Mr. Smith: That is a matter of debate, but one thing is certain. We could increase heating allowances and thereby ensure that those allowances go to those who need them. We could ensure that people pay for the electricity that they use rather than, as at present, paying for electricity that they do not use.
  The alliance believe that people have the right to retire at any age between 60 and 70, with a full pension at 65. There should be a graduated pension for people from the age of 60 to 65. However, that type of system can only be introduced over a long period of time.
  An increase in pensions will do more to create jobs in Britain than a 2p in the pound reduction in taxes.
  306
  Pensioners spend their money on goods that produce jobs. The goods that pensioners buy are usually non-imported—that is a statistical fact.
  I shall vote for the motion before the House. It is relevant not only to pensions but to other important matters such as community services and hospital beds—that is an acute problem, especially in my constituency. There is also a tremendous need for community care and beds to care for the elderly. The ability to meet that need is sparse. I have never said—I do not now—that the Government have reduced expenditure on the Health Service. That is nonsense. They have spent more on the Health Service. What matters is not whether they spend more but whether the amount is sufficient to meet needs. There are a growing number of pensioners in this country and we need more money to care for them.
  Pensioners are in desperate need of sheltered accommodation. I wish to place on record the superb, wonderful job that has been done by housing associations in helping to house the elderly and provide sheltered accomodation. However, there is a great deal more to be done.
  The need for community nursing is there for all to see. It is a myth to believe that poverty is the sole problem faced by the aged. There are problems of care and security. I hear pensioners say that they are afraid at night and are frightened to go to bed—I have that problem in my household at the present time. That is a great problem for the elderly. In addition, people are living in conditions that leave a great deal to be desired. Those conditions arise not simply from poverty but from physical handicap, which often comes as a consequence of age, and lack of community care. It is tragic to see that.
  There is a great need to look again at our care for the elderly. They are wonderful, lovely people, deserving of help. The Health Service does not cope adequately with the problem. Community care is inadequate. Far more attention needs to be paid to loneliness, and help should he given to overcome it. We need a caring society. I believe that, basically, at heart, we have a caring society. That is why I believe that the vast majority of people, given an honest choice between 2p off income tax and increased aid to pensioners and the Health Service, would vote for the latter. I honestly believe that to be the case.
  I repeat that what we need is a new approach, a caring approach backed by Government legislation. The alliance will provide that caring approach.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: It has been a most important and encouraging development in our national life that in recent years the principle of care in the community has become so widely accepted and a beacon for social policy. It was a sad and curious feature of our history in the earlier years of this century that that was not the case. Instead, there was an unhappy emphasis, perhaps inherited from the age of the poor law and the workhouse, on segregation and institutionalisation of the elderly and the frail. We can all be deeply glad that in recent years that attitude has given way to a much more open and constructive attitude, when it is far more widely accepted that the elderly are in no sense to be regarded as a problem in society. They are a group within society with distinctive needs, like other groups. We look for practical and constructive ways to help them to meet those needs and make the contribution that they can make as fully fledged

  307
  members of society for as long as possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that we have a caring society, and that is one of its manifestations.
  One of the best examples of care in the community in recent years is the very sheltered housing that has been pioneered in Warwickshire, in the Stratford-on-Avon district. It is a model that commands international admiration and is being increasingly emulated. It originated a few years back when the social services committee of Warwickshire county council and the housing committee of Stratford-on-Avon district council together considered what the pattern should be for part III provision for old people's homes. At the same time, they wanted to consider how to improve the existing provision of sheltered housing. They felt that it was much better to take the route of improving sheltered housing, moving forward to new and improved concepts in that area, rather than to retain the old approach of old people's homes.
  Two key features of the councils' thinking proved to be creative. One was the recognition that the typical standard of staffing in sheltered housing was not adequate. It was unrealistic and unreasonable to expect a single warden, low-paid, and possibly not provided with accommodation on the site, to take responsibility, on call seven days a week, for perhaps up to 40 residents. One of the reasons why sheltered housing was proving unsatisfactory was that the demands on staff were intolerable.
  The second consideration was that the typical standards of design were inadequate. Design standards were set out in circular 69/82, which, I regret to say, is still a current circular, setting standards in important respects. Those standards were inadequate. The councils sought to update and upgrade the standards of sheltered housing. They set about a 10-year programme of building what they termed very sheltered housing. The architectural design would be up to wheelchair standards. There would be no single steps, and the door frames would be wide enough for wheelchairs and for people to pass through with walking frames. The councils also thought imaginatively and sensitively about the residents' need for privacy and for adequate but discreet staffing.
  Those standards have been achieved. The key to success in developing the new very sheltered housing complexes and administering them satisfactorily, as has proved possible, was that there was close and willing coordination not only between the housing committee of the district council and the social services committee of the county council, but with the Health Service and the Department of Health and Social Security on the social security side. At local level, the local authorities and the health authority were running ahead of Whitehall thinking. One of their earlier difficulties was to persuade the Department of the Environment and the DHSS in Whitehall to endorse the approach that they wanted to implement.
  Anybody who visits the very sheltered housing in south Warwickshire—for example, Melville house in Stratfordon-Avon, Dell court in Henley-in-Arden, Malt Mill lane in Alcester, or one of the other seven purpose-built very sheltered housing complexes—will be not only impressed but moved by the positive and happy atmosphere there. Very sheltered housing meets the wants of elderly people. It becomes immediately clear to anybody who goes there that those elderly people do not feel that they are on the conveyor belt that leads from home to sheltered housing, and then, when sheltered housing becomes too difficult,
  308
  into an old people's home and eventually into hospital where they will ail and die. That is not the pattern. Very sheltered housing is a place where people go to form a new community and to enjoy an extended lease of active life and where they are fulfilled as individuals.
  The principle is applicable as much in the private as in the public sector. While the pioneering was done in the public sector, there is now a fairly rapid development of very sheltered housing in the private sector. There is immense scope for that. There have been major changes, which have to be taken into account in the making of social policy. It is a new and important fact that now 56 per cent. of people approaching retirement are owner-occupiers. They have a substantial capital asset. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, it is also important that we are now witnessing the emergence of families with second, third, or even fourth pensions. Purpose-built very sheltered housing in the private sector, offering flats or bungalows for sale, provides the means for those assets to be mobilised and released into the most relevant, effective application for people's needs as they get older.
  I should declare an interest as an unpaid director of Retirement Security, one of the most progressive private enterprise firms providing very sheltered housing. It 'was founded by Mr. Robert Bessell, the former director of social services in Warwickshire, who was anxious to explore the possibilities of extending to the private sector what had been so successfully pioneered in the public sector.
  It is cost-effective for the state to work in partnership with the private sector in this area. In this way, the responsibility, which, as a society, we all share, can be discharged at minimum cost to the taxpayer. There is large scope for a legitimate, cost-effective, mutually beneficial partnership between the social security system and private enterprise. Help can be given to residents in private sector very sheltered accommodation if they run into difficulty with mortgage interest payments or rent payments, or over service charges and rates. Help can be given towards heating costs. They can be helped by way of supplementary pensions, housing benefit and other appropriate welfare benefits, in the same way as any other of our citizens are entitled to benefits.
  It is important that the authorities scrutinise each very sheltered housing scheme and each individual claimant case by case. Our experience in Warwickshire is that the authorities do so. We have to safeguard against the abuses that might emerge in such a situation, but there is no difficulty with that.
  If the state, on this cost-effective basis, could work with the private sector in helping 50 to 60 per cent. of the elderly population—it would take a long time to move to those proportions—the virtue of that would be not only the good care that the 50 to 60 pr cent. would receive, but that the state would then be able to concentrate the lion's share of its resources on helping the 40 per cent. of pensioners who are not well off and the proportion who, sadly. can only be described as poor.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale paid tribute to the role of housing associations. That is the third leg. It is excellent that we have the public sector in local authority provision, housing associations and the private sector working together and working also in competition. Each is exploring the possibilities of innovation. Each is trying to develop new standards of best practice. That must be of advantage to society.

  309
  I mentioned standards of best practice. Central Government and local authorities have an important role to play in ensuring that standards are adequate, that best practice becomes better known and that what is regarded as the minimum standard is progressively lifted. I offered the reflection that the design standards stipulated in circular 69/82 were less than adequate in today's circumstances. I am glad that the Government, in circular 80/1, for example, lifted the standard that they envisaged for the provision of lifts. It is disgraceful that in private as well as in public sector developments it is possible to find four-storey buildings without lifts. I can think of one conversion of an old workhouse, which is far too much like the old workhouse.
  Central and local government have a responsibility to ensure that standards are adequate. I should like to see a system of registration by private developers in this sector, and I should like to see the state undertaking a monitoring responsibility. I am always reluctant to advocate any increase in bureaucracy, but in this case we must recognise that old people are vulnerable. There is an indispensable role for the state in ensuring that their vulnerability is not taken advantage of. Pensioners are vulnerable to unscrupulous developers. I do not suggest that there are large numbers of unscrupulous developers in this sector, but there is a possibility of that. Pensioners are vulnerable to unscrupulous finance houses which sell them annuities on confiscatory terms. Pensioners are vulnerable to muggers. They would be vulnerable to the inflation that the Labour party would unleash again, devastating their savings.
  The Government have rightly been praised this afternoon for their achievement in preserving the value of the retirement pension against the retail prices index. It has been a paramount necessity to restrain public expenditure in the interests of controlling inflation. No single aspect of public policy has proved to be more in the interests of our pensioners than bringing inflation down in the manner that we have. It was difficult even to preserve the value of the retirement pension in a period when not only were there important constraints on public expenditure, but the number of retired people in the population was increasing. As a result of the emergency in our public finances that we inherited in 1979, and subsequently during the recession, it was not possible to do more than limit the increase in the retirement pension to the increase in the RPI. We are now in a different period, with different circumstances. The number of people reaching the age of 65 years is stabilising, and the element of all retired people in our population will progressively stabilise. At the same time, the economy is prospering impressively. We have reached a point at which it is reasonable to say that our 9 million pensioners should share in the growing wealth of the nation.
  In his opening speech my hon. Friend the Minister quoted Beveridge, who said that it is dangerous to be in any way lavish with old age. Nobody is contemplating the possibility of lavishness for our retirement pensioners, but the time has come when we can increase the real value of the retirement pension. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him whether, in his .forthcoming Budget, when it is anticipated that he will have some spare
  310
  capacity, he will over-index against inflation the allowances that are directly relevant to pensioners. In particular, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will feel able to increase the retirement pension by more than the general level of inflation.
  I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether the RPI is the right measure for retirement pensions. It is a matter of some disappointment to some of us, at a time when the Government have been reconsidering the components of and are rebasing the RP1, that they may not have sufficiently taken this consideration into account. We all know that the components for expenditure of the pensioner commonly do not include items such as mortgages or the expense of running a car, which the generality of the population expects to incur. We would all agree that the retirement pension could reasonably be measured against a special basket of expenses that are more representative of the expenses that pensioners incur. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give sympathetic consideration to that point.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): Is my hon. Friend aware, as is the case, that the pensioners' price index gives a less favourable picture for pensioners than the RPI? Pensioners do better with the RPI. That is an important aspect which pensioners should realise.
  Mr. Howarth: My request to my hon. and learned Friend was that he would look sympathetically at the point that I mentioned. It is worth further exploration. I know that my hon. and learned Friend would like to find a formula that was of the most benefit to pensioners.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: Thankfully, this subject has now been given the serious consideration that it warrants. The problem that the vast majority of elderly people face is simple—they do not receive enough money to live on. All of us, whatever party we belong to, whatever side of the House we sit on, represent pensioners. It was unbelievable to hear some of the comments that were made at the start of the debate. What are the comments of the Members who were making those statements when they visit, as I am sure they do, pensioner organisations in their constituencies? We all do that. I am sure that many pensioners would have been appalled at some of the comments that were made this afternoon.
  Already, we have heard that next month, when the Chancellor presents his Budget, there will be a lot of money to be given away. I wonder how many pensioners will benefit from that. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made the valid point that one of the priorities in the Budget should be realistic increases in retirement pensions. The Minister must know that recent increases of 40p and 80p have been received with disgust by pensioners. It is time that we did something far more constructive for them in the level of pensions that they receive.
  The number one priority for pensioners is being able to keep their homes warm, and rightly so. Many of us who have a little time to go before we become pensioners often feel cold. We know what it is like. We know that often pensioners live in housing that lacks modern amenities,

  311
  and it is essential that they keep their homes warm. The tragedy is that the present heating allowances are inadequate. When we visit pensioners' clubs, this point is made repeatedly to us. Whatever be the existing heating allowance, it is inadequate for the vast majority of pensioners, many of whom, in weather such as that which we have had this winter, have to make a choice between keeping warm and having a properly balanced diet. Both of those are crucial.
  The much publicised extra £5 heating allowance was something, but I cannot be more generous about it than that. How many people have benefited from it, and for how many weeks was the benefit paid? I have one of the leaflets being supplied at the local DHSS office, and it looks attractive. It says:
  "Extra help with heating costs when it is very cold … You may be able to get an extra £5 for every very cold week if you get supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement."
  However, on an inside page the leaflet sets out the savings requirement, which appals pensioners. Under the heading "Savings", the leaflet says:
  "You can get this help only if at the time of your claim you and your partner or your children have less than £505 in savings between you."
  That is a scandalous approach when people need adequate heating allowances. Many pensioners have that sum of money for a particular reason, about which we all know. Pensioners want to know that when, as we all will do, they pass on, they will have adequate funds for a decent and dignified burial. We all know how much funerals cost. I beg the Minister and his Department to look again at the restrictions on this allowance, inadequate though it is. For a reasonable funeral and headstone, one is talking about £1,000 and to refuse the heating allowance to those with more than £505 in savings is scandalous. I hope that the Minister will do something about it.
  My hon Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made several points that should be mentioned again— for example, that about home help. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has disappeared. He made an intervention and read from an obvious handout, but has not returned to the debate. He gave the number of home helps in his area, and if he has got the figure right, he is very lucky. The vast majority of us know that there is an appalling shortage of home helps in our areas.
  Recently, I had to contact Age Concern because a lady in her 80s could not get a home help and, as a result, she could not have her weekly pension because there was no one to draw it for her. To its credit, Age Concern was able to help. As other hon. Members have said, many voluntary organisations do wonderful work in our communities. Home helps are vital for the elderly and disabled, and we have a long way to go in the provision of them.
  The Minister quoted figure after figure, all of which sounded impressive, but, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, those figures do not impress pensioners because they have to live with the day-to-day issues. For example, Members of Parliament are for ever fighting battles about hospital closures. In my constituency, and in many other areas, elderly people are being discharged from hospital far too quickly. I can name names of constituents who have been sent home too soon but have been told by the administrator at St. George's hospital, Tooting, that their neighbour or friend should keep an eye on them. It is an indictment of our day and age that elderly people at risk are discharged from hospital
  312
  long before they should have been, and without the proper back-up services when they need them, possibly more than at any other time.
  Another problem is the rundown in the ambulance service. All of us—
  Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read the Order Paper carefully, and it seems to me that we can talk about health matters in the next debate rather than in this one.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Cox: I note your comment, Mr. Speaker, but, with great respect, I must point out that, while Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, we discussed these topics, and hon. Members who have spoken before me have made comments similar to mine. Elderly people are concerned not only about the amount of pension that they draw, but about many other issues that concern their standard of living within their community and their home.
  We have a long way to go before any of us can be happy about the priority given to pensioners. As hon. Members have said, at the beginning of the debate there was an attempt to confuse the real issue by giving countless statistics. The tragedy for millions of people is that. if they are poor, they do not get adequate pensions to maintain the standard of living to which they are entitled. Until they do, there will be many problems for them to live with. When the Chancellor presents his Budget, whatever give-aways he may have, the greatest credit would come to the Government if the biggest give-away, in the form of realistic pensions, went to the retired people.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), reversing the roles at the time of my maiden speech, which was about pensioners. The hon. Gentleman was very kind to me at that time. The House listened with great interest to his speech and I know that he speaks with authority. This time he did not make the same speech as the one that he made eight years ago, but he made it with the same sincerity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that the figures bandied about in the House do not mean much to pensioners, but all hon. Members are at fault there and I am glad that in the last couple of speeches we have discussed the real problems that face our pensioners and the priorities of the elderly.
  The hon. Member for Tooting said that hon. Members talk to pensioners' associations. One of my regrets is that pensioners' associations in my constituency do not always reflect the real needs of the pensioners. Too many times they get involved in political arguments far beyond the real need and the welfare of their members. Pensioners' associations would be well advised to take that into account in formulating future policies.
  Inevitably, we heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) squealing about the Government's record. My hon. Friend the Minister of State put the hon. Gentleman right about various figures. Pensioners do not need friends like the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his party— the party that raised inflation to such an extent that pensioners' savings were deeply eroded. It is the party that gave pensioners a Christmas bonus and then had the gall to take it away. Now the Opposition are

  313
  making false promises which they know in their heart of hearts they cannot fulfil during the lifetime of a Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was quite right when he said that it may well be that, on the sad day for Britain of a Labour Government being returned, they would implement immediately those promises. However, their record between 1974 and 1979 gives the lie to any promise that they make. It would cost an enormous amount of money and our taxpayers cannot afford it. The Opposition are fuelling false hopes among pensioners. That is cruel and will place pensioners in a desperate situation. My party and the Government take a realistic view about the growing burden on the public sector of pensioners and old people. We must welcome the fact that medical science has seen to it that old people live longer. The average age of the population is rising quite dramatically, and older people deserve and obviously need more expensive services. The burden on the public purse will increase dramatically towards the end of the century. I remind the House of a salient fact. There are more people alive today in the world than have ever died. We must remember that when talking about future pension policies.
  I shall confine my remarks to the part of the motion about community care and residential homes. They are important and, as the motion says, an absolute priority for the elderly. My remarks are based on experience of visiting local authority homes in my own area during the eight years or so that I have been a Member of this House and during the previous four years when I was a candidate. Two obvious trends have emerged. First, the number of homes provided by local authorities and, more dramatically, those provided privately has grown.
  Secondly—and this is an important point—the nature and character of the people in those homes is such that their increasing frailty has placed an enormous burden on the staff. In parts of my constituency residential homes have become almost nursing homes. The tragedy is that the members of staff who man them so ably are not trained as nurses and do not have the medical expertise to cope with the residents. Consequently, there is enormous strain upon the staff individually and in terms of the number required. Inevitably, there is also an enormous strain on the facilities that are needed. Because of the frailty of the residents, they need increasing and better facilities.
  I am pleased to see in his place my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He will know that the report of Bedfordshire county council on the social services is still being compiled and has been brought to our attention. I shall quote briefly from that report. It talks about the trend in the condition of residents in these homes. It says:
  "Since 1978 there has been a growing conviction that residents have significantly increased in physical and mental frailty and hence in their dependence on staff for the normal functions of daily life."
  As I say, that has come about because of the enormous growth in the population of the elderly because people are living longer. Secondly, and rather ironically, it has come about as a result of the increased and improved home care service which means that old people are staying longer in their homes. Of course we all support that, but when finally they have to go into a residential home they are far more frail than was the case in the past. There is a definite
  314
  message from the staff of these homes that the nature of the residents has changed and the staff is finding it increasingly difficult to cope. I should like to add my tribute to those paid to the staffs of those homes and especially to the staffs of the homes in my constituency. They are doing a magnificent job, sometimes under very difficult conditions.
  There is a definite change in the situation and the Bedfordshire report says that the proportion of residents who are virtually independent of need has decreased since 1978 by about 85 per cent and that over the same period those partly dependent on need has decreased by some 77 per cent. Perhaps more significantly it says that the number of people who are now virtually totally dependent on staff has gone up by 75 per cent. That means that the members of staff have to give an enormous amount of time to the residents and in many cases they can ill afford that time. Incontinence, immobility, and the confusion of residents have risen dramatically—to such an extent that many residents need assistance just to get up in the morning and get themselves ready for the day ahead.
  I repeat that residential homes have almost become mini hospitals or nursing homes, but they do not have the staff to cope. Various things ought to be done. First, we must all ensure that better use is made of the available resources. I am not necessarily calling for increased resources, because many county council social service departments could spend money better. My county council in Bedfordshire would be far better employed spending money to meet the needs of old people in residential homes than on making Bedfordshire a nuclear free zone or spending money on anti-apartheid campaigns.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West is wrong. It is not an increase in numbers of staff that we need. We must look at the quality of the staff who care for the patients in our residential homes.
  We must encourage the private sector. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who spoke about sheltered accommodation. The private sector has mushroomed and the Government have had to take certain steps to ensure that the private homes are adequately and properly supervised and adequately funded.
  I am glad to see in her place my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I am reminded of the story that she told some years ago in a national newspaper about two patients in a residential home. One of them paid the full amount of £120 or £130 because she had saved throughout her life and had money in the bank. The other patient was her greatest friend, and her husband had messed about, spent all his money and died and left his widow penniless. Both those patients enjoyed exactly the same facilities. I think that the hon. Member for Rochdale raised this matter when he talked about a penalty on thrift. We have got to get this right. There is something wrong somewhere if those who have saved during their lives—that we want to encourage—are now penalised because they have money in the bank.
  We must encourage the idea that elderly people must be able to be kept at home in comfort. Some form of tax assistance must be given to those who are willing to keep them. It is an enormous burden on a family for an old person to stay within that family. As much as the family might like to keep the old person with them, in some cases it becomes impossible. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a little more

  315
  assistance by some form of tax concession to those who are willing to keep their old people with them. That would encourage people to do so.
  I applaud the new moves by my own local borough council which is trying to turn one of our tower blocks into a block for old people. Right hon. and hon. Members know of the great difficulties we all have with tower blocks, especially Members such as the hon. Member for Tooting. Luton borough council is now trying to encourage pensioners to move into one of our tower blocks so that it can be used specifically for old people, with the necessary security and warden control. That sort of policy needs to be encouraged.
  Old people require very little. They want to retain their independence, and we must respect that. Many of them want to stay at home, and, again, that must be respected. They want to retain their dignity. They do not want to receive bribes or free handouts which they feel that they might get as special, privileged members of society. They would rather stand on their own feet. Above all, they want comfort and security, and part of that security comes from low inflation so that they are encouraged to save, their savings are not eroded and, as the hon. Member for Tooting said, so that they can save for their funeral expenses, which is often a great priority in their financial independence.
  I believe that the Government, by their policy and by the fact that we have retained and increased the pension well above the rate of inflation, thus increasing spending power, have treated pensioners extremely well. I believe, hope and know that they will give us a vote of confidence when the day comes. We deserve it, and they deserve our support.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: One of the tests of any civilised society must be the extent to which the needs and aspirations of its elderly are looked after. By that standard the record of the Government is lamentable. I do not believe that they are meeting any of their basic obligations to elderly people.
  In my constituency there are more than 8,000 pensioners, many of whom have nothing which in any way approaches a decent standard of life. I was going to try to deal with some of the technicalities of the statistics quoted earlier but time does not pemit that. However, it is sufficient to say that many of the pensioners in my constituency do not have much in the way of savings, nor have they been fortunate enough to receive the benefit of an occupational pension scheme. They do not perceive themselves to be well off at all. In fact, they perceive themselves, in relative terms, to have a declining standard of life.
  The supply of suitable housing for elderly people has been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. Again, I was going to deal with some of the statistics in my own borough and mention how the provisions, certainly in terms of capital resources through the Housing Corporation and the housing investment programme allocations, do not meet the needs identified by the local authority. Perhaps I can mention one good example of a scheme that is dealing adequately with the aspirations of a particular group of pensioners and that might be a model way of providing housing for many groups of pensioners in the future.
  316
  The Huyton Community Co-operative for the Elderly is a body that I played a small part in setting up. It is not in my constituency; it is in the neighbouring constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). That co-operative has a two-phase programme. The first is providing 24 units of accommodation for elderly people at a total scheme cost of £750,000 and the second envisages building 35 bungalows. Those two phases are funded through the Housing Corporation and will meet the needs of the tenant-co-operators.
  If anyone ever visits these schemes once they are completed, in many respects they probably will not look dissimilar from other straightforward housing association schemes. What is important is that the elderly people who are going to live there, who were nominated by the local authority, will, for the most part, have been involved in the scheme before the design was completed. They would have been involved with architects in drawing up the design for the scheme. That seems to be an eminently sensible way of providing housing for the elderly. For all we in this House and elsewhere may sympathise and feel strongly about issues affecting the elderly, it is they who know the difficulties they face in their everyday lives and it is they who know what design features would help to overcome them.
  I now want to raise the issue of how elderly people are consulted and listened to about the things which affect their lives. Much as I accept entirely the manifesto laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I believe that the involvement and representation of elderly people by elderly people has to be a significant part of any future programmes, whether we are talking about housing, pensions, health or whatever. I pay tribute to the National Pensioners' Convention, led by Jack Jones who is the president of that excellent body. He is the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union— [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it Is important that people like Jack Jones with organisational skills should put those skills to work on behalf of other elderly people when they retire. That would certainly apply just as well to retired company executives.
  It is crucial that pensioners are represented not just in this place and on local authorities, but in their own organisations which are manned and led by their own people. Once those organisations, whether locally, regionally or nationally, are in place it would be difficult, with the growing proportion of the population which is elderly, for any Government ever again to get away with the appallingly bad way in which this Government have treated the elderly.
  6.27 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: In the true debating sense which does not always obtain in the House, I rise to respond to a speech made by my hon. Friend—I am not making a mistake when I say that— the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Let us acknowledge that we all care about elderly people, and no one in the House wants to see poor old people who cannot feed, warm or house themselves properly. Let us instead, therefore, address ourselves to the difficulties, because the difficulties are very real.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said that he wanted to abolish standing charges for gas and electricity

  317
  to help elderly people. Many people believe that the cost starts only when one turns on the tap. In fact, that is not so, because it costs money to make power or water available to one's house. Therefore, someone has to pay that money. When, after the hon. Member for Rochdale had said that the alliance's intention would be to cancel standing charges, I suggested that that would help everyone indiscriminately, whether they were wealthy or poor, he manfully faced the question and explained that he realised that it would cost a lot of money but that the money would be gained by increasing the cost of electricity. I want the House to know that the gas and electricity undertakings looked into that possibility and found that using a low amount did not necessarily mean a person was poor, because, for instance, many people with two homes, such as some of the holiday homes in Wales, use very little electricity, and they would benefit from that scheme. We all want to help pensioners and we must address ourselves to these real difficulties.
  Many people will agree with my hon. Friend that it would be much better to increase pensions than to take 2p off income tax, and to that extent I agree with him. However, it would be better still to take more pensioners out of the tax bracket altogether because many people on pensions are paying income tax. That is what I should like to address myself to.
  My final point is about penalising thrift. People used to save money for a rainy day, but they do not save it any more because the Government provide the umbrella. It cannot be right that the Government should pay for items with taxpayers' money— many taxpayers are poorer than the recipients—when the recipients themselves have enough money in the bank to pay for those items. I do not find it easy to meet that third difficulty either.
  If only we would address ourselves across the House to solving those genuine problems, we could get somewhere.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: 1987 is a year for elderly people in Wales as it is the 40th anniversary of Age Concern Wales. Obviously, it is an appropriate time for this debate.
  Demographic factors are ensuring that the position of pensioners will be a dominant political issue for the next decade. Between 1981 and 1996 there will be a 28 per cent. increase in the number of people over the age of 75. Between 1983 and 2001 there is a forecast increase of 73 per cent. in those over 85 on an all-Wales level. In my county of Gwynedd the number of those aged over 80 will increase from the 1985 figure of 8,782 to the 1996 projection of 11,117. Those are real people who will need real care. That is why we need to pay attention in this debate to our spending priorities for both pensions and the services that are important to those people.
  As pensioners live longer beyond retiring age, their capital expenditure items, such as clothing, washing machines and painting the house, often become an increased cyclical burden. Pensioners must face them perhaps two or three times after they retire, which becomes a real burden because their savings are eroded as they grow older. That is a burden particularly for single household pensioners. In Wales 27·7 per cent. of all pensioners live in single households and in my constituency the figure is 33 per cent. That shows the extent of the burden. There is
  318
  a need to increase the resources available and, in particular, to give an extra differential to those in single households to meet those costs. There is also a need for a review of the benefits available.
  I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the mobility allowance for those over 75— we should not write them off and say that they have no right to mobility—and the death grant. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the anxiety of many people about having enough money to pay for their funeral. As we all die, the state could bear a reasonable proportion of the cost of that.
  The motion refers to services. Home helps and nursing services certainly need to be further developed to enable elderly people to remain in the community. Perhaps we need a new hybrid person who is a mixture between a home help and a home nurse to focus the attention and help that is needed. We also need more multi-disciplinary teams playing a crucial role where old people live. Perhaps there should be one such team for every general practioner area.
  More thought is needed in constructing bungalows, sheltered housing and service flats about the needs of elderly people as demographic features change. We also need to look carefully at the joint planning and joint funding approach. Gwynedd area health authority recently told me:
  "The majority of frail elderly persons and their carers require support from both statutory agencies but the separateness of their organisational and management systems together with major differences in the priority and funding of services leads to a totally disjointed provision at the 'sharp end'."
  We should take that message home.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) that we should listen to what elderly people have to say. At the last annual general meeting of Wales pensioners, 10 points were drawn up as a charter. I shall summarise them in headings. They are the substantial increase in the value of pensions; the abolition of standing charges; the linking of pensions with average earnings and the retail prices index; the amendment of the Social Security Act 1986, which is worrying many pensioners; improved health care facilities, which we shall debate later; local hospitals, which we shall debate later; the need to establish effective pensioner lobbies so that their voice is heard and people speak on their behalf; a retirement age of 60 for men and women; the cost of funerals to be borne to a greater extent by the public purse; and an end to discrimination against pensioners. Those 10 points made by pensioners should commend themselves to the House.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for the brevity of his remarks, which enables me to contribute to the debate. I am frequently tail-end Charlie on these occasions.
  The House should pay tribute to the courage of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I took part in the debate on cold weather payments. The hon. Gentleman received such a mauling on that occasion, and has done so again this afternoon, by my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members that, if nothing else, one must recognise the courage of the man for coming to the Dispatch Box, albeit with inaccurate information.

  319
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) rightly said that pensioners do not want to hear about statistics, but want to live in the real world. But the fact remains, "by their deeds ye shall know them." During the time in office of the Labour Government, who were propped up by the Liberal party and the hon. Gentleman, who begged us to forget about the record of that Government, I was in local government and pensioners had their savings base eroded. They need to be reminded of the past. They cannot be allowed to forget it because there is nothing to stop the past returning. That is the lesson of history. If we return to a high-spending economy without earning it, pensioners will again lose their savings base.
  The Minister reminded us, and it is as well to say it again and again to our pensioners, that after allowing for taxation and inflation between 1974 and 1979 when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was a member of the Labour Government—yesterday he made this point to the Prime Minister and was subsequently corrected—pensioner incomes grew by 0·6 per cent. Under this Government that record is four and a half times better. Our achievement cannot be forgotten and pensioners must be constantly reminded of it.
  The average net income of pensioners has increased from £68·50 in 1974 to £83·10 under this Government. That is twice the growth in income of the population as a whole. No hon. Member, certainly no Conservative Member, says to pensioners, "You have it easy and it is all coming your way" because we know that that is not the case. Pensioners want and deserve more.
  As a young Conservative on an exchange to Austria I was struck by the respect extended by our continental cousins to the elderly parents of the household. They were regarded as the senior members of the household and were not shunted to one side. That made me think that we had a lot to learn from that society. Pensioners receive their dignity, not by relying heavily on the state, but by independence. That is why it was important for many elderly people to receive a second chance to buy their council home and to have the dignity of owning property. Those who experienced the war years when they were young did not have the means to buy their home, but they have subsequently been given that opportunity, which is important.
  The service provided in private homes for the elderly is excellent and no more so than in my constituency. The homes that operate on a proper basis and have registered nurses providing proper care have audited accounts. It would be a big help if the DHSS paid those homes by cheque so that there was no longer an incentive for some of the less scrupulous operators to employ people on a black economy basis and to provide a less reputable service as a result. It is equally important that the planning constraints imposed by the Department of the Environment should he relaxed to allow for the building of more private developments for the elderly. Such developments, especially the recent one in my constituency called Carline Fields by Mercian Holdings, are popular. The one in my constituency is an excellent development for the elderly.
  The debate has given us many issues to ponder. Although we accept that not everything is rosy, we cannot forget the past. If ever the spendthrift policies of the alliance and the Labour party are implemented, the problems of the past will return.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The elderly are a growing proportion of the population. It is expected that in 1991 more than 3 million people will be over 75 and that the number of those over 85 will increase from about 400,000 to 600,000. Those people are entitled to independence and dignity. Little respect was shown for either their independence or their dignity by the behaviour of some Conservative Members at the start of the debate. Frankly, it was disgraceful.
  Retirement should, for the majority, be a time of opportunity. I welcome the campaign run by Age Concern called "Celebrating Age." It seems to select and to catch the right note. It is certainly a better note than the one that the Prime Minister struck when she spoke of the "burden" that the elderly represent on the working population. The Age Concern campaign draws attention to the resources that the elderly represent and reminds us that they are more likely than those in any other age group to be engaged in voluntary work. If the elderly are to have opportunities and are to be able to exercise them to the full, they need assistance and support.
  There are a number of worrying tendencies in the development of policy under this Government. One has been the increased reliance explicitly on charitable care. Cuts in statutory provision have been accompanied by the encouragement and switch of financial support to the voluntary sector, although, as is the pattern with this Government, having cut financial support to the statutory sector, they follow it by cutting support to the voluntary sector. There has certainly been a switch of direction.
  The EEC scheme for distributing food from the food mountains, with its direct use of charities, has used the avenue which the Government must surely understand is the most unfortunate one for that generation which rejects needing to apply for help as a basis for charity. A scheme which provides for charitable payment may be the type of scheme that replaces the present severe weather payments scheme. We know that such a replacement scheme will have to be brought in over the next few months because the existing one will disappear in April next year.
  It is ironic that the present scheme debars those who have made savings from receiving any assistance with their fuel bills. A number of hon. Members have mentioned that. It is ironic, especially as the Government make such a point in their amendment about the value of pensioners' savings. Savings over a particular level debar people from receiving severe weather payments, as from receiving single payments for draught-proofing and from getting help with, for example, transfer from institutional to community care. In so far as the Government have taken the trouble to outline their proposals for the future, they see such help as may be available as more a charity than a right in the sense that the payments will be available only when DHSS staff decide those who have proven need. But the DHSS will not have the funds to help all those whose need is proven.
  Social fund grants or loans for the elderly for transfer into the community will be available only after consideration has been given to whether the patient has saved money out of the benefit paid to him while in the institution and whether relatives, charities or other agencies could give assistance and, if so, how much.
  Presumably, severe weather payments— if they are paid at all—will be on the same basis. It is instructive to

  321
  consider the likely cost of an adequate scheme—not the one that the Government have or are likely to introduce—such as the winter premium which we propose. We calculate that it will cost about £150 million. The Government have implied on a number of occasions that the money for such a scheme cannot be found. Of course, it could have been found even this year had the Government been prepared to divert the £164 million that they spent on marketing the sale of British Gas.
  For more than a year, the Government have been promising to tell us what they intend to do about single payments for draught-proofing, which are due to disappear as well. The programme of energy conservation, which most hon. Members should welcome as being beneficial to pensioners and of benefit to public expenditure, is under threat because of cuts in the Manpower Services Commission's budget for the community programme. Ten thousand places have been lost and 35 planned schemes of draught-proofing are under threat. I suppose that that is at least consistent—short sighted, improvident, but at least consistent—with the fact that the Department of the Environment is cutting its scheme for insulation grants.
  The Minister spoke enthusiastically about the Government's record. We shall have to read Hansard carefully to examine his statistics, since they bear out the experience of neither most pensioners nor most hon. Members—a fact that was clearly evident even in the speeches of Conservative Members.
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
  The figures that the Minister cited managed to steer clear of the record on, for example, housing benefit cuts, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) referred. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been cut from that scheme, mostly to the disadvantage of pensioners and especially those on occupational pensions, which the Minister commended to the House.
  The Minister implied that pensions not only were rising but would go on rising, as would the general income of pensioners. That was extraordinary. Indeed, I think that it comes into the category of misleading the House. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government's policy is to lower pensioners' expectations and ultimately to lower their pensions. The Government have made no secret of that.
  Mr. Major indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is clearly misinformed. It is explicitly the Government's policy to lower pensioners' expectations.
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State has made that clear. The hon. Gentleman was not present to hear what was said so perhaps he is not aware of that fact. The Government have cut the state earnings-relrated pension scheme and occupational pension schemes. They have reduced pensioners' likely expectations, whatever the quarter from which they draw their pension. The Minister had the nerve to boast of the increased pensions that people will draw from either the state earnings-related
  322
  pension scheme or the occupational pension schemes. He knows perfectly well that in the Social Security Act 1986 the Government reduced the likely increases in those pensions.
  Attention has been drawn to the level of cuts. It is the Government Actuary's prediction, not ours— the Government have never questioned or contradicted it—that the fall in the basic pension and in the earnings-related pension will be so severe under the policies introduced last year by the Government that the total pension from both sources will fall below the level of the basic state pension alone. Against that background, it is extraordinary that the Minister should have boasted about the fact that people now do not have to live just on the basic state pension, because many are receiving pension supplements. We welcome those supplements, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government's policy will mean that pensioners will not even get their present pension levels.
  The Minister skated over other aspects of the Government's policy— for example, the way in which heating allowances were abated for the first time ever by the available scale margin and the way in which the amount that the Government have been prepared to pay in heating allowances makes up for about a fifth of the sum that pensioners have lost because of the break in the link between pensions and earnings. The Minister skated over the way in which the costs that pensioners have to meet have increased because of the taxes that the Government have imposed on fuel.
  The Government's policy— if hon. Members doubt this, I recommend that they read what happened in Committee on the Social Security Act, 1986—is, as the Secretary of State has stated repeatedly, to reduce the expectations of pensioners. The Government have already reduced their prospects by cutting all elements of pensioners' income, by their toleration of high levels of unemployment, which in themselves are bound to reduce future pension entitlements, and by their pressure, especially on the low paid, for people to take still lower wages, out of which people cannot possibly save towards their retirement. Under this Government, celebrating age will become more and more difficult for the majority of elderly people. We require different policies and a different Government.
  6.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): There is just one matter of common ground in this debate and that is that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement. The issue is how to provide that good standard of living, how it has been provided in the past and how it should be provided in future. The Opposition have sought to criticise our record and they boast of their priorities. The fact is, they fail on both counts.
  This debate has highlighted in stark terms the difference between the empty hopes and unfulfilled promises of state Socialism and the present Government's real achievements for pensioners over the past eight years based on sound economic policies and the control of inflation. One central truth illuminates the difference between the two systems. That truth is that living standards for pensioners have risen under this Government by more than 18 per cent. in real terms. They have risen twice as fast for pensioners as for the population as a whole and they have risen more

  323
  than four times as fast as the pitiful rate achieved by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, even to say that tends to exaggerate Labour's achievements.
  The Labour Government made one big election promise between the two elections in 1974—to increase the single person's pension to just £10 in their first Budget. The Labour Government fulfilled that promise at the expense of the taxpayer and forthcoming inflation. The next five years brought little but a succession of unfulfilled hopes, broken promises, unpaid Christmas bonuses and the sad sight for pensioners of their savings of a lifetime being crippled by inflation.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has described the sorry catalogue. Pensions were to be uprated by the higher of earnings or prices increases. The Labour Government failed to do that in 1976, depriving pensioners of no less than £1·2 billion which the Labour Government simply could not afford to pay. The Labour Government twice failed to pay the Christmas bonus—in 1975 and 1976. For every year that Labour were in office, the value of pensioners' income from savings declined by 3·4 per cent. in real terms because runaway inflation had overwhelmed interest rates and pensioners had to live on their capital.
  I want to emphasise one point. We may think that not many pensioners had savings. However, 71 per cent. of pensioners have incomes from savings. That 71 per cent. saw their income and that capital decimated by the Labour Government. In November 1978 the forecast increase in pensions once again fell short of the Labour Government's statutory obligation by 2 per cent. It was left to this Government to honour that commitment which Labour could not reach and which they were irresponsible to have given.
  By contrast, under this Government, pensioners' incomes have steadily improved by an average of 2·7 per cent. a year. I notice that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is in his place and he claimed that percentages can be confusing. I understand that. However, if we consider the matter in cash figures, and I give those cash figures in 1985 prices, things become clearer. Under the previous Labour Government, the average income for pensioners at 1985 prices managed to creep up over the whole of the Labour Government's period in office by a mere £2·10. During the period of this Government, simply from 1979 to 1985, pensioners' incomes rose by nearly six times that amount, by £12·50 a week, which is more than £600 a year. That is total net income and money in the pocket. That shows the real improvement that has been achieved by this Government.
  The title of this debate is "Priorities for the Elderly". I want to say a few words about priorities because Opposition Members and others should be very clear on this point. Whether by design or incompetence—and I prefer to believe it is the latter, although I am not quite sure—the priorities of the leaders of the Labour party do not seem to be to help the poor. As we have explained many times, the poor pensioner will gain little or nothing from the promised £5 increase for single pensioners and the promised £8 rise for married couples, since it will almost all—and in many cases all—be clawed back by the means test. That is what the Labour party proposes. Despite being challenged time and again, neither the hon.
  324
  Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) nor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has responded. They must know, even if they did not realise it when they made their promises, that unless they make corresponding increases for those on supplementary benefit, for widows, and the long-term sick and disabled, those groups will benefit little, if at all, from the increases. If those increases are made, the cost will be not £3·6 billion—which is all that the Labour party will have available, and I doubt whether it will have even that—but £5·6 billion.
  The message from the Opposition is, "The poorer you are, the less you will benefit." What a reversal of priorities. It is precisely because of the empty nature of those promises that pensioners would be wise to learn the lessons of history.
  This became a thoughtful debate when my hon Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) made some excellent points. Those tied in with the points made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for outon, North about the importance of sheltered housing. Sheltered housing has been a priority under this Government and will continue to be so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the possibility of considering a different index. Certainly we will consider that point. However, it is interesting to note that the RPI is a great deal better for pensioners than the pensioners' price index. Over the period of this Government leading up to the last uprating, if we had uprated by the pensioners index as against the RPI, pensioners would have been £2·70 a week less well off. That is an important point to remember.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred once again to the 40p and 80p. That must be seen in the context of the fact that we are changing the system so that pensioners no longer have to wait so long for their increases. There have been small increases as a result of lower inflation. However, if we examine a 16-month period, the figures are £3·70 for a single person and £5·95 for a couple. That is a significant help.
  I want to emphasise two comparisons. The first is the comparison of pensioners' income relative to that of the rest of society in this country, and the other is a comparison with Europe. It should be remembered that., because of the growth in occupational pensions, including SERPS, which we are paying on exactly the same basis until the end of the century, and because of the tremendous turn round in pensioners' incomes for savings, covering more than two thirds and approaching nearly three quarters of pensioners, pensioners' incomes have improved twice as fast as incomes for the population as a whole. Furthermore, under this Government, pensioners have moved out of the lowest 20 per cent. of earners to a significant extent. However, when the Labour party left office, 38 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom one fifth of income earners. We have lowered that figure to 25 per cent. There has been a steady improvement for pensioners in the average earning levels across the board.
  Sometimes comparisons are made with Europe. I emphasise that, taking the position as a whole, as the motion enjoins us to do, including total support for elderly

  325
  people and the services that they receive in the form of personal social services and residential and nursing home care, Britain is the third highest provider in Europe.
  The facts disclosed in the debate should be a crushing blow for the confidence of the Opposition, and a heartening boost to the confidence of pensioners. The motion is ignorant and misleading. Our amendment shows the right way, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 273.

  Division No. 101]

  [7.0 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Eadie, Alex

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Flannery, Martin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Forrester, John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Foster, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Freud, Clement

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

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Anthony

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Gourlay, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

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

  Hancock, Michael

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Buchan, Norman

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Ian

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howells, Geraint

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Clay, Robert

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Cohen, Harry

  John, Brynmor

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lambie, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamond, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Deakins, Eric

  Loyden, Edward

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dixon, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dobson, Frank

  McGuire, Michael

  Dormand, Jack

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dubs, Alfred

  McTaggart, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Marek, Dr John

  326

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, William

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Nellist, David

  Stott, Roger

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, William

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Parry, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Patchett, Terry

  Torney, Tom

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, R.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  White, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wilson, Gordon

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Woodall, Alec

  Robertson, George

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, J. W.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Rowlands, Ted

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Ancram, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Batiste, Spencer

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Benyon, William

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

  Best, Keith

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Blackburn, John

  Coombs, Simon

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browne, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  327

  Fallon, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Farr, Sir John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Irving, Charles

  Forman, Nigel

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Forth, Eric

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Freeman, Roger

  Key, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Gale, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Galley, Roy

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Knowles, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Knox, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lang, Ian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Latham, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Gorst, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Gow, Ian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Greenway, Harry

  Lester, Jim

  Gregory, Conal

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Lightbown, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Lord, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Hannam. John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Harvey, Robert

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maclean, David John

  Hawkins. C. (High Peak)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Madel, David

  Heddle, John

  Major, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Malins, Humfrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Maples, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Marlow, Antony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hill, James

  Mates, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Hirst, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Holt, Richard

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Howard, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Moate, Roger

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  328

  Mudd, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Needham, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Speller, Tony

  Newton, Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Portillo, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powley, John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Raffan, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitfield, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Gerald Malone.

  Sims, Roger

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put .forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement. whether their incomes come from state benefits, occupational pensions or savings, notes with approval that the Government's economic policies have reversed the previous sharp decline in the value of pensioners' savings; welcomes the higher level of expenditure on benefits for elderly people even after taking account of provision for one million additional pensioners since 1978; and congratulates the Government on its success in improving pensioners' living standards in both absolute and relative terms.

  Health Care and Services for the Elderly
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable the National Health Service and local councils to provide Britain's elderly people with the services they need, deserve and have paid for.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Dobson: We all know that a growing number of people in our country are living longer. Everyone should welcome that. In terms of history and geography, life expectation has been a measure of the prosperity of a society and can be safely used to compare our society with earlier times or with other contemporary societies, simply on the basis of how long people live. The judgment is usually—the longer, the better. Certainly that is most people's judgment for themselves, their relatives and friends, and so it should be for our country.
  Nothing irritates me more than people who go on about the problems of people living longer and the problem of there being more old people. When it was mainly the well-off who lived for a long time, nobody said that it was a problem, even though some of them sponged on society for all of their lives. Therefore, I should like to know why it is described as a burden when it is ordinary people who are living longer.
  What is needed for all the people who are living longer is a decent standard of life that can be enjoyed by all throughout their extended lives. That includes a reasonable and secure income, somewhere warm and decent to live, a sense of security, and the stimulus of company, together with the practical services that will help them to keep healthy and mobile.
  Under this Government, the living standards of elderly people have not kept up with those of the rest of us—[Interruption.] Apparently, some Conservative Members were not listening to the earlier debate or they would have—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: As somebody who was present during the two Front-Bench speeches in the previous debate, from which, I believe, the hon. Gentleman was absent, I remind the hon. Gentleman of two points that were made. First, his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was holding forth with out-of-date statistics. Secondly, the real living standards of pensioners have actually gone up more during the last few years than the real living standards of the population as a whole; and they have gone up considerably anyhow.
  Mr. Dobson: What the hon. Gentleman asserts is palpably false. The standard of living of most elderly people in this country has not gone up in line with the standards of living of most of the rest of us.
  Keeping warm and having somewhere to live has become more expensive and more difficult for many old people—
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Crime and the fear of crime keeps many of our old people in what amounts to self-imprisonment, denying
  330
  them much of the company that they need and would enjoy. During the last two years of the Labour Government, in the years 1977–78 and 1978–79, crime fell by 4 per cent. If witless Conservative Members cannot remember that, perhaps they can remember that crime has increased by 50 per cent. under this Government, leading to damage to the health, welfare and practical living standards of many old people, because if one decides or chooses— if that is the right word— not to go out because of all those pressures, one's standard of living is considerably reduced.
  The practical services to help elderly people to keep healthy and mobile have not expanded in line with their numbers and needs. Nor has there been any recognition of the need to extend those services so that the quality of life of the increasing number of elderly people may be improved.
  To put things into perspective, we must remember that 95 per cent. of people over 65 live in their own homes and look after themselves, or are looked after by professional or voluntary carers. Some need help to do tasks that are simple for the able-bodied but difficult for them, such as getting in and out of bed or round and about their houses or flats. They may need such assistance when they want to get in or out. Those are simple tasks, but some of the tasks carried out by the professional carers are considerably more complicated and demanding.
  Those services could be expanded but they are not being expanded in line with need, nor are there any significant plans nationally to improve the situation. There has been no increase in the number of community or district nurses devoted to looking after the elderly. There are no plans to do as the health visitors wish and to build up their role in providing continuing care and advice to elderly people in their areas.
  One of the objectives, it is said, of the policies of all Governments is to try to make sure that as many elderly people as possible can stay in their own homes for as long as possible. But, because of the curiosities of the benefit system, there is now a financial incentive to be institutionalised in a private institution. Plainly, that runs contrary to the intentions of the Government and their predecessors in trying to keep people well looked after at home.
  The Government have been keen to expand the provision of private residential care for the elderly, and some of the outfits that provide it are dubious. I shall not talk at length about such an expanding sector, save to point out that many of the private homes, good or bad—quite a few of them are bad—do not last long. It is estimated that about one in three proprietors of small private residential homes go broke or leave their businesses with heavy losses. When they do so, they often leave the residents in a bit of a state because there is no continuity of care.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will nevertheless concede that many people live in private homes. That is where they expect to spend their twilight years. How does the hon. Gentleman think it helps their security when they read about the plans that the Opposition announced last week? They will be driven out of private homes because of the alterations that the hon. Gentleman's party will make to the social security payment. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that will contribute to the well-being of elderly people?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read The Sun's version of what we said last week, which is not likely to reach even to his low intellectual standards. We have given guarantees for any transitional arrangements that cover people in such circumstances. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the present system that he apparently strongly supports, roughly one third of smaller homes go out of business and leave old people bereft of any care or cover. If he is to attack what we suggest is an improvement, he should remember that he has a lot to defend on his own side.
  A further problem is that, even now, in our medical schools, after the recognition by many people outside medical education of the vast increase in the number of elderly people, education in the treament and care of elderly people is not a major requirement, and it should be. The Department of Education and Science and the DHSS should do something about it. Many doctors who were trained years ago are certainly not well versed in dealing with the problems of the elderly. Many general practitioners, social workers and other people who are supposedly helping elderly people are not well aware of the provision available to help them. Last year, the Health Education Council produced a leaflet entitled "Who cares", but it did not reach many carers because its circulation was so low.
  If we examine the basic services for the elderly that are provided by local councils, we see that the councils with the best records seem to be those most often vilified by the chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Of course, they are vilified and mocked also by his friends in the gutter press. Newcastle, St. Helens, Greenwich and Lewisham have three or four times as many home helps per 1,000 elderly people as Tory Surrey or Sussex east or west, Tory Barnet, which is represented by the Prime Minister, or, worst of all, the Liberal-controlled Isle of Wight. If we consider the number of meals supplied per resident over 65, the picture is much the same, with Islington, Haringey and Greenwich supplying three or four times as many as Tory Redbridge or Tory Barnet supply. Overall, between 1979 and 1984, the number of home helps has not kept pace with the number of people over 75, while the number of meals on wheels and luncheon club meals has fallen a long way behind.
  Informal carers—family, neighbours and friends—need a lot more help if they are to keep on caring. All of us recognise the immense burdens that relatives and friends take on in trying to care for elderly people. We must recognise that, if they are to continue to carry out that difficult task, they need respite from it. We need respite care to give the carers a holiday. That requirement has been cut as the number of hospital and local authority beds available for elderly people is reduced.
  When we consider the hospital service, we need to remember that many of the services that are used by the elderly are the same as those used by the rest of us. Care for the elderly cannot stop at the door of the geriatric ward. Indeed, 34 per cent. of patients over 65 are in acute beds—that is, just 1 per cent. fewer than the number of elderly patients getting specific geriatric treatment. Long hospital waiting lists and long waiting times for all sorts of treatment have as adverse an effect on elderly people as they do on the rest of us.
  Some of the changes portrayed as improvements in efficiency do not seem to be so to an elderly patient. What
  332
  a newly appointed general manager logs as improved throughput can seem to an elderly patient like being shifted out of hospital too soon. I understand that some elderly people are referred to by health economists as bed blockers. To the persons concerned, it is simply a way of getting the attention that they need and, over the years, have paid for and have a right to expect.
  The recent increasing problems that hospitals encounter in coping with emergencies hit old people in two ways. Frequently, they are the people who need emergency treatment and for whom it is hard to find a bed. They are also among those who cannot get into hospital because their planned admissions are not possible as beds are full of emergency cases. They are caught out both ways. In case anyone denies that this is happening, I shall quote circumstances that have arisen at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead. It was recently reported:
  "Two 80-year-old patients, who had both suffered strokes, had to wait 25 hours and 14 hours respectively … before beds could be found for them at the Royal Free hospital … the one waiting longest lying on a trolley in a corridor.
  … a 79-year-old woman with peritonitis … had to wait four hours in casualty before a bed could be found for her in the Coronary Care Unit, and an 84-year-old woman … had to be placed in an obstetrics ward."
  That is a bit late for an 84-year-old. It was further reported:
  "Admissions from the waiting list for surgery had come 'virtually to a standstill' and patients were being discharged"—
  as the consultant described it—
  "before they were fit, to make room for others.
  Specialties like dermatology and rheumatology"—
  both of which heavily affect old people—
  "could not admit patients from the waiting list at all".
  This very day, I received a letter telling me what had happened about closures of the Brook general hospital and the Greenwich district hospital to all cold admissions because they were overwhelmed with emergencies. On nine occasions between 19 and 23 January 1985 and in February 1986 that has occurred at Brook general hospital. It has happened twice at the Greenwich district hospital within the same period. That meant that predominantly old people, particularly emergency cases, were filling beds and that other people had to be turned away. When there is difficulty in finding beds, there is usually a long delay before treatment can be given.
  That picture is repeated all over the country, from Barnet to Birmingham. Certain specialties that are available to us all but that are of particular interest to old people frequently command little public attention, or they are not very fashionable in the medical profession. Consequently, they are not well provided for. Rheumatology is a good example. Twenty million people suffer from rheumatism. Some of them are young. many are middle aged, but even more are elderly. Yet about 30 health authorities or health boards in England, Scotland and Wales do not have a single, solitary consultant rheumatologist. Health authorities such as Warrington, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Bolton, Bury, Milton Keynes and North Tyneside do not have a rheumatologist. Twice as many health authorities were described by the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council as being grossly deficient in their provision of specialist rheumatology services.
  Recently the National Association of Health Authorities warned that the National Health Service faces a serious and growing shortage of occupational therapists and chiropodists who play a big part in helping, for

  333
  example, stroke victims to recover and in helping to keep elderly people mobile. The NAHA report said that the demand for those services already outstrips supply and that we need 70 per cent. more occupational therapists and 30 per cent. more chiropodists to get us into the 1990s. The latter estimate is lower than the DHSS study, which said that 35 per cent. more chiropodists are needed.
  There are other perturbing developments in the philosophy of the National Health Service under this Government. The measures of quality of life that have been canvassed in some quarters seem to carry with them the assumption that life after 65 does not have quite the importance of life before that age. That may be because health economists would like us to come into existence, fit and well, at 21 and to die suddenly on our 65th birthday without requiring medical treatment in between. That is the beau ideal human being for the health economist. Fortunately—I think that it is "fortunately"—humanity is not built like that. We are an awkward lot, and a lot of people get a bit more awkward as they grow older. People want to live for a long time and to receive proper health care both at home and in hospital. We want top quality health care from the cradle to the grave and we want that period to last a long time.
  We owe that quality of service to the older generation. It is worth saying that the older generation to which I am referring is a rather special older generation. It is the generation that defeated Hitler. There are old men who once ran up the Normandy beaches, or fought in north Africa, or worked on the Burma railway. There are many, many more old women, some of whom lost their husbands at that time.
  More than once I have been asked by the leader of our party to represent us at the Cenotaph ceremony for war widows. It struck me, as I stood there among women in their sixties and seventies, that the men they were remembering were not 60 or 70. They were strapping 20-year-olds or 25-year-olds—young men in the prime of their lives who sacrificed their lives for this country. Women, including those who were not widowed, made many sacrifices. They survived the blitz and they brought up the generation that, generally speaking, fills this Chamber and this country today. They are a special generation.
  Those people are even more special, because when this country emerged from the darkest period in its history, absolutely flat broke, the self-same men and women had a vision. Their vision was that we should create a National Health Service that would provide the best health care available for everybody—rich or poor, man or woman, wherever they lived. The country was flat broke. Now that those self-same people are older, they are faced by a Government and, to some extent, by a news media who say that, although we are now one of the richest societies the world has ever known and producing more oil every day than Saudi Arabia, we must tighten our belts and must not expand the provision for these people who have done so much for our country. It would be a national disgrace if we failed to do our duty by not expanding the services that they need, deserve and have paid for.
  The Opposition believe that very deeply. That is why we have put down this motion and why we are determined, both in this House and outside it, to struggle to ensure that the elderly in our society are looked after in the way that
  334
  they expected to be looked after when they fought, struggled and secured the establishment of the National Health Service and in the way that we look forward to being looked after when it is our turn. That is only fair and decent, that is what we are in favour of, and that is why we have put down this motion.
  7.37 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to facilitate and prolong the health and independence of elderly people; welcomes its provision for the increasing proportion of elderly and very elderly people in the population; notes the substantial increase in health care of elderly people in hospitals and in the community; and applauds the Government's success in helping elderly people to improve their quality of life.'.
  The one matter upon which, from what I have heard so far in this debate, we shall agree is that this is an important debate about one of the major challenges that is facing the National Health Service. It is three years since the House last had the opportunity to debate specifically health care and services for the elderly. That is surprising, perhaps, as we estimate that more than 40 per cent. of the present expenditure on the hospital and community health services relates to people who are aged over 65.
  To echo something that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, or to give additional figures, between 1985 and 2025 the number of people over pensionable age in England and Wales is expected to grow by nearly 3 million. Within that total, the number of those aged 75 and over, who are obviously the most likely to be in need of services, will grow by about 1·6 million. There can be no doubt, therefore, about the importance of the subject that we were discussing, the importance of the services that the National Health Service provides for the elderly, and the growing demand that there will be for those services.
  Beyond that, I have very little in common with the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, with his facts and figures, or with his suggestions about the way in which the health services have been moving and developing. I want to spend a moment or two on the figures relating to the Health Service and to pick up not only what underlay what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, but also what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said more specifically in his speech earlier today—which I regret I was unable to be present to hear—and also in his statement that was reported in some of today's newspapers—which, almost equally, to my regret, I have been able to read. I will pick out only the most glaring errors.
  First, so far as I can judge, the figures which he says relate to expenditure on the National Health Service do nothing of the kind. They are plainly wrong. They exclude entirely the hospital building programme, which is now running at nearly £1 billion a year, and the family practitioner services, which are running at nearly £5 billion a year and which are of particular importance to many elderly people. Both those elements, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have ignored in his statement, have increased by about 36 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
  Secondly, in the table at the back of the statement which he issued yesterday he appears to have assumed that demographic trends, principally the self-same rise in the

  335
  number of elderly people, have required an annual expenditure increase of 1 per cent. each year throughout the period just to stand still. That, too, is completely wrong. As the detailed figures provided to the Select Committee on Social Services last year showed, the demographic effect for most of the period in question was substantially less than 1 per cent. Those two errors alone mean that the hon. Gentleman's figures are not worth the paper on which they are written, so far as I can judge.
  What is almost as bad as these basic errors is the thoroughly misleading way in which even these figures were presented. Again I shall take only the most significant points. First, they seem to take no account whatever of the improvements in efficiency which have taken place, often as a result of the Griffiths management reforms. Over the past three years that factor alone has meant some £400 million extra for patient care. In the current year about £150 million is expected to be released in that way. I emphasise that that is money being made available for patient care that would previously have gone in another direction.
  Secondly, when the hon. Member for Oldham, West talks about the number of beds, he takes no account whatever of the changes in the pattern of care not only of the more efficient use that is being made of beds, but of the shift towards care in the community for many thousands of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people whom everyone agrees ought not to have been in hospital at all. I have made the point to him before that I find it little short of deplorable that, on my assessment, he includes in his figures for cuts in the provision of hospital beds the beds that have been removed because mentally handicapped children are not in long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped on the scale that they were before, which all of us have been seeking to bring to an end.
  Perhaps the most glaring omission from what the hon. Gentleman has been saying is the absence of any reference to what went before. When he talked of the reduction in beds, why did he not tell us that the annual reduction was greater under Labour between 1974 and 1979 than it has been since this Government came to office? When he talked about waiting lists, why did he not tell us that the lists are 80,000 lower than those left behind by the Labour Government?
  Dr. John Marek: That is misleading and a misrepresentation.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) can make his speech later. It is a fact that the waiting lists are nearly 80,000 lower than when this Government came to office. Those lists were left behind by the hon. Gentleman's Administration.
  When the hon. Member for Oldham, West purported to deplore that Britain spends what he claims is an inadequate 5·5 per cent. of GNP on health, why did he not tell us that when Labour left office that figure was only 4·8 per cent.? In other words, the proportion of GNP that is being spent on health has risen substantially under the present Administration.
  The fact is that the way in which the hon. Gentleman is using health statistics is in danger of going beyond a joke to being a disgrace.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use this debate to make a
  336
  slanging attack on something that has obviously nettled him greatly, may I answer his points? First, the figures are all based on Government figures. They are hospital and community health services figures. If one were to take gross NHS revenue expenditure, I suspect that the difference would be minimal.
  Secondly, the figures do riot include efficiency savings, as the Government call them, although I suspect that is a euphemism for cuts. Anyway, £150 million out of the £18 billion NHS budget means that that again is a footling qualification.
  Thirdly, of course, we support the movement of mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients back into the community, but in the acute sector there has still been a cut of 10 or 11 per cent. That accounts for most of the 36,000 beds that have been cut since 1979. So none of what the hon. Gentleman has said alters the basic truth of the points that I was making on their record on the Health Service since 1983 in particular.
  Mr. Newton: All I can say is that last night I read the hon. Gentleman's statement carefully. The table at the back, on which much of the rest of it is founded, with some wrong assumptions about demographic patterns which I shall not go into again, is clearly headed:
  "Percentage change each year in total NHS expenditure."
  The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is not that; it is hospital and community health services expenditure. The difference between the two is billions, not just peanuts. Expenditure on the primary care services, which are of particular importance to many elderly people, has more than doubled in money terms in that period. It has risen by about one third in real terms and that has led to a sizeable expansion in the services themselves, on which I shall comment. I do not mind in a sense what the hon. Gentleman does with statistics so long as he uses them clearly, knows what he is talking about and presents a fair picture. I object to statistics which purport to be something which they are not, and which are calculated to mislead the public and to distort real debate about health issues.
  There are two plain and simple facts about the totality of NHS expenditure. One is that total expenditure has risen by 26 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87, and will rise again next year. The other is that within that total we are carrying through the biggest sustained drive to modernise the country's hospitals that has ever been seen, and that is now well on the way to undoing some of the damage done by the drastic cuts—real cuts, not statistical illusions—that were imposed by the Labour Government in 1977 and 1978. In one year alone the hospital building programme was cut by 22 per cent. when the Labour party was in office.
  Mr. Dobson: Is it part of the drive to improve the efficiency of the National Health Service that the cardiothoracic theatres and wards at the Brook hospital in Greenwich closed at the beginning of this week because the health authority cannot afford to run them until the start of the new financial year?
  Mr. Newton: The position in Greenwich, as in many other health authorities, is that the health authority is actively seeking ways of making sure that it uses its resources to the best effect. The hon. Gentleman implied in his speech that the regional health authority was attempting to get the district to close Brook hospital.
  Mr. Dobson: I never said that.
  Mr. Newton: It certainly came across to me as the implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I want to make it clear that the district health authority is conducting a review of the acute services and that the outcome of that is far from clear.
  The most important point about the Health Service is that, in the end, it is to be measured not by the amount of money it has or by the number of beds in its buildings, any more than by the number of doors or windows in its buildings, but by the people it treats, the care it provides and, as my right hon. Friend emphasised in his widely welcomed statement today, increasingly by what it does to prevent avoidable illness occurring in the first place. By that measure of patients treated and care provided, the NHS is by any standards not a service which is being cut, let alone a service in decline, but one of sustained expansion.
  Between 1978 and 1985 in-patient cases rose by very nearly 1 million, or about 18 per cent. Day cases rose by 400,000, which represents an increase of over 70 per cent. Out-patient attendances were up by 3·5 million, or 10 per cent. The growth in 1985 alone was 176,000, or nearly 3 per cent., in in-patient cases, 60,000, or nearly 7 per cent. in day cases, and 398,000, or 1 per cent., in out-patient attendances. Those increases have been more than enough to match the growing number of elderly people and they represent a real improvement in services.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to staffing in hospitals and within the increasingly important community services. In both those areas there have been substantial increases. The number of district nurses in community health services has risen by 18 per cent. The number of hospital nurses caring for geriatric patients has risen by 22 per cent. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned chiropodists—and that staff has increased by nearly a quarter. The number of consultant geriatricians has increased by over a third. There is no pattern of decline.
  I wish to give some figures for primary care services, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have entirely ignored, despite the fact that for most people their interface with the Health Service is the general practitioner rather than the local hospital. Compared with 1979 there are 3,500 more GPs, an increase of 15 per cent., 13,000 more support staff in general practice, an increase of nearly 40 per cent., and about 2,500 more dentists, an increase of 20 per cent. There are 1,500 more nurses, whole-time equivalents, specialising in mental illness, and that represents an increase of well over 100 per cent. I could go on.
  This is a story not of decline but of expanding services in the areas of most importance to many elderly people. The next line of argument advanced by the Opposition may be to claim that those increases do not match the number of elderly or very elderly. Let me make it clear that between 1978 and 1984 the number of hospital treatments provided for people over 75 per 10,000 of that population has increased from 1,736 to 2,057. Thus, an increased amount of treatment is being provided for those in the very elderly age group. It is a question not of increased treatment being outmatched by the growing numbers of the elderly, but of a real improvement in services.
  The fact that the hon. Gentleman persistently wished to disguise or run away from is that more elderly people
  338
  than ever before are receiving hospital treatment. More elderly people are able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by modern medical technologies and skills to improve the quality of their lives. Whether or not we discuss quality adjusted life years—QUALYS—many of the things that we are discussing improve the quality of life for elderly people. That is why we want to see those services increased and have devoted our attention to achieving that objective.
  Let me take two obvious examples that particularly benefit elderly people. The number of cataract operations rose from 38,000 in 1978 to 55,000 in 1984. We have set a target of 70,000 a year for 1990. Hip replacements rose from 28,000 a year in 1978 to 38,000 in 1984. We have set a target of 48,000 a year in 1990. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Wrexham is complaining about. Does he or does he not want an increase in those important operations for elderly people, to whom they make a great deal of difference?
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The hip replacement is a comparatively new operation, and of course such operations will increase. I do not mind giving credit for the fact that at least the Tory Government have not refused to allow such operations, but the waiting lists for those operations are getting longer. However, I object to the Government claiming credit for the advance in medical science and the maintenance of standards of service because of that advance.
  Mr. Newton: No one is claiming credit for the advance in medical science. We claim credit for the fact that, far more than the Labour party, we have made it possible for elderly people to benefit from those advances. We have every intention of ensuring that elderly people continue to benefit.
  So far I have concentrated on health services, especially hospital services, for elderly people. However, 95 per cent. of elderly people live at home and, like most of us, can expect to spend only short periods in hospital or, indeed, in any kind of institutional care. Most of them want—and we wish to help them in this respect—to be able to stay and be cared for in their homes. That involves a wide range of agencies, statutory, private, voluntary and informal. Undoubtedly, the key to success to ensure that that community care takes place is proper co-ordination between the agencies and the individuals involved. We have devoted considerable extra sums of mony to that in the form of joint finance and improved machinery in the form of joint planning. The changes in joint planning and the involvement of voluntary organisations in that planning have helped to create better co-ordination. There have been some significant and important effects.
  Personal social services manifestly have an important role. Since the Government came to office, spending on personal social services has increased by over 20 per cent. in real terms. The key indicators of service provision have also increased. For instance, there are 14 per cent. more home help staff, and the number of places in day centres has increased by over 15 per cent.
  I was puzzled by the reference to home helps made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because today I answered a question tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the number of home helps expressed as whole-time equivalents per thousand population aged

  339
  65 years and over in the three years from 1982 to 1985. I use those three years because they were the ones that the hon. Gentleman asked about.
  I thought I heard the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras refer to Greenwich. In the period 1982 to 1985 the number of home helps per thousand population aged 65 years and over in Greenwich has risen from about 11·5 per cent. to more than 13 per cent. If one considers England as a whole during those three years—the figure not only represents the total number of home helps, but that figure expressed per thousand of the population aged 65 years and over—there has been an average increase from 6·7 per cent. to 7·2 per cent. Where are the cuts? Where is the great story about the dimunition in the provision of important services? Wherever one looks one finds that the picture painted by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not stand up to reality in virtually every part of the country.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recognise that if it was not for the very councils that he, his party and especially the chairman of the party constantly denounce for wasting money and providing services there would not be a jot of increase in services? If, in London, we had to rely on services provided by Sutton, Bexley, Redbridge, Barnet or Bromley, there would be no increase in services.
  Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure that I have been denouncing the London borough of Camden, to which he is so dedicated, for wasting money. I rather thought it was denounced by an independent report that the council had commissioned.
  Mr. Dobson: Following the courageous decision of the Camden council to set up an independent inquiry and to publish it immediately it was received—unlike virtually any document that the Government receive—will the Minister confirm that the independent report said:
  "The Department (DHSS) has statutory inspectorial duties and the periods between inspections seem to be of an unacceptable duration."
  The report continued:
  "Some of the issues raised in this report would have been identified and possibly dealt with earlier had the Department exercised its statutory duty."
  Mr. Newton: If it is the hon. Gentleman's view that the London borough of Camden can only be expected to run its services in a remotely acceptable way with the social services inspectorate permanently breathing down its neck, he may be right, but I would regard that as a proud claim on behalf of Camden.
  This is an important, short debate, in which a number of hon. Members wish to take part. We have been discussing one of the great challenges that face not just the NHS but the whole community. It undoubtedly presents problems. Of course, there is a need for continued development of policies to overcome those problems and to meet needs still more effectively. In a variety of ways that is precisely what we are seeking to do. They include, not least, the review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir Roy Griffiths to undertake on the ways in which public funds are used to support community care.
  No one who studies the facts of the expansion of services for the elderly that the Government have brought about can vote for the motion tonight. No one who studies
  340
  the Opposition's mixture of bogus statistics and half-baked promises would vote for them at any other time either.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Quite rightly, I must address myself to the statement just made by the Minister. I must consider what I should recommend my colleagues to vote for. I looked carefully at the motion and the amendment when they were made available.
  The fallacy of the Government's amendment is that although, for example, more money has been spent in the Health Service on the elderly, although there has been new provision, although new initiatives have been taken, and although there has been greater throughput, to use the clinical word, these have not taken into account the relatively enormous and growing proportion of the demand on our Health Service and on our other services which is caused by the increasing number of elderly people in our community.
  I remind the Minister of what her right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said in 1983 when he was wearing his other departmental hat:
  "central Government concluded last year that a minimum expenditure growth of 2 per cent. was needed to maintain existing standards of service in the face of growing numbers of the very elderly and other increasing pressures."—[Official Report, 15 February 983; Vol. 37, c. 135.]
  When I look at the issue in the round, I allege that the failure of which the Government have been guilty since 1983 is in having committed themselves only to the minimum real growth in expenditure that is their responsibility in managing the public purse and that is needed to maintain the standard of health care provision for the elderly. It is the Government's greatest failure that the figure that they set and defined for themselves as being necessary has not been fulfilled in reality.
  There has been a bit of double talk since then because the Government have since argued that a 2 per cent. growth in services is necessary, not a 2 per cent. real growth in expenditure. The Minister will know that that 2 per cent. growth in services requires slightly less real growth in expenditure because one can make efficiency cuts, and so on. I think that we are on common ground in that.
  The argument should not be—I would never make it—that simply putting money into a service necessarily improves it. That is always fallacious. None the less, the substantial deficit in funding, which is the burden of the Labour party's motion, has prevented the sufficient development of the care services, which I hope everybody in the House will admit we need. I should like to develop some of the relevant points.
  I shall start with one or two statements of principle that people do not always bear in mind, in relation to the elderly. We are talking in general about health care services for people over 60. It is easy to conclude, and for the public perception to be, that old age in itself is a disease, brings problems and requires expenditure, but it is not true that just because somebody is old he or she need be ill. That does not necessarily follow. Indeed, Lord Shinwell was perfectly well until within a few days of his death, to take a topical example from this building. Old age is a triumph, not a problem. The objective of the state's services should be to enable people in their old age to make

  341
  as much of their opportunities as they can. Often, people have not had many opportunities for several years before by virtue of their working life, family responsibilities and so on. It is an insult to presume that old people are ill people, because many old people are not ill. Clearly, they become more frail as they grow older, but they do not necessarily become ill.
  It must be admitted that as people get older the relative cost to the Exchequer of their illnesses grows. The most recent figures that I have are for 1983–84. National Health Service expenditure in England per head for the 16 to 64 age group, which is not covered by the debate, was £150, whereas expenditure for people over 75 was over £1,000. Rightly, we shall have to face the fact that the demand for expenditure on the elderly will increase enormously.
  Over the 20-year period beginning at the end of the last year, the population aged over 75 will increase by 10 per cent. from 3·7 million to 4·1 million. The population over 85 will increase by a staggering 54 per cent., from 700,000 to 1·1 million. We must make sure that we plan the commitment to meet the inevitable bills that will accrue to the Health Service and the inevitable demands that will be made on our personal social services, given the size of this growing part of our population.
  I should like to consider another general presumption. In this debate we need not go into every corner of the issue. It is often a failure of our health and social services that elderly people are incorrectly diagnosed as being mentally ill. The Minister may have seen the example in New Society on 12 December last year of an elderly man being diagnosed as having dementia when he had a severe heart problem, which was confirmed when he was admitted to hospital.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie)indicated assent.
  Mr. Hughes: I see the hon. Lady accepting that.
  Often there is a presumption that old people have certain types of condition. The presumption is based on something of which we lay people may be guilty, but of which the medical profession never should. It is an ageist approach, based on the presumption that elderly people are more likely to suffer from such conditions. As everybody in the House will know, the vast majority of elderly people do not suffer from dementia in any way. Under 5 per cent. of people over 65 have a severe impairment of memory, intellect, orientation or personality. About another 3 to 5 per cent. have milder forms of dementia. Although dementia in its general definition is a problem of advancing age, 80 per cent. of those over 80 have no form of it.
  Often old people suffer from an incorrect perception of their need. Of course, 20 per cent. of elderly people suffer from some form of mental disability or dementia, which is a tragic condition. Alzheimer's disease is the most common. I challenge the frequent automatic assumption that the elderly in our community are a general problem for the Health Service, or a specific type of problem, that they are incapable of managing themselves as human beings.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman make this plain when he talks about senile dementia? Unfortunately, most of the public think that the
  342
  clinical term "dementia" has something to do with people being demented. It means nothing of the sort. It means merely a loss of memory in various degrees.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. That is another example of a conclusion drawn from a false analysis. Clinicians will define that condition, but it might not be as grave or problematical as the common assumption would have it. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Another issue is as much to do with social services as with the Health Service. As people get older, they suffer physical disability. For example, one third of those over 85 cannot get upstairs. About one fifth are bedridden or housebound. Social and welfare provision must respond to those facts in the way in which the community cares.
  The Secretary of State made an announcement today, which I welcomed, on cancer and on AIDS, all of which are, to a substantial degree, preventable illnesses and diseases. Many of the illnesses from which old people suffer are preventable. Tragically, many old people die from diseases that we could do something about.
  The preventative arm of the Health Service is as applicable to the elderly as it is to much younger people. We must work to avoid the problems of heart disease, cancer, strokes, bronchitis, diabetes and incontinence. Those illnesses can, in different ways, be treated early and cured. A topical example, which occurred this winter, is hypothermia. If we manage our communities properly there is no need to have nearly so many deaths from hypothermia, as I am sure the Minister will accept. Our European neighbours in colder countries do not have as many deaths from hypothermia. The problem of hypothermia cannot be solved at a stroke; it is not just a matter of health and social service provision but of homes insulation, educating people to look after themselves, and giving them the proper provision. A proper approach to preventive medicine, health care, and health education will reduce the burden on the Health Service.
  Another area of common agreement is that we must all try to make a reality of the commitment of Government and Opposition parties to community care wherever possible. I shall take a topical example, which applies to the acute services as well as to properly defined community care services. The local small cottage hospital in my constituency, St. Olave's hospital, was recently closed, as the Minister knows. The closure meant not just a loss of beds from a local hospital, but the loss of the feeling that people were being treated in their community, even though they were in a hospital bed. They went to a large regional hospital where they felt more isolated. There must of course be acute services for the acutely ill, and we do not want to keep people unnecessarily in beds in hospitals for the acutely ill. The strategy must be to plan for, and meet the demand with, care in the community services.
  One criticism which applies equally to my health authority of Lewisham and north Southwark, and to Camberwell—for which I am in part responsible—is that the strategy is not yet being matched by the provision of service. Everybody has agreed that we should have care in the community, for example, by removing the mentally ill from residential care in horrendous Victorian long-stay institutions, but we do not yet have the facilities to cope with them at home. Without the commitment to that, which needs to be planned, care in the community is, to many people, still a mirage and not a reality.

  343
  One of the beliefs that I stand for, and to which I commit myself and my colleagues—it is not a cheap option—is properly funded care in the community. It has three elements in terms of professional support for the elderly. First, we must have the doctor in the community. There is still a weakness in proper GP provision, particularly in the inner cities, where the elderly are often concentrated. I hope the Government will seriously consider—they have taken up many of the recommendations made by Age Concern and others over the years—building up training and the appropriate level of service capability for GPs and staff in health clinics and centres so that they will be able to deal in the community with many of the problems and needs of the elderly.
  The second matter, on which we have had a lobby today, relates to the nursing profession. The Cumberlege report and the general pattern of recommendations from the Royal College of Nursing and others is that we should train people for a new nursing profession—not the old bedside Florence Nightingale nursing, but a much more adaptable community nursing provision. That gives enormous potential and enormous possibilities for people to be looked after and visited at home. I wrote to the Minister about nurses being able to prescribe at a day centre in my constituency. She replied that a pilot scheme was being looked at. I hope that we can progress quickly down that road—although we must have safeguards—so that health care practitioners, at the appropriate level, can administer that health care in the community. There is every opportunity to secure that as each health authority develops its strategy.
  One of the encouraging signs is that we have been able to agree to develop in Lewisham and north Southwark a combination of facilities. One is for respite care on the health authority site at St. Olave's hospital where elderly people who are cared for by relatives day after day can go so as to give their relatives a week or two off. The other facility is a small domus-type institution where small numbers of people can form their own communities. These are much more personal than the old geriatric or psycho-geriatric wards in big and impersonal hospitals. There is a problem in delivering enough of those services quickly. Those sorts of things show where the will is and whether the service can be delivered.
  The third group is the people who are not trained at all, or who are not trained professionally as doctors or nurses. I sincerely ask the Government urgently to think about requiring a payment of, and validation for, carers who are not doctors or nurses. We need the home helps, the visitors, the people to provide laundry services for the elderly. We need them all, and many are willing to work in the caring service. Relatives, neighbours, friends, part-time and full-time, a small number of hours a week or many, youngsters and older people, all are willing to be the complimentary, substantial band of practising supporters of the elderly. In that way we can keep our elderly in the community, and they can feel reassured. I hope that the Government will develop that area.
  I hope that the Government will respond positively to the requirements on general practitioners. I hope that they will respond positively to developing community nursing services and to the RCN paper at the end of the consultation period. I hope that carers can see that the Government will be committed to them and to funding them, so that we will be able to maximise that third group of people in support of and to help the elderly.
  Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that almost every one of the thoughts that he has uttered in the last five minutes are thoughts that have been actively raised by the Government in the course of the primary care consultation, our own Green Paper and the Cumberlege report, and by the positive response in the direction of consultation that we have already shown to Project 2000 and by work which I am sure he knows is going on in the Department about support assistance for nurses. I can tell him, as he already knows, that we have been acting positively in the ways that he mentioned.
  Mr. Hughes: I want to end on something that has a slightly harder edge than that. The most acute problem is that, as yet, there is not proper co-ordination of the services that try to fulfil. Health Service requirements. For example, in my local health authority there are still massive waiting lists. The figures have gone up 260 per cent. since 1983. On 31 March 1986 more than 8,000 people were waiting. That applies not just to old people, but to all people. The other day an elderly man presented himself at a hospital for a bed, was told that there was not one and he went away. He returned, was accepted, and anaesthetised and then was told that he could not be dealt with. He had to be sent home and to return. The lack of co-ordination that allows priority care cases to be accepted, but fails to make sure that when people need to be admitted they are, and the then failure to co-ordinate with the social services so that when people are discharged they are discharged into a community that can care for them seems to be the greatest gap.
  I hope that a real effort will be made to co-ordinate social service provision and Health Service provision through joint consultative committees and the like, so that there can be a strong combined effort that does not allow many old people to fall through the gap of our national welfare care. Old people often do not shout the loudest. The test of a caring welfare state is that we heed and serve most those who are the most vulnerable.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a very short debate, and many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal for short speeches.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I was interested in many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I congratulate him on making them in such a reasonable way. I am sure that many of us would agree with what he said. It seemed that he was saying that the Government were moving in the right direction but should try harder and do better. Many of us feel that that is the way in which we have to approach the matter. Demographic changes have brought about a growing problem. We have coped to some extent with the recent changes, but we shall have to continue further along the path, in view of the large number of elderly people and the problems that will be created, particularly at the turn of the century.
  My hon. Friend the Minister quoted an important figure which shows how much the Government have paid attention to the National Health Service. The NHS's share of gross national product has risen from 4·8 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. That is a 12 per cent. increase in NHS provision.
  Dr. Marek: Has that got anything to do with gross domestic product being a lot smaller than it need be because of the Government's economic policies?
  Mr. Stevens: There is a net growth in the economy and a growing share is going to the NHS.
  With the new buildings in the Health Service and a change in facilities, there has been a definite improvement. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was so emotive, talking about what people have a right to expect and what the elderly have done for the country. We accept what they have done, but many of the elderly would also accept that the developments in the Health Service, not just through Government but through discoveries, are a considerable improvement on what they might have expected 30 years ago.
  I am extremely surprised that the Opposition should dismiss, as they so often do, the need for efficiency improvements. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said that there is scope for such improvements. In an organisation with as many as 800,000 employees, and with £20 billion expenditure, efficiency must be an important factor. That leads not to the detriment of service, but to a great improvement. The West Midlands regional health authority has made cost improvements. The three main areas of the four into which it intends to put those savings are care for the mentally ill, for the mentally handicapped and for the elderly.
  The problems of the elderly do not all occur in hospitals. They are not all ill or in difficulties. In the private and the public sectors, there is a wide range of residential accommodation, ranging from that with virtually no medical attention to that with much medical attention. While I do not doubt that some establishments are of a low standard, I am sure that there are many, some of them newly opened, of a high standard.
  In my constituency, a nursing home has been set up to care mainly for the elderly but also for others with medical problems. I am proud to see its standard, the care and attention that it gives, and the availability of medical attention 24 hours a day, with a qualified nurse on duty and easy access to doctors. However, other nursing homes and homes for the elderly start off merely with better accommodation such as sheltered accommodation. All of this is helping elderly people into more acceptable and usable establishments and homes in which they can enjoy the company of others. We shall see more of these developments. We should be encouraging them rather than condemning them, as Opposition Members do. They can make an important contribution to the welfare of the elderly.
  The hospital building programme has led to the removal of many old hospitals and old facilities which were never a joy for old people to go into, irrespective of whether they had permanent bad health or were ill for a short time. Some old hospitals were not of the sort in which we would want to see our elderly relatives.
  Now, new hospitals are being built and old hospitals are being extended or rebuilt, as in my area with the George Eliot hospital. That improvement was long overdue, but it is at last happening, and we are seeing the benefit. While there are not the number of beds for geriatrics and the mentally infirm that we would like, there is accommodation of a better standard. They are getting better attention. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the
  346
  number of operations that relate to elderly people, such as cataracts and replacement hips, is being extended considerably. That is important for not only the physical well-being but the mental outlook of old people. They can expect these operations and improvements in a more reasonable time, which is extremely encouraging.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about community care for people coming out of mental institutions. A great deal of attention must be paid to training and co-ordination. Without that, we shall not get benefits for the people involved. Co-ordination is a vital factor, and within the NHS one of the major reasons for new management thinking was to get this right. Coordination is still the problem within some parts of our Health Service, and if general managers have any part to play, it is better co-ordination.
  We have not had community care for long. We have had district nurses and other services coming in, but there has not been a co-ordinated effort, on a professional basis, with many different parts of the medical and social services professions. I hope that that will prove a major part of our development. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have provided extensions in both district nurse and special nurse care for geriatrics and in many other sectors. The Department has been going along gently, perhaps not fast enough, but it is going in the right direction and facilities and resources are being provided.
  The Government's record stands comparison with any predictions that might have been made a few years ago that such things could not happen. We are taking steps to make sure that resources are provided to help the elderly. How fast is that being done? People always ask for it to be done faster, and it would be amazing if the Opposition did not say that it should be done twice as fast. Had they been in government, I doubt whether they would have been prepared to advance the Health Service as fast and as effectively as this Government have done.
  8.30 pm
  Mrs. Renee Short: There is a rather poor showing of hon. Members in the House. I should have thought that many elderly hon. Members would have been happy to be here to get a few tips. However, they are absent and the youthful hon. Members are here.
  After the Green Paper was published the Select Committee on Social Services looked at primary care. Its report dealt with many of the problems relevant to the care of the elderly. In our report we drew attention to the greater use of primary care by the increasing numbers of elderly people in the community and to the growth in private residential homes financed virtually from the social security budget.
  The health needs of the elderly are clearly linked to the social services—for example, to housing, social security, home helps and community nursing. All these things are important, and we put more and more burdens on community care not only by changes in population and the fact that people are living longer, but by reducing hospital care. People are moved out of hospital more quickly and look to the social services to help them at home. That inevitably means that we need more general practitioners and a significant sharing of care by nurses and others and much more education about prevention and about self-care by patients.

  347
  Health education is crucial for the whole population but especially for older people, and perhaps the Minister will tell us what is going on at present in the Health Education Council which seems to be lying dormant because of all sorts of problems, The consultation paper contains proposals for making more suitable premises available in inner cities, for new financial initiatives to encourage doctors and nurses and perhaps some salaried general practitioners to work in inner cities, and perhaps different rates of pay to encourage other health workers to work in inner cities. All those ideas which were endorsed by the Select Committee were put forward five years ago in 1981 in the Acheson report. I wonder why Ministers are not giving a clear reply now and undertaking to take steps to improve the availability and quality of health care generally and in inner cities.
  We need many more properly trained nurses and nurse practitioners working with general practitioners to improve the service for elderly patients, especially the housebound elderly. There is movement in the right direction. I recommend the Minister to study our report about the Birchfield medical centre in Birmingham. It offers comprehensive health screening to elderly patients registered with the practice, runs a patient liaison group which is good for getting patients together in the practice to discuss common health problems, and produces first rate leaflets on patient care for patients to collect when they go to the surgery.
  Some hon. Members have spoken about the Government's policy on discharging patients from mental hospitals. Many of those patients are very elderly and many have spent the major part of their lives in an institution. if the Government policy is to work, many more professional workers, including social workers, will be needed to work in the community. Local authorities are being asked to do very much more about providing housing for patients who are discharged, providing community centres and workshops and providing all the other things which the Select Committee said in its report on community care for the mentally ill and handicapped we could not do on the cheap. We need the resources and the will to do those things and money has to be provided to help those who want to do them. Money must be found if that policy is to succeed, and there is great anxiety throughout Britain that the Government are not providing adequate resources to carry out their policy.
  At every conference that I address, especially conferences on this crucial matter, I am told of great concern especially about long-stay patients. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. The problems faced by elderly people are important to them and to their families. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly which of the proposals in the Government's Green Paper and the recommendations made on them by the Select Committee will be provided with the resources to enable them to be carried out. I hope we will be told that the Department has the will to do those things.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: In my constituency, as in the whole of Britain, there is an increasing number of elderly folk. Over the last few years I have been privileged to meet a great number of pensioners in my constituency. I have met them in their homes, in local authority homes and in hospitals. I have talked at great length with them, listened to their
  348
  comments and wishes, heard their concerns and listened with interest to their expressions of gratitude for the many facilities provided today which were not provided in the past, especially the increasing provision of facilities.
  It must not be forgotten—and I am sure that the Minister has not forgotten—that we are providing many more facilities than ever before for the elderly and that they are grateful. As president of the League of Friends of Homeleigh, an old people's home in Erith in my constituency to which I am a regular visitor, I am extremely impressed by the facilities provided by Bexley local authority and by the quality of the care provided. Too often in this House and outside we criticise and too rarely do we praise, yet the increased provision at that home and at others, like Meyer house and Wolsey house, which are also in my constituency, is a matter for congratulation. The local social services staff are to be complimented for the excellent job that they do in a changing world.
  The care of the elderly concerns us all, and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a challenge for the nation and a challenge for tomorrow. I am always disappointed to hear the Opposition voice criticisms and display manufactured hysteria about the facilities for the elderly. I would rather discuss this matter in a constructive way and try to go forward rather than make party political points. I was impressed by the constructive speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who spoke about south London, which I know very well.
  As the years pass and medical science advances, this problem grows. Many hon. Members have spoken about that. Many pensioners in my constituency are fed up with being lectured or talked down to by politicians. That is because they value their independence, but, like other people, they are also realistic and appreciate the economic situation. They want to advance the services provided by the Health Service and local social services. We do them no credit or justice if we do not accept that they appreciate those things and realise that there are financial constraints. Within those constraints they want an efficient service. The Government have shown that they are determined not only to increase resources, but to increase efficiency in the provision of services. That is vital.
  Pensioners are grateful to the Government for controlling inflation not only because of their own fixed income—as we heard in the previous debate, they are the section of the community that will be hardest hit by inflation—but because with. inflation they see the destruction of services. They saw that in the 1970s, as a result of inflation and economic mismanagement. Therefore, they are well aware of how important it is to maintain low inflation and get real value for money in the services provided.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that when one looks at the record, we could always do better. We would like to see more money provided. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned community care provision. We would all like to see more community care provision. However, we are aware of the increases that have taken place under this Government. The total Health Service budget increased from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to £18·9 billion in 1986–87. That is a real achievement. When one

  349
  realises that over 40 per cent. of that is spent on caring for the elderly, it shows the Government's concern to ensure that the elderly are well provided for in the Health Service.
  With a progressively aging population there is inevitably an increasing demand for services. There are 1 million more pensioners today than in 1978, so we face a daunting task. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister when he mentioned the percentage increase in Health Service personnel dealing with elderly people. He mentioned district nurses. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in consultant geriatricians since 1979. That is a real achievement and one of which we can be proud. Of course, it is not enough. We need more, and hopefully we shall see more.
  The other issue regularly raised with me in my surgery and in my meetings with pensioners is the waiting list problem for particular operations. We all know that the length of waiting lists in the Health Service was not good in the past, but we have seen a considerable break-through in reducing the length of waiting lists. In the south-east region, in which my constituency is situated, the waiting lists have not been reduced enough. I look forward to the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to my constituency and to Bexley health authority next month when we will put our case to him for increasing resources for our area to reduce waiting lists. However, the number of operations taking place, especially for elderly people who are often in considerable discomfort and need hip replacements and so on, has been increasing. The number of hip replacement operations increased from 28,000 in 1978 to 38,000 in 1984, and the target we are projecting is 48,000 in 1990. Those are real achievements and we should be grateful. However, that is not enough. Of course, we would like more, and I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies she will take note of the points that have been made and will seek to improve the situation further.
  Although we would like to see more money spent, Conservative Members must say to Ministers that it must be spent efficiently and effectively and it must be spread fairly across the country. We have had many debates in the House on funding for the Health Service in the south-east region and the London region because we often feel that London has been somewhat neglected under the RAWP reallocation. However, we were grateful for the Secretary of State's comments last week on additional funding for the Thames region. We must year in mind that in some areas of the country the number of elderly is increasing more rapidly than in others. I hope that the increasing number of elderly in certain regions will be taken into account when the allocation of resources is determined.
  The Government's record is creditable to date and we are grateful for the advances that have been made in provisions for the elderly. However, there is much more to do, and all we can say is, "Keep going, but perhaps a little faster."
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I should declare an interest at the outset because I am an old-age pensioner and, therefore, one could say that is an example of enlightened self-interest. I am pleased to say that I am enjoying good health.
  350
  I would like to strike an optimistic note. I would like the Minister to answer the three issues I am going to raise. I want to talk about a continuing interest I have had over 20 years in the House—the whole concept of rehabilitation for disabled and elderly people. I want to spend time on the problem of incontinence because of the size of that problem and a couple of minutes on the possible treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
  I am trying to keep as up to date as I can and I want to refer to the report of the Royal College of Physicians which it published in July 1986 entitled "Physical Disability in 1986 and Beyond". In many ways it summarised my feelings within that area. Frequently elderly or disabled people suffer despondency and despair because they feel they cannot cope with life. My own feeling is that the proper and wise application of rehabilitation techniques to those people can give them the independence that they so worthily need. That can be provided at a relatively low cost.
  The three issues that I want to discuss today are related to my philosophy with regard to health care: that if it is technically possible—I say this over and over again—economically sound and morally right, it ought to be implemented. I suggest that in areas where it is possible to establish sound concepts of rehabilitation, it would be a worthwhile economic procedure for the Government to follow.
  The Minister is an old friend of mine and he knows that I have ridden that hobby horse for a long time. I plead with him to apply greater resources to rehabilitation in general terms and specifically to the care of the frail elderly. At the end of the day, the experience we possess in rehabilitation medicine is such that we can provide a much better quality of life to our elderly folk. It means collaboration between physiotherapists, geriatric consultants, nursing staff trained in that area and a whole range of paramedical professions. They can provide a quality of life which we at one time thought had gone from certain people. I must pay tribute to the good work being done within my own constituency at Ladywell hospital and the Hope hospital. The Minister will realise that I shall come back to that subject on a personal basis at a later stage.
  I shall now deal with a subject that is almost taboo in the House—the question of bowels and bladders. Some people seem to assume that human beings go around at certain times without bowels and bladders. However, we should get it quite clear: there are 2·5 million people in Britain who suffer from incontinence. Those are figures not from my imagination, but figures that the Minister gave me recently. What is worrying is the fact that we accept incontinence as a way of life. The Under-Secretary of State who will be replying to the debate knows full well that it is the female of the species who accepts incontinence without taking action about it. That is very sad. The assumption is that one has had a couple of kids and all one needs to do is to pad up because there is nothing one can do about it. That is the most tragic misunderstanding that takes place in medicine. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to look carefully at expanding the uro-dynamic clinics for the incontinent, because I have had some startling information from the Minister. According to our national records, for the 200 health districts in Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are only 134 nurses with responsibility for and interest in incontinence. Therefore, not all districts are covered. There are only two in

  351
  Scotland, both of whom are based in Edinburgh, and in Northern Ireland there are no facilities for this sort of advice.
  First, there should be an assessment of the needs of a patient suffering from incontinence. Often that leads to dramatic improvements. We should not write people off as being incontinent for the rest of their life. I have personal knowledge of the work done in the Maelor hospital, Wrexham. Incontinence can be reversed medically and surgically, and we should say that loud and clear to prevent the 2·5 million people and their families from having to suffer the indignity of this complaint.
  If incontinence cannot he cured by medical or surgical means, the problem can often be managed successfully by exercise. That can overcome what is known as stress incontinence. I am trying to take an optimistic approach to this issue. We tend to start at the end by saying, "Oh, it's pads." Pads should be the last in a long line of careful analysis. Again, the Minister will find that this does not involve great cost. Indeed, bed occupancy would decrease if the symptom were treated properly.
  Following the substantial number of parliamentary questions that I asked on this subject, I received a letter from a nurse in Blackpool who looks after incontinent people. Throughout the country we would like to have walk-in incontinent clinics so that men or women can walk in, state their problems with this often taboo subject, and have them analysed and assessed there and then. In that way their suffering can be discontinued. The nurse's letter reads:
  "The incontinent client is, in many ways, a social outcast; alone in their suffering and one who incurs much needless expense. I feel it is time the problem was considered at Government level so that guidelines may be given to professionals and carers in the promotion of continence … It can be prevented, it is often curable and it can be managed."
  The work done by the Disabled Living Foundation is remarkable, and I pay tribute to the fact that the Department supports it. However, I am worried that faecal impaction is often treated by somebody who is untrained. Despite the optimistic reply I received from the Minister, I have reason to believe that it is treated more frequently by untrained people than the Department is aware of. This is an extremely sensitive issue. All too often people, particularly elderly people, are put into a psychiatric ward because of the misunderstanding and confusion that the condition creates in their mind. People like Dorothy Mandelstam, who works at DLF, would state that there was evidence of that.
  I shall end shortly because other hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to refer to a matter which I must approach delicately— Alzheimer's disease, or senile dementia. All too often people assume that it is incurable and nothing further can be clone. Nobody ever wants to raise false hopes, and the Minister knows full well that I tend to receive information from all sorts of sources because all sorts of people trust me. This subject is particularly difficult to advance on the Floor of the House because it is not yet generally accepted that the condition can be contained.
  Will the Minister look carefully at the experimental work being done with success on tetrahydroaminoacridine substances which help in this disease? Sometimes middle-aged but most frequently older people suffer from this dreadful disease. Some 500,000 people are involved, and their carers and families also suffer. I do not wish to raise
  352
  false hopes, but in reply I hope that the Minister will say that she will look carefully at the work being done in this area by Nottingham and the Guy's Maudsley unit.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As the youngest hon. Member taking part in the debate, I am particularly pleased to follow one of the best experts on the disabled and the elderly, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I know that he has championed many causes and I have learnt something just listening to him.
  I wish to talk about two important matters: residential care for the elderly, and a local problem in a hospital in Leicester. However, I must begin by congratulating the Government on the additional £25 million to help cut hospital waiting lists and by thanking the Minister for the £2³4 million given to Trent. That will help the elderly and reduce some of the long waiting lists, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) alluded.
  The Daily Telegraph, not The Sun, of Wednesday 18 February reported rather frighteningly that a Labour Government would axe help for the old in nursing homes. I appreciate that there is anxiety about the way in which some of these homes are run, but it is particularly important to allow our elderly to have the best possible facilities first at home and then, when it is too much of a strain for the rest of the family or for carers to look after them, in a residential care home or registered nursing home where they can be given independence and respect.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke about a numbers game and said that the number of registered nursing homes was reducing. I shall prove that their number has increased. On 31 December 1984 there were 1,491 registered homes. In 1983, there were 1,316. Obviously there has been quite an increase.
  I have a lot of respect for residential care homes. The majority of the people who run them do an excellent job. But in 1984 there were 4,090 residential care homes with 55,168 residents; in 1985 there were 5,200 homes with 69,000 residents; and in 1986 there were 6,303 homes with 80,000 residents—a tremendous increase. Much of that increase is to be welcomed because obviously not all elderly people can be cared for in their own homes and many have to turn to residential care.
  I should like the fees for residential care homes to be better controlled. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of my feelings on this matter. Those people who are unable to cope on their own must either be looked after in a local authority home or the local authority sponsors them in private or voluntary homes. It appears that the Labour party plans to take away the finance for that. Labour Members must appreciate that there are many hard-up elderly people, although not a huge number, who need the best possible care. Homes are available for them and, whether they are local authority homes or private or voluntary homes, Labour Members must ensure that those facilities are allowed to continue.
  Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruinvels: I would rather not give way because time is short.
  The availability of generous supplementary benefit board and lodging rates has ensured that many people who otherwise might not have been able to take advantage of

  353
  private sector care can use those facilities. That system should continue. We must consider the wide choice of private residential care homes and the type of care available. I should like each residential care home to publish its charges, the number of staff on duty and whether staff are totally professional in the sense that they are fully qualified. There should never be a residential care home that is not registered. Some such homes are not registered at the moment because they have fewer than four beds. I believe that residential care homes with just one bed should register. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that important point further.
  Public money is offered to these homes and the Government are especially careful to target it in the right way to ensure that it is spent on the best, most suitable form of care for the people who need it. A working party, comprising Government officials and local authorities, is examining ways of using these funds rationally.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the elderly were living longer, and that is true. Obviously it is good news. It must be because of the atmosphere, their determination to survive and the general way of life. About 50 per cent. of the care needs of the elderly are catered for by the private sector at about 50 per cent. of the cost incurred by the public sector. That means that about 35 per cent. of people in private care pay their own way, although they have contributed to the state system throughout their working lives. Residential care homes offer a homely care facility and are nothing like the Victorian and Edwardian institutions at the turn of the century.
  A confederation has been set up to represent the interests of the large number of privately owned registered residential homes. It is self-monitoring the bad residential homes. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about a number of them being bad, but I do not agree. There are a few bad apples—obviously we must weed them out—but the rest have done extremely well. I should like minimum standards to be guaranteed in every residential care home. The Registered Homes Act 1984 must ensure that that happens. Facilities and services must be provided— for example, lifts, fire exits, proper directions and proper food, which in some homes has not been up to reasonable nutritional standards.
  The regulations lay down the bed square footage which should be provided and standards are always being updated. The Registered Homes Act 1984 has given district health authorities the right to inspect premises regularly. The Registered Nursing Home Association is fearful because residential homes are inspected "at all times". Inspections should be encouraged, provided that they are carried out reasonably. Some people have alluded to raids on residential nursing homes. According to my information, that does not happen. We must give residents the best possible care and ensure that facilities are the same in all residential nursing homes.
  Staff, including ancillary staff, must be adequtely, professionally and technically trained. There must be adequate arrangements for the patient in the home so that he or she receives proper medical and dental services as and when required.
  Minimum and maximum charges must be considered. Obviously, charges must be realistic in view of the services offered. Many residential care proprietors give far better
  354
  care than some of the relations of the elderly could. It is a sad fact of life that, in certain cases, love and care is given by a residential care home because it is too difficult to look after the elderly person at home. My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced new limits on the charges and the gross costs and the minimum standards. That announcement was welcome.
  In the long term, we must obviously provide more suitably qualified staff in homes. There must be proper night staff and we must consider the precautions for fire risk. That is an area of difficulty as the elderly need to get out of residential homes fast. Certainly the requirements in regulation 10 give due regard to those obligations. We must ensure that homes are properly registered and check on them when they take residents in for residential care, and the residents should have a say in the way in which the home is run. It is especially important that there are proper and adequate facilities at all times. None of my constituents should be charged £16,000 for a room with just a bed, as one of my constituents is being charged outside Leicestershire.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the elderly and the tremendous service that they have done for their country. All hon. Members will agree with that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is not in the Chamber at the moment, but it is important to put on record the fact that when there are war memorial services in Leicester the entire Conservative group attends. However, at the last service only three Labour councillors out of 39 went to the service. I do not need any lectures on how the elderly are to be supported and honoured at war memorial services.
  Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security pay an official visit to Leicester Royal infirmary? I know that my hon. Friend has visited the infirmary in the past, but one part of the hospital is in a decrepit and Victorian state, especially around the entrance to the hospital. As my hon. Friend knows, the Leicester Royal infirmary is a renowned teaching hospital and the university relies on it as a training hospital. However, some old Victorian wards are in a decrepit state and the elderly are being treated long term in those wards. When I visited the Leicester Royal infirmary two Fridays ago, I was appalled at the poor state of repair of that facility area for the elderly. It is unusual for me to call for additional funds, but I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to supply additional funds to that hospital.
  Mrs. Currie: For the sake of balance, does my hon. Friend recognise that a substantial sum of money was spent in Leicester not very long ago? Off the top of my head, I believe that that was about £25 million. It provided a brand new hospital just up the road.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I acknowledge that additional funds have been given. The problem is that we have almost too many hospitals in Leicester—almost, not definitely.
  The Leicester Royal infirmary is not in my constituency and the funds have gone to the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). However, one part of the Leicester Royal infirmary is very drab indeed. It has no private facilities and the morale of the staff is not at its best. When I paid my semi-official visit to the hospital and spoke to the staff, it was clear that more

  355
  funds were needed. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to treat that as a matter of urgency as many of my constituents attend that hospital.
  The closing of the Fielding Johnson hospital and the Roundhill maternity hospital will provide additional funds which, I hope, can be channelled to the Leicester Royal infirmary. However, obviously I do not want my hon. Friend to forget the Towers hospital and the Leicester General hospital in my constituency which are well looked after, and 1 thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that.
  The elderly are living longer in Leicestershire and they need the best facilities that are available. Provided that those facilities are properly channelled and correct decisions are taken by the Trent regional health authority and the Leicestershire area health authority, and the RAWP requirement is sufficient— my hon. Friend knows that we receive 96 per cent. at present, but we would like a little more—I believe that the elderly will continue to be well cared for.
  I pay tribute to both Ministers for what they have done to help those who are desperately in need in the city of Leicester and in the county. The health provision is second to none. The finances put into Leicestershire are pretty good, but a little extra would be welcome. The future is rosy for the elderly people there, provided that we can reduce the waiting lists, and the additional funds that my hon. Friend announced earlier this month will ensure that the elderly in Leicestershire receive the best possible care.
  The Government amendment is by far the most realistic proposition. It acknowledges the work that has been done, the dedication of the staff and the certainty that the elderly will have more chance of getting better more quickly in the best-provided hospitals in the county of Leicestershire.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: As the motion refers not only to the Health Service but to local councils and services, I am puzzled that we have two Health Ministers and two Opposition health spokesmen in this debate. I wish to discuss not Health Service provision, but some of the other services that are essential for the elderly.
  It is right that the House has turned its attention this week to the problems of the elderly, through the two debates initiated by the official Opposition today and the debate initiated by the Government yesterday. I suppose that the latter was intended to be an occasion of self-congratulation about the EEC food surpluses, but it turned out to be yet another self-inflicted wound. It was right for my colleagues to point out yesterday that charities such as Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Salvation Army and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service are toiling to get those food surpluses to the needy, but, through no fault of theirs, to little effect. Indeed, the scheme is costing those charities a good deal of their precious money. Age Concern in my constituency received its first consignment of butter yesterday, and it has spent £700 through telephone costs organising meetings, issuing literature, and so on. It wanted to spend that precious money on 10 high-backed chairs for its new day centre. I hope that the House will press the EEC to ensure that that money is repaid to the charities which are trying to distribute food to the elderly.
  The branch of Age Concern in my constituency, like most branches in other constituencies, does valuable work, but its work in Tameside will be restricted because the
  356
  Government plan to lop off Tameside council from their urban aid programme. The Manpower Services Commission's programme is also severely restricting Age Concern, the welfare rights charities, Help the Aged and other organisations in my constituency. The MSC is being asked to give more of its thin cake to the inner cities. I do not decry the problems of the inner cities, but in some pockets of my constituency, and in many other constituencies in the north-west, there is similar deprivation and there are similar problems for the elderly. We should be talking not about slicing this thin cake, but expanding the cake to meet our ever-increasing problems, especially those which affect the elderly. No Government who allow organisations such as Age Concern to run down to their present level can be called a caring Government.
  In my constituency, Age Concern is sponsored by the MSC. It does many of the jobs that have already been outlined, including the jobs that the elderly cannot do for themselves, such as repairing flexes, painting their homes, and so on. Unfortunately, they will be under threat if the Government's current policies are pursued. Those services will be run down by the Government if the urban aid programme is not restored to many local authorities like mine, and if the Manpower Services Commission programmes are cut.
  The Government pay a great deal of lip service to caring about the elderly. During the winter months we heard about their aims, but they gave only empty promises to the elderly. Some 2,000 old people died from hypothermia or cold-related illnesses during the week following the recent cold spell. However, .the Government have steadfastly refused to tell us with what, if anything, they intend to replace the single payment allowance that has been invaluable in helping old people to insulate and draught-proof their homes. We want to know from the Minister tonight what will happen after April, because many people throughout the country want to know what will happen then.
  I want the Minister to address herself to the drastic cuts that have been planned by the MSC. I know that that is not the responsibility of her Department, but the MSC is directly responsible for many energy-saving schemes that are currently being held up. In her capacity as a "caring"—if I may put it this way—Health Minister, she should be knocking at the doors of the Department of Energy and of the MSC and finding out exactly what is being done to ensure that those energy-saving priority projects—or so we are told—are realised and come on stream for those elderly people.
  Two such schemes have been held up in my constituency. One is called "Keep Hattersley Warm"—nothing to do with the deputy leader of the Opposition, but with a Manchester overspill estate. According to an independent survey, 90 per cent. of those interviewed said that their homes were hard to heat, 88 per cent. had draught problems, 85 per cent. had difficulty paying their heating bills and 34 per cent. of the total number were pensioners. It is a cold and bleak estate in winter, as hon. Members who have visited it will know.
  The second scheme is called "Keep Tameside Warm". That is another estate in my constituency with a high proportion of pensioners. They are waiting for a scheme that has been approved by the MSC but held back because it has cut 10,000 of 255,000 places that it promised for next year. That means that in my constituency there will be a great deal of resentment because expectations are already

  357
  high in those estates. However, the residents will not benefit from the schemes because the community programmes are designed to try to meet the needs of all those people currently on the schemes. The MSC does not wish—I do not blame it—to lop off any of the schemes currently in place and working.
  It is the new schemes that are being held up. The MSC should tune its criteria more finely and consider energy-saving projects, as distinct from other projects within its scope. It is disgraceful that the schemes, which are designed to save energy and lives, are not considered separately from other environmental schemes.
  Time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I have already shed most of my speech. I see my Whip nodding. The Government should look more closely at some of the other areas that are so desperately important to the pensioners of this country.
  We should ensure that the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security work more closely together to ensure that elderly people have a much better deal than they presently have, especially in areas in which the elderly need to keep warm during our cold winters. If the Government wish to be caring in future—we all know that that is a false claim—they should address this matter in a much more positive way.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I hope that the House will bear with me as I relate a recent personal experience that I believe will provide an insight. I have had a crash course on dying. For three months, I experienced the way in which one nurses a dying person and the trauma, stress and strain that is involved. My elderly sister with terminal cancer came out of hospital three months ago. Because she lived alone, she had to be nursed by my wife and another sister until her death four weeks ago. That experience gave me an entirely new perspective on the matter of care at the end of one's life. Previously, the debate was dominated by two poles—on one hand, a geratric hospital ward and, on the other hand, community care. But the Cinderella is the care, compassion and medical help that one needs in the process of dying.
  A recent new dimension that has caught a certain amount of public attention is the hospice movement. There is an inadequate number of hospices and inadequate support for them, yet they are perhaps one of the most civilised developments in the care of the elderly that have taken place in this decade.
  What is being done about the domiciliary care of the dying that is provided by two excellent services? I defer to no one in my appreciation of district nurses, but two special organisations, the Marie Curie nurses and the MacMillan nurses, provide terminal care with special experience and expertise. I have experienced the trauma of what can happen when necessary home support is not available. What support are the Government prepared to give those excellent organisations that provide a service that nobody else provides so effectively? A district nurse is competent over the whole area of care, but her time is limited, especially as there is a shortage of district nurses. Therefore, those who suffer the constant day-to-day pressures at the time of a person's death need far more
  358
  support than we, either governmentally or locally, are giving. I ask the Minister to rethink his strategy on geriatric wards and hospices.
  I object to the fact that in my constituency two hospitals with 180 geriatric beds have been closed over the past four years. I want the Minister to think more clearly about institutional and community care. At the moment the matter is too rough and ready. I pay tribute to the primary care consultations that are going on and to some of the excellent ideas that are being shared between those who need to care.
  Although we think in terms of illness and the elderly, as has been said, to be old is not a problem, but it can create and have problems within it. There are four main areas of concern for the person who does not need hospitalisation or even community physicians. They are, first, hearing disabilities; secondly, dental problems; thirdly, eye problems; and, fourthly, foot problems.
  I recently had the privilege of having an article published in a magazine called "Saga", which goes to a few million elderly people. As a consequence, I am getting letters from all over the country. I am surprised when I continue to get the kind of letter that I received from an elderly lady of 85, who was conned out of—650 for two hearing aids by a door-to-door salesman, because she filled in a coupon. The NHS hearing aid service is as good as one could expect, and 1·5 billion hearing aids have already been issued, free of charge. Batteries are also free. Will the Minister provide the maximum amount of publicity to inform elderly people that they do not need to pay hundreds of pounds for hearing aids, because the NHS hearing aid is just as good? I am wearing two NHS hearing aids—the BE52s. By buying in bulk, the Government, according to a recent answer from the Minister, is paying £21 for each of these aids. The same aids are being sold for £300 each in the private sector. I know the makers. The elderly are being conned, and they need to be protected.
  Will the Minister refer to the statement of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when he was the Opposition spokesman on health, who agreed that my Bill, to amend my own Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 to plug this doorstep loophole, would be accepted by the Tory Opposition? I have introduced that Bill for 10 years, with the support of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Association for the Hard of Hearing and of all other hearing impaired people. Each time the Government Whips have blocked the Bill. I have been to see the present Minister and pleaded that something should be done about it. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take steps to lift the ban so that, when it comes up for Second Reading in May, I shall be given a clear run.
  Increased dental charges now mean that an elderly person has to pay £47 for dentures. I hope to goodness that the charge will not be increased again on 1 April. The House knows that as people grow old there is gum and ridge shrinkage. Consequently, new dentures are needed. Elderly people, who have much dignity, do not like to ask for charity, so most old people make do with what they have already got. Therefore, the Government should take action and listen to the pleas of the British Dental Association.
  The only people who now have any help with glasses are those on supplementary benefit. At one time, all old people had that privilege. Testing remains obligatory, but I wish that the Government would make it mandatory that opticians should go further than just testing visual acuity.

  359
  One can obtain from an optician an early diagnosis of glaucoma, cataracts, hypertension and diabetes long before anybody, but in particular the elderly, goes to see the general practitioner. Surely it was Scrooge at his worst to take from old people the right to free spectacles that they had enjoyed for so long.
  I refer the Minister to her report "More Trouble with Feet." That survey was conducted by Dr. Ann Cartwright. Old people need to be mobile so that they are not lonely. They need to be able to get about. However, despite the increase in provision that the Government boast about, there is a drastic shortage of chiropodists and also of training for chiropodists in the year ahead. Dr. Cartwright says:
  "Fifty pre cent. more chiropodists are needed immediately."
  The elderly should be able to live in a civilised fashion in the community. Therefore, these four areas of concern that I have outlined should be acted upon by the Government.
  Local social services, health services and the voluntary bodies co-operate in providing help for the elderly. For example, my much maligned Brent council has provided 2,699 telephones for elderly people who are living alone—and the telephone provides a lifeline, especially for those who live in high-rise blocks of flats.
  The combined operation of joint planning and joint funding is now an antiquated system of co-ordination between the local social services and district health authorities. I appeal for an early revision of the system. When will we ever learn? The care of the elderly is indivisible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, we can never repay this generation for what they have done for us and for generations to follow.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: I wish to refer to two aspects of health care, one in the community and one involving mental illness. We have not heard enough about the district nursing service. Over the last decade or so people have been spending shorter periods in hospital and the burden of service has been put on the community. People have to be dealt with by the community nursing service for longer in preparation for hospital treatment. When patients come out after shorter hospital stays an ever-increasing burden is placed on the district nursing service. Are the Government giving enough emphasis to the needs of staffing in the community?
  It is all very well saying that in our large inner cities the population is reducing and that we do not need spending on major hospitals. That is right. But it is in those very inner cities and large centres of population that there is an ever-increasing number of elderly people. They need more and more care by the district nursing service. Unbearable burdens are being put on that staff. Are the Government allocating enough resources? The district nursing service is always seen as the junior partner in the provision of health services.
  How much or how little emphasis has been put by the Government on mental illness, despite policy studies in the early 1970s, when the Conservative party was in opposition, aimed at improving mental illness services? We have enormous estates. We should try to get the elderly and mentally infirm back into their families if possible. We
  360
  should redevelop the major estates and release funds for more health care services in hospitals and in the community.
  The private sector has a part to play. Surely we need not leave it to the public sector solely to deal with menial illness. There is no reason why there should not be privately financed treatment of the mentally ill and infirm. I should like to see that because there is an enormous untapped resource which could be used to improve the Health Service throughout the nation.
  9.32 pm
  Dr. John Marek: This debate has been characterised by Conservative Members saying that everything within the National Health Service is good and that the Government have done everything that needs to be done, yet at the same time in their own constituencies there is something which is not quite right. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) making special pleas to the Government for more funding because of the number of old people in his constituency We have had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who said that he rarely votes for spending more money, telling us about going round Leicester Royal infirmary. He said that some old wards are in a decrepit state. He went further; he said that he was appalled at the state of those wards and he wanted extra spending.
  So we could go on. I am sure that, if asked, any Conservative Member could find something in the National Health Service that is not quite right. Of course, the public know very well that wards are being closed every day, that there are five-day wards and that there is a continual search for beds simply because the authorities have to consider performance indicators. The accountant rules, and what the accountant wants he has to get.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Brent, South (Mr. Pavia), for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) have put the argument for more and better care of the elderly very well. I agree with those arguments. Eventually, I hope that those arguments will convince the Government— they will certainly convince the next Labour Government—that more should be done for the elderly.
  I wish to repeat the figures for old-age pensions given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West ( Mr. Meacher) in the last debate. They are also valid for this debate. Money is important because that gives the elderly the ability to look after themselves, to provide heat in winter, to feed themselves and to pursue an active life to the end of their days. My hon. Friend said that old-age pensions had increased by 20 per cent. over and above prices during the period of office of the previous Labour Government, but that they had increased by only 4·5 per cent. over and above prices under the present Tory Administration. The Minister for Social Security sought to say that those figures were not as accurate as they should be, but he did not give us the accurate figures. The figures mentioned by my hon. Friend were in the research note that was published on 18 November and had been placed in the Library. Therefore, the Minister, had he wished, had plenty of time in which to find the accurate figures. Suffice to say that, if the figures given by my hon. Friend are inaccurate, they are not very inaccurate.

  361
  The Minister was rattled and produced his figures and added in all sorts of allowances concerning poverty or disability. The figures that the Minister produced were misleading because one figure suggested that the disposable income of pensioners had increased faster than the disposable income of the rest of the population. That might be right, but the Minister did not say that a considerable part of the population is unemployed and has little disposable income. That has been the tenor of the statistics and arguments put forward by the Government Front Bench during the two debates.
  The Government have sought to say that the figures produced by the Opposition are inaccurate. I am not saying that those figures are the last thing in accuracy. They may be inaccurate in detail, but they seek to provide an accurate, true reflection of what is happening to our old people.
  When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security replied to the previous debate he put a figure on the disposable income of pensioners and said that it had risen 18 per cent. more than the disposable income of the rest of the population. Such a figure is misleading. The crunch of the argument is that central to pensioners' well-being—after increases in public health services for which Governments of all persuasions have been responsible—is the amount of disposable income that they possess. That income helps the elderly to heat their houses in winter, to feed themselves and to lead active lives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that old-age pensions are equivalent to 18 per cent. of average earnings in this country. They are equivalent to 50 per cent. of average earnings in West Germany and 60 to 70 per cent. of average earnings in France. They are shocking figures and I make no apology for repeating them. I cannot see how any Government can try to get out of accepting those figures. I repeat that the Labour Government, as a start, will increase the single pension by £5 and the married pension by £8.
  The Minister for Health pursued the same line in his speech. He said that spending on the National Health Service has increased by about a third in real terms. In the past it has been said that spending has increased by 22 per cent., then 24 per cent. and now the Minister says it has increased by a third in real terms. The Minister did not say that we are getting older as a nation and therefore spending must increase to ensure that the standard of service is maintained. The Minister did not say that the medical price index increases at a higher rate than the retail prices index and that, therefore, we would have to spend more money in real terms to maintain standards.
  The Minister did not say that there are now many new operations that were hardly dreamt of 10 years ago, such as hip replacement operations, that are desired by the population, especially the elderly, so that they are assured of an active life in later years. He did not say that presently there is much more unemployment and that the unemployed need the National Health Service more than do the employed. But we know that the Government do not believe that, because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales says that he does not believe that there is a link between unemployment and ill health. Finally, the Minister did not say that there are new diseases such as AIDS, which demand new expenditure
  362
  and need extra expenditure to keep the standard of service the same. The hon. Gentleman simply said that spending on the NHS has gone up by getting on for one third. That is a shallow misrepresentation, for which I do not blame him. Obviously, it is an edict given out by the Prime Minister some years ago, that one uses all the possibilities of misrepresentation and selection of figures to try to convince the people that everything that can he done by the Government is being done.
  Of course, people are not fools. They see long waiting lists. They know that they might be refused admission when they go to hospital and that they might have to go again to see whether they can have their non-urgent operation. They see that there are not enough nurses doing nursing duties because there have been cuts in ancillary staff. They will not be fooled by shallow misrepresentations.
  Some of the elderly have been moved into community care. There is an unseemly haste by the Government in pressing health authorities to get rid of their elderly patients and put them into the community. It has meant that some patients are becoming hopeless and suicidal, and are also the victims of grasping and uncaring landlords. The NHS and voluntary bodies simply do not have the resources for proper continuing care after patients are discharged into the community. There have been cases where former patients have been put into community care, and have found themselves sharing a room with two or three other former patients, sometimes of the opposite sex. In one documented case, a 60-year-old woman had not eaten for two days, and had gone into a tiny room at the top of a dilapidated staircase, with electricity being supplied illegally through an adaptor connected to a 5p slot meter.
  I have a case at present in my constituency where a housing association is seeking to convert a large home so that is is suitable for elderly patients being discharged into the community, but it says that resources are not there for a warden to be provided. It says that it has money to provide only bedsitter accommodation, and that it does not have the finances to provide properly constructed one-bedroom flats. I fear that that pattern is being repeated throughout the country.
  Of course, the Government look at community care as a cheap option. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. They look at it as something on which the Treasury can spend less, whereas proper community care would cost as much if not more than insitutionalised hospital care.
  I visited the Truro constituency earlier this week. I was told that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), was due to visit it on 16 February. She cancelled her visit. I do not know whether there was any reason why she did that, but the people in the Truro constituency do not know. She did not turn up. Radio Cornwall announced that she was going to look at the hospitals, but when the day arrived, she was not there. She did not go. Was she muzzled? Was she told by her masters and by her mistress that there is something going on in Truro, and it would be better if the hon. Lady was not there?
  Mrs. Currie: I would not wish to leave the hon. Gentleman in suspense. I could not attend because I was preparing for the Opposition debate the following day. As

  363
  he will recall, I replied to another debate that day. The visit was rearranged for today. I decided that I preferred the hon. Gentleman's company on this occasion.
  Dr. Marek: What can I say after that? [Hon. Members: "Be careful."] My hon. Friends warn me to be careful. This is a serious point. I hope that the hon. Lady will go to the Truro constituency because I should like to see whether she can say that there is something that she or her Government can be proud of—she has not been in her job that long, and it would be unfair to blame her for all that the Government have done.
  When I went round the local hospital in St. Austell, I was told that many things were wrong in the constituency. There is a long waiting list for hip replacement operations. Eye operations are having to be done in the private hospital next door to Truro. Apparently, a surgeon will do them free so that the waiting list can be cut down. I wonder what the NHS has come to when that happens. The ambulance service is not of the same quality as it used to be.
  I have only another two minutes to speak, but I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will mend her ways? In the House of Commons, she said:
  "Universal screening is neither desirable nor necessary."—[Official Report, 5 February 1986; Vol. 91, c, 372.]
  If she said that— [Interruption] I have it here in a copy of Hansard. Does she still believe that it is neither desirable nor necessary or will she now say that it is desirable for all people to have screening, to have regular checks, so that preventive care will mean something to our elderly people?
  On a different day the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said:
  "We do not believe in equality … There should be a gap between the rich and the poor."—[Official Report, 28 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1218.]
  If she did say that, I do not think that our elderly will derive much hope from the present Government and its policies, certainly not while the hon. Lady is occupying her position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South talked about dentures and hoped that their price would not rise in the next Budget. The hon. Lady is quoted as saying:
  "charges irritate people and they put some people off, but on the dental side there is no evidence that they put people off."—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 163.]
  The charges do not put the rich off, but those are not the people that my hon. Friend was worrying about. The hon. Lady does not give us much hope, and I do not think that we will get much hope from the present Government. The elderly need more home helps; they need cuts in standing charges for electricity and gas, and preferably abolition of such charges. We need more district nurses; we need more therapists; we need more for the medical service so that we can have frequent check-ups for elderly people, and, above all, we need more disposable income for the elderly so that they can look after themselves. In spite of all the cant that we get from the Government, I do not think that we will get that from them.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I listened with interest to the words of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I do not think that he has much confidence in the Opposition case. He spent most of his speech trying,
  364
  with singular lack of success, to reopen issues that were disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in the previous debate. As to the question of universal screening, I thought that we dealt with that last week. I do not think that the hon. Member for Wrexham was present on that occasion; perhaps he was in Truro at the time.
  We have had an excellent debate, with a number of well-informed speeches. I hope that some hon. Members will not mind if I write to them in detail about the issues that they raised. I agree with one or two of the comments that were made. For example, I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who spoke about rehabilitation. What he said about many of the issues that he raised was right. Prevention also is an important matter. The hon. Member talked about incontinence clinics. It may be that we should have well-elderly clinics that encompass a number of such issues. Broadly, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asked for on Alzheimer's disease. I hope that he never has need for the services that he called for.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) asked about chiropodists. We have set up additional training schools, and another school is opening this year. He also mentioned hospices. As he probably knows, we had a debate on hospices last week, which was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), to whose speech I refer him. We held a joint conference on care of the dying between the DHSS and the National Association of Health Authorities which resulted in a guide for health authorities. A circular setting out DHSS policy on terminal care is coming out at the beginning of next week, which we hope will encompass some of the issues that he raised.
  Several hon. Members talked about co-ordination of services for people who are discharged from hospital. Under the Helping the Comrr unity to Care programme we are funding a number of voluntary organisations, including Age Concern and Red Cross, to develop new ways of developing such co-ordination. We will look with interest at the results.
  I was a little surprised at the comments that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made on crime. If he is so concerned about crime, we hope that he will persuade his party to back the police in the future. There are a number of other detailed issues, but in view of the time I hope that hon. Members will allow me to write to them about them.
  We are all interested in services for the elderly, because we all hope to get there some day—perhaps me more than most, since women are far more likely to do it than men. Currently, there are 3 million people aged between 75 years and 84 years and 750,000 aged over 85 years. There are 3,400 people who are more than 100 years old. A centenarian these days has a life expectancy of two years, and we expect the number of them to increase substantially. No one tonight has paid tribute to medical science, or the improved living conditions and good preventative work that has resulted in this considerable growth in numbers, and we look forward to much of the same.
  For many people, old age is not a disaster but, in the terms of "A Handbook For Retirement" recently produced by Age Concern, "The Time of Your Life". Lord Murray said in his introduction:

  365
  "Retirement should not mean inaction but a period of liberation—a time to do all those things which a full-time job made impossible … Today's retired men and women are generally more youthful, active and healthy than ever before. They are branching out in new skills and interests … they are taking up new lines of work, both paid and unpaid; they are the mainstay of social clubs, sports clubs and charities"—
  as they are of political parties.
  "They are refusing to retire from everyday life and are doing things their way, regardless of how people expect them to act at their 'time of life'."
  The standard of living of retired people has risen quite dramatically. In 1975 only 20 per cent. of retired households had access to a car, and now it is 30 per cent. Some 48 per cent. had a washing machine, but now it is 65 per cent., which helps with some of the other problems that we have mentioned. Sixty-nine per cent. had a fridge; now it is 95 per cent. Some 37 per cent. had a phone; now it is 75 per cent. Ninety-seven per cent. have a television set, so we would not be surprised that they watch on average 40 hours of television every week, which is twice the amount that young people watch. Most important in terms of comfort, 33 per cent. used to have central heating and now 61 per cent. have. As a result, we can say that they are much better housed than ever they were.
  The opening speeches today dealt with how we make the system function, particularly in reference to local councils, which do a great deal of work. I have a report referred to earlier of an independent review of residential care for the elderly in the London borough of Camden. I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency is covered, and some of whose constituents are mentioned, that the council deserves recognition for having had the guts to commission the independent report and publish it. However, the scandals described in it should never have happened. I shall read some of it into the record.
  This is what the report said about Camden's care for the elderly:
  "effective management of residential care in Camden has broken down … The Council's concern to be a good employer became carried to a point at which elderly residents have suffered."
  It presents a detailed report of each home and says of one:
  "We observed failure to clean up urine and faeces; residents being scolded … Standards of hygiene generally very poor and in our view contained a risk to health … Custom and practice has led to care assistants being able to take up to one hour's tea break—all at the same time … We heard of difficulty in gaining access to the building during tea breaks. We know of one resident left helpless during a tea break, lying transverse across the bed with only a vest across her shoulders and was blue with cold … the Trade Union had remained adamant that there should be no reduction in the time out taken … care is not a priority for some staff".
  Another home was described in this way:
  "A downstairs lavatory approached by steps which is inaccessible to people using wheelchairs or walking frames. In consequence dependent residents are regularly toiletted on a commode in a four-bedded downstairs bedroom with no privacy at all."
  Another home is described as having bedrooms that are "unacceptably overcrowded". Furthermore,
  "the lift is subject to frequent breakdowns and has been left unrepaired for as long as six weeks."
  In that home the depression rate of residents is 53 per cent. Furthermore,
  366
  "there has been a recent suicide of a very disturbed woman who could not be adequately supervised … Getting up of residents starts at 5.45 a.m."
  Of another home, the review said:
  "For physically disabled residents the care system appears to have collapsed … a dirty neglected appearance of both surroundings and individuals … 14 out of 18 'incontinent' residents could in fact be kept continent with proper care. Clothing … is often dirty and unkempt, often with no underwear and in particular there is an absence of knickers—similar complaints have been voiced by relatives … We had drawn to our attention a number of incidents concerning residents. One man was reported as having been found by a visiting doctor as so soaked in urine that it had made a 'high tide' mark, which would have taken up to seven hours to form, across his shirt … some staff members expressed themselves as deeply distressed at their inability to offer good care, because some colleagues did not carry out their duties responsibly, refused orders and were aggressive and abusive. We heard allegations of fights amongst staff members and of staff having to be escorted to public transport because of fear of retribution from other staff members.
  As things are we however feel it necessary to say that the Home is very close to disaster, and could easily become the focus of a major scandal."
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady will accept that any sensible person would regard the circumstances described in that report as disgraceful. Does she also accept that it is somewhat hypocritical not to note other things said in that report, that the Department of Health and Social Security has statutory inspectorial duties and that the periods between inspections seemed to be of unacceptable duration? Does she recognise that some of the issues raised in this report would have been identified and possibly dealt with earlier if the Department had exercised its statutory duties? We will not take lessons from people who will not accept their own responsibilities.
  Mrs. Currie: The DHSS does not run these homes; Camden council runs them. For the hon. Gentleman's information, may I say that I asked whether inspectors had recently visited the homes and was told that they had. I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman the report that they have just produced. They again used the words "dirty" and "untidy", and referred to "poor standards of care". It is not as if Camden does not have any money. It spends more per head on residential care and on just about everything else than any other borough. It is repeatedly compared unfavourably with other local authorities.
  I cannot see how the Opposition's policies would be of any help. In the Health Service they would get rid of prescription and other charges, and that would lose at least £350 million a year. They would stop contracting out, and that would lose another £75 million. They would lose all the other cost improvements which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) drew to our attention. They would do their best to get rid of the private sector. They say that the private sector and care of that sort is no part of Labour's philosophy. They say that their aim is to put public money into good public services. I hope to God that they are not like those in Camden.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham spoke a little self-righteously about waiting lists. The waiting lists were longest when NHS staff were out on strike, and the Opposition backed that strike in every way. We saw recently the walk-out of clerical staff from Selly Oak hospital, of home helps in Liverpool and of meals on wheels staff in Hackney. That is what the Labour party supports.

  367
  The Opposition talk about reversing tax cuts. I hope that they remember that pensioners are also taxpayers and that 70 per cent, of them have income from savings which would be eroded by taxation and inflation and by what the Opposition plan to do to pension funds. It was all summed
  up for us by Richard Crossman in his diary entry for Sunday 14 June 1970, when he described the Conservative years as
  "years of economic expansion and a tremendous rise in living
  standards".
  The Labour years were described as
  "years of hell and high taxes."
  That is exactly what we would have again under Labour. Years of hell and high taxes are all that is promised by the Opposition for us, for our elderly and for everybody else. I trust that they and their motion will be rejected.
  Question put, That original words stand part of the
  Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 252.

  Division No. 102]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Anderson, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Eastham, Ken

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, A. J.

  Fields, T. (L'poo/ Broad Gn)

  Bell, Stuart

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Forrester, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foster, Derek

  Blair, Anthony

  Foulkes, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Boyes, Roland

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Freud, Clement

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  George, Bruce

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gould, Bryan

  Buchan, Norman

  Gourley, Harry

  Caborn, Richard

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hancock, Michael

  Campbell, Ian

  Hardy, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clay, Robert

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  John, Brynmor

  Craigen, J. M.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Crowther, Stan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamond, James

  Deakins, Eric

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  368

  Loyden, Edward

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rooker, J. W.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McWilliam, John

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampin NE)

  Martin, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Michie, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mikardo, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Nellist, David

  Torney, Tom

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wainwright, R.

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Weetch, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Michael

  Pike, Peter

  White, James

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Gordon

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Woodall, Alec

  Redmond, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Ron Davies and

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Mr. Tony Lloyd.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Eluchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ancram, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Arnold, Tom

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Conway, Derek

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Derrell, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Brinton, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Browne, John

  Evennett, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  369

  Fallon, Michael

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Farr, Sir John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Finsberg, Sir Geottrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Irving, Charles

  Forman, Nigel

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Forth, Eric

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Franks, Cecil

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Freeman, Roger

  Key, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Gale, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Galley, Roy

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Knowles, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Knox, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lang, Ian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Latham, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Lawler, Geoftrey

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Greenway, Harry

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Lester, Jim

  Grittiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Ground, Patrick

  Lightbown, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Lilley, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Harvey, Robert

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Haselhurst, Alan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hawksley, Warren

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Maclean, David John

  Hayward, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Madel, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Major, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Malins, Humtrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Malone, Gerald

  Hind, Kenneth

  Maples, John

  Hirst, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Marlow, Antony

  Holt, Richard

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Howard, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  370

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Silvester, Fred

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Speed, Keith

  Mudd, David

  Speller, Tony

  Murphy, Christopher

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nellist, David

  Stern, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Pollock, Alexander

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Powley, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Price, Sir David

  Waller, Gary

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Raffan, Keith

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitfield, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put
  forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on
  amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as
  amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to facilitate and prolong the health and independence of elderly people; welcomes its provision for the increasing proportion of elderly and very elderly people in the population; notes the substantial increase in health care of elderly people in hospitals and in the community; and applauds the Government's success in helping elderly people to improve their quality of life.

  European Court of Auditors
  10.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on the financial year 1985, together with the replies of the Institutions; and approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.
  The House has before it for scrutiny this evening the European Court of Auditors' annual report on the Community's 1985 financial year. This report offers to the Community, and to its member states in particular, a key opportunity to consider in some detail the effectiveness with which the Community's resources are in practice used. We are fortunate to have as a basis for our debate the clear and helpful report from the Select Committee on European Legislation. I should like on behalf of the Government to pay tribute to the important work of the Committee and to its thoroughness in carrying out its scrutiny role on behalf of the House.
  The Government share the Committee's assessment that the court's role is a daunting one. As the range of Community activities has expanded in recent years, the court's task has been made more difficult and even more vital to the task of ensuring that the Community's finances are managed with the necessary efficiency and rigour. I am sure the House will join me in putting on record our appreciation of the importance of the court's work and our support for its endeavours. We must constantly make it clear that the same standards for which we strive in matters of national public expenditure must also be applied to the Community.
  The role of the Court of Auditors' report in the Community's budget procedure is set out in the explanatory memorandum which I submitted to the House on 22 January. As the House will recall, it is the responsibility of the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation agreed by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, to grant a discharge each year to the Commission in respect of its implementation of the Community budget. The Council bases its recommendation for discharge upon discussions of the court's annual report. The ECOFIN council will be debating this question on Monday 9 March, and comments made by hon. Members this evening will be a useful input to the Government's preparation for that discussion.
  Mr. Mart will again be present at ECOFIN to present his report in his capacity as president of the court. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that over the last few years pressure from the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that these discussions reflect more fully the importance of the work of the court in the financial affairs of the Community.
  I would like to highlight key areas in the court's report. The court draws attention to the need for a review of commitments outstanding which could turn out to be defunct. The United Kingdom Government support this call strongly and we look to the Commission to take further measures to weed out commitments still on the Community's books which no longer relate to real projects. The financial pressures faced by the Community mean that this must be a priority over the coming year.
  372
  The court also highlights the outstanding liabilities of the Community. A figure of 20 billion ecu has been mentioned in this context. In considering the Community's liabilities it is important to distinguish between those which relate to binding contracts entered into and those which concern wider political commitments made by the Community which have yet to be translated into financial terms. It is not always helpful to lump together definite and contingent liabilities in this way, and the resulting figures must be used with caution.
  The United Kingdom's position is clear. It is normal for the Community to have outstanding liabilities, particularly in the structural funds. Indeed, in a system where some of the payment may be made a considerable time after the contract is signed this is advisable to ensure that funds are not disbursed before it is necessary to do so. However, we need to maintain stricter control over the growth of those liabilities. The Commission must ensure that outstanding debts are held to the minimum necessary for the efficient functioning of the Community. The budgetary authority decided in the 1986 budget to take major steps to redress the imbalance between commitments and payments to which the court drew attention. Now that this has been achieved, a strict implementation of budgetary discipline is required to ensure that its future decisions maintain a sensible balance in this area.
  The court reiterates points made in previous years concerning the use of an intergovernmental agreement—IGA—to balance revenue and expenditure in 1985. For reasons set out at some length on other occasions, the Government do not accept this criticism and, in common with all other member states, consider that the use of an IGA in the particular circumstances of 1985 was a proper and legal means of providing a balanced budget. The Government agree strongly, however, with the underlying concern of the court to ensure that expenditure is maintained within the revenue available.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend has said that that brought about a balanced budget. Was it not absolutely clear that the budget did not balance and that the IGA was used to bring about a balance which did not exist within the terms of the treaty?
  Mr. Brooke: As my right hon. Friend will recall, that is an issue on which he and If exchanged words on the Floor of the House and in correspondence.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: A very serious criticism has been made of the system of advances, which is described in paragraph 1.11 as being temporary, because it has become a permanent feature of the Community finances. Will my hon. Friend please answer that criticism?
  Mr. Brooke: It is going a little far to say that the particular arrangements which were made in 1985, and which, as my hon. Friend says, were described as temporary, have become a permanent feature of the Communitys affairs.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brooke: No. I want to make a little progress, and then I will gladly give way.
  The court also comments in some detail on the operation of the provisional twelfths regime, which ruled Community finances from January 1985 until a 1985

  373
  Budget was finally adopted in June 1985. The court made clear that there are several unsatisfactory aspects in the manner in which the provisional twelfths regime currently operates. The Government broadly support these criticisms and will be pressing for amendments to be made to the necessary legislation in the context of amendment of the financial regulation.
  The court found that the number of irregularities detected in CAP expenditure increased by 70 per cent. between 1984 and 1985, and noted the high concentration of those irregularities in some countries. The court thought that regulations should be amended to enable the Commission to intervene directly to investigate fraud. The Commission replied that it was taking steps to improve cooperation between its officials and those in member states and had put forward to the Council an amendment which would enable it to carry out inspections in member states.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has said, and we are very pleased to hear it, that the IGA will not become a permanent feature and will not become embedded in stone for ever, but he will know that there is to be some sort of whip-round—perhaps sensibly—to deal with the vast mountains of agricultural produce and huge lakes that exist at the moment. Could my hon. Friend, who has said that the IGA will not become a permanent feature, give the House an undertaking that if this whip-round takes place, and it is a loan, and we are to be repaid that loan, the repayment will in no way be dependent upon this House agreeing to a further increase in Community own resources at a later stage?
  Mr. Brooke: That was a somewhat convoluted question, but I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen): the features which were described as temporary have not become permanent. Indeed, during the 15 months in which I have held my present post, I cannot recall any discussion in the budget Council of an IGA. I acknowledge the overhang of agricultural expenditure, for which proposals will be required from the Commission and to which the Council will address itself.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brooke: No, I will continue if I may. My hon. Friend will have ample opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our less than full House tonight.
  The court has taken its usual careful look at the administration of the Community's development aid. We were especially pleased to see the court's comment that administration of the Dublin plan, under which the Community and member states undertook to deliver 1–2 million tonnes of cereals to famine-affected countries in Africa in 1985, was "entirely satisfactory". It was a difficult programme to implement, but the total European effort of the Community and member states combined undoubtedly made a significant contribution to relieving famine in that year.
  There is less evidence of delays in delivery of food aid than in previous years. Previous Court of Auditors reports about such delays were a significant factor in the Council's decision to reform radically the Community's food aid procedures under the United Kingdom presidency last November. We believe that the new arrangements will allow much faster response in emergencies.
  374
  Some deficiencies in the administration of aid from the European development fund are again brought to light, but at least some of the difficulties mentioned are being tackled in the implementation of the new Lome convention, which was signed by the Community and by 66 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It came into force on 1 May 1986.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene on the subject of the Lome convention?
  Mr. Budgen: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the tactic of talking at great length about peripheral issues to avoid answering questions that have been put to him properly by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The House is interested in how the books will be made to balance properly, and a lot of talk about peripheral issues will not interest us very much.
  Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to take issue with my hon. Friend, but I asked him whether his question was about the Lomé convention. Having heard his question, I do not think that it was. We have ample opportunity for debate this evening, and I look forward to hearing the points made by my hon. Friends and by other hon. Members.
  The Lomé convention entered into force on 1 May 1986. It allows European Community aid to be better planned, more coherent and so more effective.
  There is now recognition that developing countries have to be helped over the shortage of foreign exchange which prevents them making use of existing investments. There is provision in the new convention for the supply of spare parts and essential commodities, alongside more conventional investment projects. The concentration on particular sectors for Community aid and the introduction of policy commitments by recipient countries also mean that the Community can make a better evaluation of the extent to which developing countries will provide the policy environment and, if necessary, local finance to make the aid work.
  In conclusion, the Government recognise the need for greater rigour in decisions on the spending totals available to the Community and in the financial control exercised over that spending. We shall continue to impress on our partners the need for the Community to live within its means. Resources are limited, and it is as important for the Community, as for its member states, to cut its coat according to its cloth.
  Similarly, for any given amount of Community expenditure, it remains just as important as ever that such spending should be as efficient and cost effective as possible. The Court of Auditors has a central role in helping to bring that about and we shall continue to support the court in its efforts.
  10.25 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I want to agree in one sentence with what the Minister said and to welcome the Select Committee's report and its useful analysis of the report of the Court of Auditors. It makes much better reading than the large heap of papers that we have received from the Court of Auditors. However, from there on agreement between us must cease. Indeed, there did not seem to be much agreement between the Minister and his hon. Friends either.

  375
  The Minister referred to the removal of defunct commitments— that is something with which we all agree and which we want to happen. However, he was really clutching at straws in a desperate effort to find some way of reducing Community expenditure, that being the only possibility.
  I find the motion puzzling. We are asked to take note of the annual report and to approve
  "the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure."
  I am not quite sure to what the final part of that sentence refers, because budgetary discipline did not apply in 1985.It allegedly began to apply in 1986 when the own resources ceiling was put up to 1·4 per cent. However, most of us doubt that budgetary discipline applies at all.
  On the Government's efforts to press for effective budget discipline, if the Prime Minister occasionally going along to the Council of Ministers and hectoring the other Ministers—telling them that we must stop spending as much in the Community—counts as that, it has been remarkably ineffective ever since the discipline was allegedly introduced.
  The Court of Auditors' comments about 1985 will no doubt be repeated when it reports on 1986 and 1987. In 1985 the percentage of agricultural spending steadily increased and reached 70 per cent. In the current budgetary year, agricultural spending will overrun yet again and there will be a 5 billion ecu deficit. It is expected that the figure will range between 3 and 5 billion ecu at the end of this year, precisely for the reasons that many of us pointed out right from the start—the gap in budgetary discipline which allowed for account to be taken of changes in the exchange rate. The fall in the dollar has brought that about exactly as everybody— certainly most hon. Members present—repeatedly said it would.
  Turning away from what we expect to happen in 1987 and referring back to what we are supposed to be debating, which is the Court of Auditors' report, what the Court of Auditors has to say about the way in which the Commission and certain member states run their finances shows that the notion of ever imposing budgetary discipline on that lot is little short of a farce.
  Let us consider what the Court of Auditors says about the accounts in the opening paragraphs of its report, from 1·5 onwards. It states:
  "Setting them out in this way lays the Commission open to the accusation of not having given a true and fair view of the Community's actual financial situation."
  That point is emphasised in paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11. Paragraph 1.10 states:
  "For the second year running, the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue …use of advances from the Member States, far from helping to amortize the 'burden of the past' … has, on the contrary, allowed it to increase throughout the financial year 1985."
  And so the report goes on; there is no real attempt to control Community spending—
  Mr. Budgen: What about the stocks?
  Dr. McDonald: I shall come to that matter, if the hon. Gentleman will just wait for a moment or two.
  Community spending continues to get out of hand, and at the end of the report the Court of Auditors says that,
  376
  had the accounts been properly presented, it would have been clear that the 1 per cent. ceiling was busted in 1985 and had approached a ceiling of 1·3 per cent. of VAT.
  If the Government really want anything like financial discipline to be imposed, they could make a start by ensuring that every member Government paid. Paragraph 3.7 of the report records that, by 31 December 1985, France, Italy and Luxembourg had failed to pay the amount agreed under the intergovernmental agreement. We want to know when those amounts were paid and what happened to France, Italy and Luxembourg for delaying their payments. If major members of the Community such as France delay their payments, how can we rush to pay so nobly? How about a little delay on our part? Why do we not say to the French Government, "You pay first and we will follow"? Rather than the Prime Minister leaning on other Governments with empty hectoring, following that suggestion might be more to the point.
  Paragraph 4.40—the Minister referred to this point in passing, but he was considerably more optimistic than the Court of Auditors— refers to 219 cases of irregularities involving 12 million ecu. After a long investigation, the recoveries made in 1985 a result of overpayment related to 70 cases for the amount of only 1·3 million ecu. To suggest that there is any greater efficiency or that the Community can make any proper checks on that is to be far too optimistic. Paragraph 4.40 states:
  "Faced with the same observation for the financial year 1984, the Commission agreed to give the reasons for this imbalance; at the present time, the Court has still not received the answers promised by the Commission, which are even more necessary considering the considerable increase in 1985."
  Irene— not a lady, but a computerised system—should have been introduced., but is still delayed. it is to be used for recording and analysing frauds and irregularities reported by member states. Not surprisingly, the olive oil problem referred to in paragraphs 4.64 and 4.65 still exists, despite— and this shows why the Minister's optimism is so ill-founded— the confident prediction of the Commission in reply to the Court of Auditors' special report of June 1985. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about what happens on issues such as olive oil and what progress has been made on the recording and analysing of frauds and irregularities, instead of expressing the type of optimism that he did.
  Table 4.5 shows clearly the costs of public and private storage in 1984 and 1985. It states that the commission's accounting procedures make it no longer possible to get full or accurate information for a particular financial year. The Select Committee quite rightly drew attention to that fact. The Commission is not in a position to provide a full disclosure of costs and financing of stocks, an increasing share of which is borne directly by the member states. By November 1985 the total value of the cereals in storage was two fifths of the value of the stock of all farm products. The price package of 1986–87 is better, hut, in the Court's view, does not go anywhere near to achieving a solution.
  The Government, in their motion, refer to their pressing for budgetary discipline, but, quite honestly. there is little sign of such pressures having any effect in 1985. There is little sign that they will have had any effect in 1986. As for 1987, we all know full well that the budget will run into enormous difficulties and that, yet again, there will have to be a Government whip-round, probably

  377
  towards the end of this year—though, if we say that at this stage, we shall probably find that it comes earlier rather than sooner.
  I suppose that that is one of the events that the Government hope will happen after a general election, so that they will not have to deal with the problem and come to the House with their collective tail between their legs and say, "Sorry, budget discipline failed. The 1·4 ceiling has been busted. We have not succeeded in reforming agricultural policy. We have not found proper agreement. By the way, talk has been going on with other members of the Community about "possibilities." Who knows what the discussions that the Foreign Secretary has been having over the past few days entail for future expenditure, but most commentators suggest that the future of that expenditure and the future Community burden on us is not at all bright.
  When we are asked to approve the Government's pressure to bring about budgetary discipline, we can record yet another year of dismal failure that the Court of Auditors has quite properly and fully exposed. If a company kept its finances in such a way, it would not be allowed to conduct any business. In its present state, we should not allow the Commission to have vast sums of public money to fritter away in such a fashion.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: The House should be grateful to the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for its report. I should like to refer to a point made in the report. It states:
  "It—
  That is to say, the Court—
  "notes that some Member States are not prepared to cooperate with the Court and the Commission over access to information … with the result that the court has not so far been able to discharge fully its responsibilities for the audit of the VAT own resources and the EAGGF Guarantee."
  What will the Government do about this matter? Quite clearly, it is not acceptable that taxpayers' money should go out in that form. The body responsible for auditing such matters cannot get information from other Governments. My hon. Friend said that he would take into account the views that are expressed in this debate when the matter is discussed in the wider forum. I hope that he will express in the strongest possible terms that this is not acceptable. I want to know what he can do about it, and also what he proposes to do about it.
  We were assured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some time ago that as more countries became net contributors, this would provide an effective guarantee of budgetary discipline. However, one has only to look at the long written answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 17 February 1987 to see that he said that he voted against the Council's proposals but that all the other member states voted in favour. So much for the argument that the most effective guarantee of budgetary discipline is the fact that more countries are now becoming net contributors.
  As for the wording of the motion, it
  "takes note of the Annual Report."
  It does not approve it. Last year I pointed out in our debate that it would be more appropriate for the House to approve it. There is certainly a case for spelling out in
  378
  greater detail the kind of concerns that are expressed in the Select Committee's report, so that when they are discussed in the European forum my hon. Friend can put clearly before that wider group the fact that the House of Commons has expressed the view, for example, that it is deplorable that the information has not been provided to enable the court to carry out its duties.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend have any evidence that suggests that the auditors' report is discussed by Ministers at any time?
  Mr. Higgins: I understood my hon. Friend the Minister to say that that will happen. if that is not so, perhaps he will correct the matter in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) may be right. If so, that would be very bad indeed.
  The second part of the motion
  "approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure."
  As the Treasury Select Committee has pointed out on previous occasions, it is quite clear that effective budgetary discipline has not been imposed. The motion implies as much, although the increase in the VAT ceiling was made only on the clear understanding that there would be effective budgetary discipline. However, all that we are told in the motion is that we should approve the Government's efforts to press for effective budgetary discipline. That has not yet been realised, but the increase in the VAT ceiling has been realised and the money paid under that ceiling has been realised, too.
  Most of the problems are caused by the common agricultural policy. It does not meet the case for Ministers to come back after negotiations and say that they have had a splendid success over the CAP. It is not possible to patch it up. The only effective way to deal with the CAP is to abolish it. It is incapable of reform. This week's edition of The Economist contains a very cogent article. I could not hope to express the matter as clearly as it is expressed in that article. It relates to the green currencies, the multiple green currencies and the various monetary compensatory amounts that have been introduced.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a very simple question. Why is it that agriculture should be protected from fluctuations in exchange rates when no other industry is? I do not understand why that should be so. Perhaps he will give us an answer to that rather simple question, since many of the problems to which the Court of Auditors has given attention stem precisely from those arrangements.
  I ought to spend a moment or two on the criticisms that are made in the Court of Auditors' report. It states very clearly, as it did last year, that the Court particularly regrets that a situation has been gradually allowed to arise that increasingly contravenes the requirements of a balanced budget and that the institutions have not always exercised the budgetary powers conferred upon them under the treaty. My hon. Friend said that all these things were temporary and not a permanent arrangement. That is contrary to the clear implication of paragraph 1.12 of the Court's report; referring to paragraph 1.10, it says:
  "This being so, calling for advances from the Member States, though presented as a temporary emergency measure, will inevitably"—
  I stress the word "inevitably"—
  "become a permanent financing tool if the Community is both to remain within the 1·4 per cent. limit established for 1986

  379
  and 1987 for the Community rate of VAT own resources and start seriously to amortize part of the accumulated past liabilities which, alone, already represent the equivalent of more than one year's VAT revenue for the Communities."
  For my hon. Friend to come before the House and to say that this is all a temporary arrangement is contrary to what the Court is clearly arguing, namely, that it is inevitable that it should go on from being a temporary arrangement year after year to becoming a permanent arrangement. I hope that he will accept that point and tell us what the Government propose to do about it.
  My hon. Friend put great stress, as indeed the Court does, on the question of the outstanding commitments or liabilities. He distinguished between binding contractual commitments and political ones. Let us concentrate for a moment on the binding contractual commitments. My hon. Friend was not quantitative in his approach. Could we be told what he understands the binding contractual commitments to be in the period covered by the report and in subsequent periods to the extent that figures are available?
  My hon. Friend emphasised, as the Court does, that some of the commitments may be defunct. It is greatly to be hoped that some are defunct. Of course, the numbers that are likely to be defunct are very small compared with the total. Just to grasp at straws by saying that some of the commitments probably will not be realised is to cast on one side the much more important question, of the size of the commitments and liabilities that are likely to be realised.
  The position outlined by the Court of Auditors is deplorable. The Government must get a grasp on it rather than seek to suggest that all is allright, that we need not bother and so on. No one who reads this document could possibly believe that that is so. I am sure my hon. Friend does not believe it. Since no doubt we shall return to this year after year, let us on future occasions have motions which set out in the clearest possible terms that the position outlined in the court's report is not acceptable and that the Government are not prepared to accept it.
  10.48 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: As a general principle I always prefer agreeing to disagreeing with people.
  Mr. Marlow: Does that apply to the SDP?
  Sir Russell Johnston: If I may respond to that, it is indeed a principle of the alliance.
  I am happy to begin by associating myself with the points made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) at the beginning of his remarks. Clearly it is not only unsatisfactory but wrong that information should be denied to the Court of Auditors. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point and say that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to see the matter corrected.
  Like the Minister, when I looked at the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation my eye also fell on the sentence about the Court of Auditors having to face a range which is "increasingly formidable" and a task which is "correspondingly daunting". I accept that not only as a comment but as a compliment to its 12 members.
  To those hon. Members who will probably use this debate as yet another opportunity to knock the European Community around the ring I would say—the hon.
  380
  Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) looks shocked at that suggestion, but, judging from my experience, he should not be shocked—the Court, in the face of complex problems, succeeds in producing penetrating and effective criticism. The members of the Court deserve congratulation for that success. The Community also deserves some congratulation for having an instrument as effective and forthright as the Court of Auditors. It is welcome that the reply of the Commission refers to changes in administration. The idea of a four-year financial perspective is also welcome.
  It is not easy to deal with a wide-ranging report in a short time, and I shall concentrate on a number of central issues. The right hon. Member for Worthing quoted from the conclusion of the first part of the Court's report. I would like to quote another paragraph, which I fear is equally critical. The right hon. Gentleman quoted paragraph 1.11 about the advances, but paragraph 1.10 bluntly states that
  "the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue. What is more, use of advances … a preponderant and growing share of these liabilities does not correspond to this natural growth of commitments entered into in connection with future common policies, but rather corresponds to the systematic carrying-over of previous budget deficits and to postponing the task of accounting for certain costs arising from agricultural stocks to future budgets."
  That is a serious fundamental criticism of the budgetary position. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to another criticism that I, from my pro-European standpoint, find as grave as the financial criticisms. That criticism is contained in paragraph 1.12, which states:
  "This prospect is all the more regrettable as recourse to advances from the Member States has already shown, in 1984 and 1985, the extent of the damage done to the financial autonomy of the Communities which was the objective of the authors of the Decision of 21 April 1970 on the Communities' own resources. The fact is that the use of a system of advances is tantamount to renationa.lising the budget of the Communities and, in so doing, negating the objective of the above-mentioned decision. Secondly, the need to obtain from each Member State prior approval of the advances reintroduces the power of individual veto into the Communities' budgetary decision-taking procedure, which has hitherto been characterised by voting by qualified majority."
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say something about that.
  Those who believe that there are considerable advantages to be derived from our membership of the Community cannot baulk at the grave position of the budget. There is an urgent need to reform the budget.
  Hand-to-mouth solutions, such as non-reversible advances, carrying-over of deficits to the following years and those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman are not long-term solutions. That is clearly stated by the court and the Commission.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), I did not think that she was fair to castigate the Commission. The Commission's record is good. It has tried very hard to put pressure upon the Council of Ministers to act with more prudence and probity than it has done in the past. I do not believe that the blame rests at the Commission's door.
  The increase in the VAT element of our resources following the Fontainebleau summit was largely swallowed up by carried-over commitments from previous

  381
  years, Britain's rebate, and agriculture, which has left little for new policies. The 1987 budget, which was agreed two and a half weeks ago, will be about £3 billion short. That is a fact. It might be a bit more or less, depending on the United States dollar and the agricultural harvest. It will still be short of the figure that is necessary to cover inescapable commitments to the common agricultural policy.
  The need for budgetary reform is obvious, but it is important for the Government to realise that one will not achieve that unless one takes a collective attitude. Constantly to put national interests, which often are electoral interests, before the overall benefit of the Community is a certain way to create future budgetary problems.
  I know that it has been said before, and that it does not diminish the force of the criticisms that have been made, but one should remind oneself that the overall budget of the European Community, through which 12 countries coordinate a range of policies for joint action, and which represents them on the world stage in all trade, agriculture and fisheries negotiations, is about three fifths of Britain's social security budget. So one should get it into perspective. That does not reduce the force of the criticisms made, but it is something that one should remember.
  In the view of members of the alliance, the structural funds are an important component in the budget. We would argue for an increase in investment to deal with the problems of unemployment. There is no doubt that the gap between rich and poor regions of the European Community, which is already a major problem, is likely to get worse still as a result of the achievement of the internal market by 1992. One is in favour, but there must be some checks or the situation will become much worse. That is the major issue, which Liberals in Europe will discuss at our European Community conference of European Liberal Democrats, in Lisbon, at the beginning of April.
  The Select Committee's report refers to the regional fund and the fact that
  "ten years after the creation of the Fund it is still hard to assess its effectiveness."
  That is true. But one of the reasons for that is the lack of information about additionality of aid from the Community and the extra development effort that such aid will make possible. Therefore, we in this country contribute to the inability of the Community to assess that properly. We have long criticised the United Kingdom practice of EC aid being simply swallowed up by the Treasury instead of being clearly viewed as additional to the United Kingdom's own effort.
  It is perhaps too early to say anything specific or definite about what Mr. Delors has been saying, but it is impossible to have such a debate on the Court of Auditors comments without making some reference to Delors. I am surprised that that has not yet been done. Although it is not possible to be firm about it, on a reading of his presentation to the European Parliament last week, I believe that it is a thoughtful, practical and forward-looking basis for negotiation. That is the sort of approach and initiative that one would have liked to see occur during the United Kingdom presidency.
  I have said many times in these debates that when the United Kingdom— very successfully, I do not deny—
  382
  negotiated the rebate, it should have not simply negotiated a rebate, but tried to negotiate a fair general basis for budgetary payments. The only fair basis seemed to be some relationship between gross national product and the payment that the country made. That is what is contained in the Delors proposal. Equally, Delors said that without CAP discipline everything else is meaningless. I accept that completely. His aim is to allow an increase in European Community income from about £27 billion as it will be this coming year to £36 billion by 1992. That is a modest objective if one is to have realistic increased expenditure on research, the environment, regional and social funds and matters of that nature.
  If the Community criticises itself, as the Court of Auditors has done, it is seized upon by people who criticise every aspect of the European Community. We continue to believe that the Community is essential to Britain's future prosperity and security and influence in the world. We should take the lead in seeking more effective co-operation with our European partners over the widest possible range of issues.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), one is tempted to discount slightly the remarks and advice of the Opposition spokesman and also perhaps some of my hon. Friend's advice because their motives are bound to be a little suspect, at least politically. The Labour party seemingly is in favour of a huge expansion of public spending, but is not in favour of Commission public spending. It is always severe about measuring and testing it. I suspect some of my hon. Friend's motives slightly, because their criticisms transcend in an existential way more than just looking at the Court of Auditors.
  It is equally possible, perhaps in a reverse sense, not least as a member of the Select Committee, to express some doubts and ask some searching questions about this annual examination by the Court of Auditors. Obviously and manifestly some of these practices, procedures and problems are still unsatisfactory. Therefore, we pay tribute to the Court of Auditors and its developing work, and for the manner in which it has established its own collective corpus and attitude in trying to examine properly Community expenditure. This is an enormous report, and akin to that the Select Committee's comments are traditionally rather long on this subject.
  One of the encouraging aspects of the report for enthusiastic Europeans like myself is that the Court of Auditors is presided over by Mr. Marcel Mart from Luxembourg, who is an extremely enthusiastic and creative European, like many Luxembourgers, but none the less a good and effective guardian of this type of scrutiny of Community expenditure.
  The overriding conclusion from this report, from the annual report and from the Select Committee's own examination of them is that the Community's budget problems are, to some extent, substantially artificial because of the ceiling constraints. When all the financial pressures are there— financial pressures which exist equally in the member states which do not have those constraints—there is no ceiling; there is just a deficit in the member states. In the Community budget there is this artificial constraint and ceiling, about which some hon. Members are enthusiastic.

  383
  The other related problem is in trying to get information from the member states, including ourselves. The Court of Auditors has said in previous reports that it did not get the right kind of information from this country as well as others. It is a general problem, perhaps applicable to one or two members more than most, but none the less is not necessarily to be singled out in a highly discriminatory way as a piece of Daily Express-type criticism of foreign countries and the way that they run their finances. It is also a developing problem because in many areas the Commission is unable to get the right information, and the Commission does not give efficient and correct answers to the Court Auditors, and the court is groping towards the truth.
  The main problem, highlighted by the Committee's report and the report of the Court of Auditors, is the liabilities that have arisen and that are producing an enormous deficit that has to be made up. The Commission needs to draw up a list of the financial liabilities that have accumulated. The Community needs to observe fundamental principles of financial planning. Within the current framework, with which I disagree, as hon. Members will know, but which has to be adhered to, each year's financing needs have to be covered with an equivalent amount of annual revenue, and a growing share of liabilities has come not from the growth of commitments but from the carrying over from the previous budget of deficit figures, and the postponing of accounting for certain costs that arise principally from agricultural stocks.
  The Commission has been unduly criticised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald)— I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber on that—but it needs to be much more active, energetic and efficient in co-ordinating the supervisory role, to get a better result for the whole of the Community, rather than just be more critical of what is happening. The number of member states not wishing to co-operate with the court will, I hope, rapidly diminish—this is still too much of a disturbingly strong manifestation.
  There are still all the weaknesses of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, which is an intractable problem. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has to give advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which it should represent United Kingdom interests, and Community interests, as the two should fit together, in the Agricultural Council and the Budget Council.
  I am worried by the fact that the Commission's literal instrumentation of cash management needs altered practices to become more efficient. There are still many differing habits and practices in the banking sense between different member states, and these are difficult to harmonise and bring into a single coherent whole for both the Court of Auditors and the Commission.
  Better use should be made of the lessons learnt in connection with previous regional aid disbursements and regional aid measures to prevent similar problems and to produce a much more realistic forecast of what is likely to happen. There are parts of the Community budget that still remain unsatisfactory, and others that will be handled well from now on. One example is not particularly relevant to the Court of Auditors report, but will, I hope, be a growing feature in the future. It is the amount of money dispensed in the central Community organism on research and development. There is a raging debate in the council
  384
  of research Ministers on this subject. That, too, will be a difficult sector for the Court of Auditors to monitor in the future.
  Progress is being made. Equally, European enthusiasts, and people who are keen on the Community, such as myself and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, are entitled to be stringent and observant of financial controls and scrutiny. We need to encourage the Court of Auditors to have much stronger authority and powers. That must, to some extent, come from legislative changes within the Community, because some members of the Court complain that their powers are insufficient, and that they do not have the direct and determining power to intervene, visit the member states and get the proper information out of the local national public sector accountants that they should have to do a proper job. That is all a million miles away— probably much to the chagrin of the Labour party— from saying, in a transcendental fashion, that everything in the Community is rotten. That is just a feature of the painful, developmental stage in the Community, and I have every confidence in the future.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) at the end of his speech. When any auditor of any organisation feels that he does not have sufficient powers, that shows that there is something not quite right. That in itself is a danger signal, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling that it is not as serious as some other hon. Members have said that it is.
  As chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I thank the Minister of State, Treasury and other hon. Members for their kind remarks. Our report on the auditors' report comes out every year and is part of a series of weekly reports that the Committee issues when the House is sitting. It comes under HC22 and is our ninth report of this Session. These reports provide a useful compendium of the legislation that is likely to have legal or political impact on the United Kingdom. Some of that legislation we debate, and some we think should be reported without debate.
  Perhaps our report is not as complete as it might be. For example, the debate that we had yesterday on the distribution of cheap food was reported by the Committee through a documentary accident in that it came just within our terms of reference. With the coming of the Single European Act— assuming that it is passed— some actions, especially those taken by the Commission, will not come within the terms of reference of the Committee. The Committee drew this to the attention of the House in its second special report last May. I am quite sure that, being a gentleman of financial stringency and documentary exactness, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would riot wish the Committee to be hindered by an accident of terms of reference, particularly as the Select Committee of the House collectively have powers which enable comprehensive reports to be made.
  I now turn to the Court of Auditors' report. It is worth putting on the record some of the Committee's summary. We receive from the House some thanks for our work, and my Committee is one of the best staffed of the Select Committees. That is as it should be, because some of this legislation is complex and difficult and on occasions takes some disentangling. In our report we say:

  385
  "The Court concludes (para 1.10) that, for the second year running, the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue. What is more, use of advances from the Member States, far from helping to amortize the 'burden of the past'— apart from a few timid attempts to depreciate agricultural stocks— has, on the contrary, allowed it to increase throughout the financial year 1985."
  That is a mild qualification, at least in accountancy terms. The heavy qualification has already been referred to by hon. Members who quoted paragraph 1.21 about member states not being prepared to co-operate with the Court. In that context I should like to quote to the House a little more detail on this matter. It is contained in paragraph 3.19 on page 32 of the auditors' report. On this important matter they say:
  "The Court was able to carry out and complete these enquiries"—
  that is, into VAT,—
  "in the following Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Other member States, however, refused to accept that such enquiries were within the court's sphere of authority".
  That point was raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
  "Specifically, Italy and Luxembourg refused to provide the Court with tax statistics, France would not agree to supply all the information needed for a description of the systems and the FR of Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg refused the Court leave to carry out compliance tests."
  There we have a clear indication of at least some disagreement about powers, and one might think that those powers ought to be made clear or increased by legislation if the need arises. Our report also deals with this important matter of the burden of the past. I shall quote from our report:
  "The Court also lists a number of other liabilities, either firm or contingent, and calculates that by adding these to the outstanding commitments already described, the Communities' total liabilities at the end of 1985 amounted to about 20 billion ECU (·12 billion). It comments that the way in which these liabilities were then set out was partial and heterogeneous, incomplete and hard to grasp. It sees this as leaving the Commission vulnerable to the charge of not having given a true and fair view of the community's actual financial situation. It points to specific steps which could be taken to improve presentation, and stresses that a full and clear 'calender of maturities' would oblige the budgetary authority to face up to its responsibilities, and enable it to draw the appropriate conclusions with full knowledge of the facts (paras 1.3–1.6)."
  I have searched in the reply of the Commission, particularly on page 192, but I cannot see any reference to the suggestion of the introduction of "calendar of maturities". Surely, in any description of the liabilities of any firm, a calendar of maturities is something that is necessary in order to show the full and fair view of the Community's affairs.
  I ask the Minister two questions. We know that the audit report has to have a discharge, and before it is discharged by the Strasbourg body it is discussed by the Council of Ministers. Why could it not recommend to the Parliament-Assembly that before a discharge is granted there should be proper powers, or at least a commitment to give the increased powers at issues, to the Court of Auditors? There is clearly some difficulty there, as I have shown by the quotation. Secondly, why could it not insist on the calendar of maturities? There, at least would be two
  386
  tools whereby the necessary and proper mechanism of discharge, instead of being something that one suspects is automatic and not really taken with the necessary seriousness, could be used to ensure that we do get something of a grip, if not on the major financial difficulties with which we are familiar, certainly with the tools of the auditors' trade, which although they are in the hands of the Audit Commission, appear not to be as great or powerful as it would wish.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked, not for the first time, that there should be some extension of powers to the Court of Auditors. To a marked extent, he goes against the principles that he has so consistently fought for.
  Those who ask for more public expenditure to be made through the EEC speak often as thought the EEC were a unitary state. They speak as though it had an apparatus of investigation, and apparatus of police, of public prosecutions and of EEC criminal law. It has no such apparatus and I suggest that it never will. Even if, for the sake of argument, he and others were successful in persuading the nation states of the EEC to allow the Court of Auditors to investigate more effectively, he would still never overcome the inclination of nation states to regard the EEC funds as a pot of gold which is contributed by others; a pot of gold into which they are very pleased to put the hands of their constituents and citizens even if at times they know that their constituents and fellow citizens are not entitled to put their hand into that pot of gold.
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that the EEC, for instance, could ever have its own police and investigation department he should think carefully. Let us suppose that he persuades the EEC to allow the Court of Auditors to serve notice on the Italians to allow people to investigate how many olive trees there are in the length and breadth of Italy. It is found, for the sake of argument, that they are claiming for olive trees which cover an area greater than the whole of Italy. Some other people haul off some distinguished gentlemen from the toe of Italy and suggest that they might be indicted for EEC fraud. There would be great disturbances in the toe of Italy. That would wreck and rock the constitution of Italy and there would be a risk that Italy would wish to withdraw from the EEC. That will never be done.
  People, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the vehement supporters of the EEC in the SDP, had better understand that every time they ask for more collective expenditure through the EEC they are in effect saying that an unknown proportion of it will inevitably be misused and some of it will be the subject of fraud. There is no way whatever in which that can be stopped, because this institution does not have the characteristics or authority of a unitary state and no member state wishes it to have that.
  Hon. Gentlemen may not be as dishonest as Italians, but they wish to see their constituents get a greater proportion of the EEC cake than other nations. They want to get out more than they put in. That is essentially a duplicitous, even dishonest, attitude to the EEC.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Mr. Budgen: No. So long as we extend the expenditure of the EEC, we shall have to grin and bear enormous elements of waste.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to make four points in this brief debate.
  First, I congratulate the EEC on its administration of aid through the European development fund to sub-Saharan Africa in the famine year of 1985. There was a slow start to that programme, but by the end of the year the fund had disbursed the necessary assistance effectively to help the starving people of Africa. The main support from the British Government to the starving people of sub-Saharan Africa in their terrible plight came through the EEC.
  The EEC arranged an airlift not only of European food supplies to the Sudan but of American food to the western part of the Sudan and to Chad to avert famine there. That is a proud record and it resulted from a great deal of hard work in the Commission in the DG VIII which administers the European development fund. That is the good news. The rest are points of criticism which I make more in sorrow than in anger. Like many hon. Members, I support the EEC and wish to see its affairs administered and conducted properly.
  I wish to concentrate on the periphery—part II of the report on the administration of the European development fund.
  Secondly, I shall deal with the way the European development fund is allocated. At the beginning of part II a table shows how its funds from Yaounde to Lomé 2 have been committed and then disbursed. The same problem exists in the European development fund— that of rolling forward one year's programme to another. Several hon. Members have referred to this. We are never certain how much will be drawn down on the European development fund and, therefore, how much will be debited against our aid budget so it is extremely difficult for our national aid budget to he accurate in disbursing funds. [Interruption.] I am hurrying, but there are four points to be made.
  Mr. Marlow: There are three minutes left.
  Mr. Wells: All right. My hon. Friend is just delaying me.
  Table 1 in part II shows that we still have not disbursed or even committed 34 mecu from the 1976 Yaounde 1 commitment. That rolls through Lomé 1 and 2 and we are now on Lomé 3.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister, if he is going to have a detailed discussion on the findings of the Court of Auditors, to raise one particular matter in Brussels. Officials run around trying to get an "umbrella" agreement, as it is called—a commitment to disburse a certain amount of money which has been pre-allocated on some unknown basis to each of the countries—and then there is an indicative programme. I suggest that that is the wrong way to administer an aid programme. First, the developmental needs of those countries should be identified and then a programme which is properly focused on those needs should be developed in agreement with them. But the Court of Auditors referring to the programme in some of the states in which the European development programme is administered, said in paragraph 11 of part II:
  388
  "The bottlenecks which these projects have encountered prove that an important stage has been omitted in the planning process, namely that of compiling an accurate list of the priority needs of the national economy, prior to making a judicious selection of the measures to be promoted."
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would take up the point about the administration of the European development fund and the way in which it decides which projects it will support and what the objective is.
  Thirdly, there seems to be no co-ordination between my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury and my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. It seems to me that they do not get together to discuss the European development fund programme, so there is no British control over the second most important programme, in terms of money. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the machinery is set up to establish the administration of the European development fund and to put right some of the aspects about which I have been talking.
  Fourthly, there is no co-ordination between the objectives of the European development fund in many of the same countries in which member states of the European Economic Community also have aid programmes. I have seen on the ground the confusion between the two groups with several member states competing with the fund's objectives. Often the European development fund gets the slowest moving and worst development project simply because it is much slower at agreeing and then permitting draw-down. As the figures which I cited earlier show, it still has not disbursed money which was originally committed in 1976.
  The Court of Auditors brought these important points of administration to our attention. It has complimented the European Community on disbursing the aid programme in Africa during those starvation conditions. This contrasts sharply with the court's report for the previous year which showed that disbursements were very small— in fact, only about two months' worth took place. The court was rightly critical of that.
  There is good news and bad news. I hope that my hon . Friend the Minister will ask those questions so that we can have a more tightly administered budget.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The Community exists. The Community will continue to exist. The Community should be about regulation—regulating those issues at Community level that are best done at Community level. It should be about deregulation, so that we may have a unified Common Market by the year 1992. which I support. But I wonder whether it should be. as it is at the moment, so much about money.
  Two reasons why I wonder whether it should he so much about money are highlighted in the auditors' report that we have before us today. The first is the point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and equally eloquently by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), and that is the olive oil swindle which comes up year after year after year in the auditors' report. We know why the swindle takes place and we know perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it. This is the nature of Community finance.
  There is another equal problem which we can see on top of the common agricultural policy, which is always a great

  389
  waste of money, and that is that we notice in the auditors' report that Italy, which we are told has a greater gross national product than the United Kingdom, pays a smaller VAT share. Could my hon. Friend explain to the House how this comes about? I have a pretty shrewd idea. That is because of, again, the nature of Community finance, the imprecision of Community finance and the strings that are pulled within Community finance. This is one reason why the Community should have a smaller rather than a larger area of financial control.
  There are two specific points that I want to put to my hon. Friend, given the nature of the abuse and the waste of financial resources that take place through the Community and are bound to continue to take place through the Community. The first is that we know there is going to be a whip-round to get rid of the agricultural surpluses. Her Majesty's Government will be asked to fork out some of our hard-earned taxpayers' money as a loan to the Community to solve this problem, and this problem should be solved—[Interruption.] Could I have my hon. Friend's attention? I am perfectly prepared to give way to my hon. Friend if he wants to give me the answer now rather than in his speech at the end of the debate. Will the House be asked to approve this loan? If the House is to be asked to approve this loan, can my hon. Friend say at this stage, to make life much easier in the long run, that the repayment of the loan will be in no way dependent upon the United Kingdom Government agreeing to an increase in Community own resources? It is a question that I have asked my hon. Friend once. I am asking him a second time. I am prepared to give way if my hon. Friend wants to intervene in my speech at this stage or—my hon. Friend is nodding. I believe that he is going to come to this point when he winds up the debate later on. I am very grateful for that.
  There is one other point that I would like to make before I sit down. At the moment, we are on the basis of a 1·4 per cent. VAT. Yesterday, Mr. Delors suggested that we should increase from 1·4 per cent. VAT to 1·4 per cent. of GNP which, as we know, is equivalent to 2 per cent. VAT— a massive increase in Community resources. There is no suggestion that the Community competence in terms of policies that will require Community finance should be increased, so the increase in Community resources can mean but one thing: that those policies for which the Community is responsible will become yet more expensive than they are at the moment. Given the lack of proper financial control that we see within the Court of Auditors report, I am sure the whole House would be grateful if my hon. Friend would say here and now that Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of following the line put out by Delors last week.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I welcome the Government's deep commitment to imposing some order and financial discipline on the Community, but rhetoric itself is not enough. Those who are anxious to impose an order of priorities and a discipline on the total Community budget must also tackle the more difficult issue of how to tackle the institutions of the Community to ensure that they do not remain, as they are now in a technical sense, irresponsible. As other Conservative Members have said, they are too much the prisoners of those who want to
  390
  spend. There is an insufficient central authority in Brussels whose job it is to determine the maximum level of the budget and also the priorities within the maximum. People who are concerned about the budget must address that issue in the near future.
  Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond as briskly as I can to this interesting debate, the text of which I propose to send to Mr. Mart, the President of the court, to Vice-President Christophersen of the Commission, and to Herr Aigner, the Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, whom I had the pleasure of welcoming to this country last year.
  Inevitably, the debate has gone wider than the Court of Auditors report. I shall touch on a series of issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) pressed for budget discipline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) expressed some surprise about the parliamentary answer that I gave on 17 February. The budget that the Council proposed to reach in conjunction with the Parliament in the course of the past fortnight stuck very closely to budget discipline, and I am delighted' that discipline was maintained. The countries that are net contributors played a large part in that process.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to the issue of stocks. I agree with her that, by definition, their depreciation is a problem and it is one that the British Government would wish to be attended to. However, the critical point is to prevent the stocks arising in the first place. The hon. Lady referred to the fact that the ceiling was busted in 1987. She must concert her position with her hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), because in the last debate on this subject, he criticised the Government for having left the budget unfinished when we left the presidency. The only way in which we could have concluded the budget at that juncture would have been for us to break budget discipline; we were determined not to do that. As to her likeness to a company's trading and to its auditing, the likeness is much more clearly to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the proceedings of this House than to a company.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked me several specific questions relating to the co-operation of member states. The court's rights of access are clearly set out in the treaty and it is not for the United Kingdom to comment on the way in which other member states interpret that. Ultimately, that is for the European Court of Justice to decide and the United Kingdom supports the Court of Auditors in exploiting to the full its treaty powers of investigation. To a degree, that is also an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I give an assurance that the matter will be discussed in ECOFIN on 9 March, in the same way that I participated in an ECOFIN discussion last year.
  As to the agrimonzetary agreement, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing also asked a question, and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) intervened, we are pressing for reform of the green rate system—especially to break the link between agricultural prices and movements in the strongest currency, which simply tends to increase prices and expenditure. I take the point about the protection of one part of the economy in terms of the fluctuations in exchange rates.

  391
  As to the issue of rolling forward—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Why should agriculture be protected from fluctuations in the exchange rates when nothing else is?
  Mr. Brooke: I was saying that that very question informed the attitude with which we are looking at the proposals which the commission is now bringing forward.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked a series of questions about binding commitments. Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the court's report list the outstanding commitments and the other liabilities of the Community at the end of 1985. The major binding items are some 11,000 mecu of outstanding commitments, some of which may no longer relate to real projects— the Commission is urgently reviewing this point—and the 5,650 mecu estimated cost for the future disposal of agricultural intervention stocks, to which the hon. Member for Thurrock referred. Following the successful agricultural council, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last December, positive steps are now being taken to resolve that issue.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) raised the question of additionality. Payments from the European Community budget enable United Kingdom public expenditure programmes, including those to which the payments relate, to be maintained at levels higher than could otherwise have been afforded. United Kingdom policy is similar to that adopted by other member states. The court noted previously that most member states' reimbursements, notably from the regional development fund, were added to expenditure allocated generally for regional development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr.
  Dykes) welcomed the report, and I welcome his sympathy for me on agricultural issues.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South raised the question of the burden of the past. During my opening speech I touched on very much the same figures as he quoted. He asked whether before discharge the Council of Ministers could recommend that the Court be given more powers to investigate. Its powers are clearly set out in article 206(3) to which, to some extent, I alluded earlier.
  392
  He also asked for a calendar of maturities. We are all agreed on the need for full information on all the Community's actual and potential liabilities. To the extent that policy decisions are required concerning the liquidation of outstanding commitments, they need to be taken by the Community's budgetary authority; no purely mechanistic timetable can be laid down.
  At official level discussions on this issue in Brussels, the Commission agreed to the need to improve its presentation of the information already available, and the court expressed itself satisfied with that response.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made speeches that I shall certainly study. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made a thoughtful speech about aid. To my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I say that the issue of value for money is one to which we should also pay attention, and which was not adequately covered in my view by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber.
  Finally, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who asked a specific question, I say that there is no question of additional resources being made available this year. The Community must live within its means. That is the way in which I concluded my earlier speech, and I am delighted to reiterate my remarks now.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on the financial year 1985, together with the replies of the Institutions; and approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.

  European Court of Auditors

    CROWN PROCEEDINGS (ARMED FORCES) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of that Act— [Mr. Malone.]

  Agricultural Land
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The purpose of this debate is to highlight one of the most significant and allembracing dilemmas relating to land use that has been faced by any Government of this country for many years. What will the British countryside look like in the 1990s? What will be there? Will there be more towns, more fields under cultivation, or just waste land, more derelict land, more factories? I believe that we are at the dawn of a new era—a new agricultural revolution. For many of us it is so close that perhaps we cannot see what is happening.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning has thought this a sufficiently important debate to come here tonight to reply to it. It shows that the Government are seriously considering the issues that I shall raise. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who is well known for his expertise in agricultural matters, and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) who, as the Conservative Chairman of the Environment Committee, is an expert in planning and other matters. I thank the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Farmers Union, Strutt and Parker, the well-known surveyors, and the South Hams Society, among others, for writing to me with their views on this debate.
  The nature of the problem is that, with the temporary exception of sheep, all agricultural produce is in surplus. Advances in technology, bio-engineering and veterinary science have resulted in an enormous speeding up of production, more crops, more milk and bigger and better animals. We can produce more than ever before on less and less land. The parallel is, perhaps, with the microchip. More energy is being created in smaller and smaller spaces.
  In just 13 years— in the year 2000— according to John North, an agricultural expert at Cambridge, the current levels of agricultural production can be maintained but using 10 million acres less land. Even allowing for the current take-up rate of land, which is about 15 per cent. a year in new forests and woodlands, Mr. North estimates that in 13 years there will be a net surplus of 8·25 million acres of vacant land which was formerly used for agriculture. In geographical terms, that is equivalent to four times the area of the entire county of Devon. That land will be redundant for agricultural use in 13 years' time. Put another way, 35,000 productive agricultural holdings currently in use will become surplus to requirements. That means 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers, presently employed on the land, becoming redundant by the year 2000. Of course, there is a knock-on effect.
  The countryside is more than a food factory. A farmer is not just a food producer but part of the rural economy and rural society. For that reason, the Government must make preparations. Just as Joseph caused Pharaoh to make provision for the lean years during the years of plenty, so, too, must we plan how to restrict our food growth before we find that it is too late. We must also plan what we must do with the land saved.
  Never before in our history has this situation existed. Successive Governments have told farmers to produce
  394
  more and more. Now there is so much food in surplus that the EEC spends $203 million a week on food storage, subsidy and destruction. The surpluses are fast getting worse. The ever-growing food surplus is adding approximately $13 a week to every household food bill. It is no good telling farmers that they should be grateful for EEC subsidies. Few farmers make fortunes, and most just manage to make a living. The land, which was their most important and valuable asset, is beginning to waste away.
  The Government's Alternative Land Use and Rural Economy Committee rightly recognised the problem. The announcement two weeks ago attempted to suggest ways in which alternative sources of income for farmers could be provided. But will they? To what extent can the Government make up the shortfall that is lost by quotas? If the proposals are supposed to cope with the effect of reduced farm incomes from a small milk quota, what must the Government do when quotas hit every foodstuff—not just milk—and not just by 10 per cent. or 13 per cent., but by 50 per cent?
  What will the countryside look like? What will Britain look like from the air, from a road, or from a train? The answer is intimately connected with what the Government will do to help farmers. The key to land use is how farms will be kept viable. How will farmers be kept solvent?
  The countryside could remain largely as it looks today. There is no reason why it should not, provided a different system of subsidy is created by the European Community. If the Commission said to farmers, "Look, we shall pay you a good sum of money, and all you need to do is to mow your fields, but please do not produce any food," it would solve the problem. But at what cost? Another approach could be to pay off the 35,000 agricultural holdings which will be surplus to requirements and make redundant the 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers. But what would happen to the land if that were done? Who would look after and tend it? What would it look like?
  The Government's draft circular suggested ways of switching land use to provide farmers with alternative wealth creation, but forestry will be no panacea for the problem of over-production. It is cheaper to import timber than to grow it domestically. Of course, it takes many years to grow trees. We can limit the number of forests, but can we limit the number of golf courses—that is another of the Government's proposals—and camping sites? Does the Minister suggest that a dramatic growth in the number of golf courses will solve the problems facing our farmers? The only way to create golf courses is to build at least 50 houses around the proposed sites to pay for their construction. Is that what my hon. Friend the Minister has in mind?
  Will the courts sentence young offenders to so many hours on the golf course rather than to so many hours of community service? Camping and caravanning require plenty of time, leisure and money. Do the Government intend to reduce the retirement age and, instead of the 10 Christmas bonus, provide a free tent? Is the landscape to change from wheat fields to caravan parks? Are areas of outstanding natural beauty to be covered with tents? That would not, however, make up the farmers' shortfall or loss of income from agriculture.
  Are we to see marginal land, especially on the urban fringe, covered with line after line of houses? What will happen to the 300,000 acres of dormant, derelict land in public ownership in the inner cities? Will it just be ignored?

  395
  These are very real planning problems. With the issue of these two circulars the Government have embarked on a very dangerous and difficult journey.
  What is to be done about land use and land surpluses? Farmers must have an alternative use for their land and buildings to supplement their incomes, but what will the landscape look like as a result? There will be a direct connection between the extent to which the Government subsidise unproductive farms and the new look of the countryside. The extent to which the Government permit new development on land formerly used for agriculture and how that is spelt out to planning authorities is crucial. Planners have a habit of doing their own thing. Liverpool, for example, could hardly have looked worse if there had been no planners.
  Despite every conceivable designation to protect the environment, the planners will be recommending to a district council in south Devon next Tuesday that a 90-van caravan site be approved in one of the 36 areas of outstanding natural beauty in this country— itself on one of the 39 heritage coasts and in an area of great landscape value. The Government may despair of planners and councils and say that it is not the Government's fault. But it is for the Government to spell out exactly what is permitted and what they will encourage and to tell their inspectors, on appeal, what they will not have.
  The better use of redundant farm buildings by small business enterprises and starter workshops would help to augment farmers' incomes. The Government must be far more liberal in their planning regime with regard to the use of redundant buildings. All those who cherish the unique qualities of the English countryside have a duty to involve themselves in the debate. The Government's responsibility is to protect our heritage and countryside. But the farmers must not be abandoned in their hour of need, nor should we delude ourselves that golf courses, a clump of trees here and there, a nature trail, or a caravan park will solve the problem. It will not. A long-term strategy is needed to protect the finest parts of our environment from the threat of tasteless development and the ruination of this green and pleasant land.
  The conflict is between pensioning off the farmers—making some of them into museum pieces, subsidising them to keep their fields neat and tidy, bringing in busloads of tourists to visit a genuine English farm, meeting the farmer with his slippers and pipe— and exploiting the rapidly growing land bank so as to augment the farmers' depleted income and put off the evil day when 60,000 farmers will have to be made redundant. It is an entirely new problem. I do not pretend to have a solution, but I can air the grievance and point out the dangers which, if not sympathetically handled by the Government, could cause loss of support among a wide cross-section of people— farmers and farm-related people— who are dedicated to the preservation and conservation of our environment and the national parks.
  It is strange tht we should be raising this critical matter so late on a Wednesday night, but I believe that our countryside is at risk. The whole nation looks to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to find a solution to this inolerably difficult problem.
  Sir Peter Mills rose—
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I see two hon. Members rising. Do they have the consent of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and of the Minister to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Steen indicated assent.
  The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave)indicated assent.
  11.54 pm
  Sir Peter Mills: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for raising this important subject in the House.
  We should consider three points. In making plans for diversification or new policies for agiculture or land use, we have to remember that farming is a business. It is not there just for other people's pleasure. We have to consider the bank manager, the returns on investment and the support of the farmer's family. It is too easy for some people to forget those. Many people would be horrified if farmers said to them that their businesses shoud be treated simply as things of beauty or as places for recreation. It is important in all these matters to get the right balance. Excessive movement one way or the other is not the way forward. We must remember that farming is a business.
  Secondly, farmers and others must beware of what I call false trails. My advice to farmers is to stick to what they know best and to introduce alternatives gradually by planting up a few acres, growing new crops or doing some of the other things that the Government have suggested. We have to consider what is needed, grow it well and, above all, see that it is marketed properly.
  Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, this is a difficult time for farmers and the rural scene. We must allow farmers to use old buildings and, indeed, the whole group of buildings which are no longer necessary for the modern farming that they practise. Rural industries can be developed tastefully in those buildings. We must set up industries to help rural people to live and work in their own villages. I say this not unkindly because I am about to become a retired person. A village is not just for retired people; it is for people to work in. Let us stop the continual drift into the towns. The measures that the Government have suggested will help. They are only a start. Much more needs to be done. I hope that on all sides those who wish to conserve the rural areas, the farmers and the politicians will take a balanced view of all these matters and move forward together. As my hon. Friend said, I believe that we are at the beginning of a period of great change in the rural scene.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to speak. I shall take up just one point that he made, the third point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills)— the use of redundant agricultural buildings. Reference has been made to the flexibility that should apply to the use of these buildings for the benefit of rural industries.
  I believe that the Department is considering the long overdue revision of the use classes order which was introduced in 1972. There are 10 use classes ranging from very heavy industry to very light industry and to warehousing and servicing. In the 15 intervening years the changes in industry, with the decline of the manufacturing base and the rise of service industries, have made the revision of the use classes order necessary.

  397
  When it comes to the alternative use of redundant farm buildings in the context of the revision of the use classes order, I must put to the Minister my fear that sweeping away classes 1 to 10, and making it easier for buildings to be converted for use by heavy industry to light industry and vice versa, will allow an unwelcome free for all in the use of some agricultural buildings and could herald the introduction of heavier and intrusive industry into village communities. That is my concern, coupled with my belief that the revision of the use classes order is absolutely necessary.
  I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on the matter, if not tonight, perhaps by correspondence later.
  12 midnight
  The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has done the House a service by giving us the first opportunity to discuss this topic. I gather that there was some discussion following the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unfortunately, I was ill in bed at the time and therefore I am grateful for this opportunity to join in discussions, belatedly, on this matter.
  If I may make a physical comment about my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, he is slim and far from the fat boy in the famous novel by Dickens. However, just like that fat boy, my hon. Friend did try to make my flesh creep tonight as he reminded us of a whole range of catastrophes that may occur if the Government get everything wrong. My hon. Friend was correct when he said it is no good for us to pretend that an historically important and, in many respects, irreversible shift is not under way regarding the contribution of agriculture to rural employment. The response of the Government and local authorities to planning applications is also important. It is no good for us to believe that we can bury our heads in the sand and that things can go on as before.
  We must get that point across to people. I hope that we do not concentrate too much on the disasters that may befall us, because change is inevitable. If we remain shivering on the brink and do not strike out with policy initiatives— even though each policy carries risks— events will take their course and we shall be swept aside. As a result, the outcome may be worse than if the Government had adopted the proposed policies. I am sure that my hon. Friend was not urging the Government to be so terrified of the possible mistakes that we do not enter the game as a player. It would be a grave dereliction of the Government's duty to the rural communities if we did not rise to the events.
  Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that the Government should do nothing, but whatever the Government do they should make it clear that the planners and the politicians at the local level understand the Government's intentions. It is even more important that the inspectors within the Minister's Department do not have misapprehensions about the Government's policies.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That brings me on to the second point that I wish to make. I do not believe that anywhere in the United Kingdom, even within the walls of the Department
  398
  of the Environment, where is to be found much wisdom, anybody knows what the British countryside and the structure of the rural economy will be as a result of the great transition period. We must go step by step and not try to lay down a blueprint that may be swept away.
  The impetus for change, as always, must come from the people at the bottom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir P. Mills) that one of the great groups of players in the transition, the farmers and the others in agriculture, should not think that their historic role is finished and that they must try to become something different.
  We must take steps to widen the base of the rural economy and various inputs to that economy are important. One is the planning system— I shall come back to that shortly in relation to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and the initial comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams but other Government agencies are involved. Some are directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, such as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. Other agencies include the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which is responsible to my Department, and the Small Business Services of the Department of Employment. In some of our west country areas there is a crucial player on the board—the tourist authorities and tourist boards—but above all there is private and individual ingenuity and hard work. We shall not be able to predict the outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams is right to make my flesh creep. We can see some of the things that can go wrong. We must try to guard against them.
  I should like to make a few comments about the planning aspect of the package that was announced the week before last. I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend the the Member for Torridge and Devon, West said. What we have announced so far is not the end of the matter; it is hardly the beginning. We are beginning to fit pieces into the jigsaw puzzle. We are beginning to see some of the things that need to be done. This is the beginning of the turning round, of a great shift, which will need much more effort right across Government to see that we get it right in the years ahead. It did not start just a couple of weeks ago.
  There have been some things that we have done, which are right, over the past couple of years. An example is the first circular, on the critical point referred to by all three of my hon. Friends— the Members for Torridge and Devon, West, for South Hams and for Mid-Staffordshire. The sensitive conversion of redundant farm buildings is crucial to the provision of income for the farmers who so often are the leaders of the local business community, as well as the provision of jobs, particularly semi-skilled and craft jobs in the rural communities. We are still not getting that message across to many district councils, but when we published the first circular a year ago we took a deep breath and said, "even in green belts." Normally that would bring the roof down about our ears. Even a mention of green belts would do that. But that did not happen this time. We were supported by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and hon. Members who are sensitive on green belt matters, and rightly so. We said that even in green belts we must have sensible reuse of buildings. It is to nobody's advantage, environmentally or in any other sense, to have derelict buildings that could be used to create real jobs in the villages. How I agreed with

  399
  my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West when he said that we must not let the villages become just retirement homes or dormitory areas for the local economic centre somewhere else.
  Some powerful trends are running our way. If we can use them correctly, they will give us some of the muscle power with which we can get all this right. The most recent census showed that for the first time perhaps for half a century or more the population of the rural areas, except in the remotest areas, is recovering; it is increasing. That is not just because of retirement homes and so on, although that is part of it. It is also because some of the trends in modern technology are running in our direction. One does not now have to work in a great warehouse of people in a city to conduct a wide range of what traditionally would have been office-based jobs, because of the techniques of modern information technology. I know people who, with their telex machine in their front hall in the country, are running good little businesses, which, once upon a time, would have been inconceivable except in the town.
  One should look at what the Development Commission and English Estates can describe in the range of activities that their efforts can produce in the rural areas. There is a capacity to spread the economic base away from great concerted centres, which is one of the great hopes for the maintenance of the small towns and villages. I can see it well in those in Somerset, which I know well from my family background.
  Let me be clear about what the new planning circular did. It was a marginal change. It is correct. Even those who were anxious about it to start with are coming round to see that it is correct. It said that when we look at applications for development in the countryside in future, we should, as we always have done, do the difficult balancing of environment versus development, with agriculture in the agriculturally important areas still a material consideration. We have retained protection for the best land, which is a national resource, like mineral resources and so on.
  When the district council has come to the conclusion that a development is right, and is needed in a particular area, the extra bias of the steer is now not necessarily away from the most productive agricultural land. The fields of rye grass which sadly, have lost their ecological and environmental interest, may be the right place to put the development for the local community. Those fields may be of less overall interest in social terms than the agriculturally scruffy piece of land that may be full of
  400
  heath fritillaries and so on. It seems to create the right balance to put environment and agriculture and development alongside each other. That will not make decisions any easier—they will often be agonising—but we must not give that final push and say, "I am afraid this is highly productive land, so this is out of it; you have to go down the road where it is only old gorse bushes." Sir Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission, was right to say last week that he knows of developments which have gone like that, where we have lost environmentally and ecologically interesting things because we were still following the agricultural production imperative in a way which we have to admit now was out of date.
  This can be of some help to those farmers in terms of looking at environmentally sound developments which are non-farming developments. Development includes all kind of things other than building bricks and mortar, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams rightly said. He was slightly scathing about golf courses. The CLA was making a little joke when it said that 20,000 golf coursess would solve the problem. I do not think that the economics of golf courses work on that basis. However, there is a range of recreational and other uses for land which can be sensible environmentally. An interesting study was carried out by one of the London environmental trustees which showed, encouragingly, how many of the golf courses around London had done good work in preserving the ecological land that they had used. Golf courses cart be environmentally satisfactory, and so can a range of recreational functions, which can provide local jobs and pleasure to local people and visitors.
  Some of the hostility to development in recent years has been because of the constraints which have been put on those developments and which have made them shoddy, over-dense and unsatisfactory in terms of the way that they fitted in with settlements. Perhaps a little more land taken to give people slightly bigger gardens, a little better landscaping and perhaps some more trees would have saved the hostility that people felt to so many new developments that have fitted, in a rather urban way into the sides of the small towns and villages and created this great hostility—
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  A-Levels
  A-Levels
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Education Act 1981
  Education Act 1981
  Children With Special Needs
  Children With Special Needs
  EC Research Grants
  EC Research Grants
  Sheffield (Report)
  Sheffield (Report)
  Human Embryos
  Human Embryos
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  AIDS
  AIDS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Racing Industry
  Racing Industry
  Greater Manchester Police
  Greater Manchester Police
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  Murder Trials
  Murder Trials
  Radio
  Radio
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  A12-M11 (Hackney Wick)
  A12-M11 (Hackney Wick)
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nitrogen
  Nitrogen
  Hop Industry
  Hop Industry
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
  Fisheries Council
  Fisheries Council
  Wool
  Wool
  Plant Health Services
  Plant Health Services
  Overfishing
  Overfishing
  EC Food Aid
  EC Food Aid
ENVIRONMENT
  National Housing Forum
  National Housing Forum
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
  Local Authorities (Housing Loans)
  Local Authorities (Housing Loans)
  Charitable Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Charitable Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Housing Renovation Grants
  Housing Renovation Grants
  Liverpool (Rates)
  Liverpool (Rates)
  Anti-Litter Campaign
  Anti-Litter Campaign
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Urban Regeneration Grant
  Urban Regeneration Grant
  Land
  Land
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Football Supporters
  Football Supporters
  Car Boot Sales
  Car Boot Sales
  Local Authorities (Political Control)
  Local Authorities (Political Control)
  Housing Defects Act
  Housing Defects Act
  Urban Development Programme
  Urban Development Programme
  Carsington Reservoir
  Carsington Reservoir
DEFENCE
  Helicopters (Search and Rescue)
  Helicopters (Search and Rescue)
  Israel (Arms Embargo)
  Israel (Arms Embargo)
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
ENERGY
  Gas Supply (Report)
  Gas Supply (Report)
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Democracy
  Democracy
WALES
  Industrial Support
  Industrial Support
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  MSC (Schemes)
  MSC (Schemes)
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Food (Radiation Levels)
  Food (Radiation Levels)
  Land
  Land
  Cancer Screening
  Cancer Screening
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Crown Prosecution Service (Trainees)
  Crown Prosecution Service (Trainees)
  State Security
  State Security
PRIME MINISTER
  Homeless Children
  Homeless Children
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Casualties
  Casualties
  Rape
  Rape
SCOTLAND
  Public Sector Housing
  Public Sector Housing
  Housing Revenue Account (Income and Expenditure)
  Housing Revenue Account (Income and Expenditure)
  Housing (Repairs and Modernisation)
  Housing (Repairs and Modernisation)
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Aberdeen (Leisure Centre)
  Aberdeen (Leisure Centre)
  Spittal Quarry, Caithness
  Spittal Quarry, Caithness
  Prison Staff
  Prison Staff
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Companies (Headquarters Relocation)
  Companies (Headquarters Relocation)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Saudi Arabia (Visit)
  Saudi Arabia (Visit)
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  ECGD
  ECGD
  EC (Internal Market)
  EC (Internal Market)
  BT Share Offer (Vouchers)
  BT Share Offer (Vouchers)
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Overseas Contracts
  Overseas Contracts
  Post Office (Chairman)
  Post Office (Chairman)
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Airbus
  Airbus
  Japan (Trade Deficit)
  Japan (Trade Deficit)
  Leyland Trucks
  Leyland Trucks
  Northern Regional Development Agency
  Northern Regional Development Agency
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Power Engineering Industry
  Power Engineering Industry
  Financial Services
  Financial Services
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  United Kingdom-Soviet Trade
  United Kingdom-Soviet Trade
  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Goods and Services
  Goods and Services
  Lloyds Act 1982
  Lloyds Act 1982
  Manufacturing and Service Industries
  Manufacturing and Service Industries
  Civil Protection
  Civil Protection
  British Sugar Corporation
  British Sugar Corporation
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Share Dealings
  Share Dealings
  Visible Trade Balance
  Visible Trade Balance
  Exports (Inspection Standards)
  Exports (Inspection Standards)
  China
  China
  Wakefield and Dewsbury
  Wakefield and Dewsbury
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Redundant Textile and Clothing Workers
  Redundant Textile and Clothing Workers
  Shareholders (Statistics)
  Shareholders (Statistics)
  Telecommunications Services
  Telecommunications Services
  House of Fraser (Takeover)
  House of Fraser (Takeover)
  European Steel Industry
  European Steel Industry
  Research and Development (EC Grants)
  Research and Development (EC Grants)
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  FIMBRA
  FIMBRA
  Manufacturing Trade Deficit
  Manufacturing Trade Deficit
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Accounting Records
  Accounting Records
  Denationalisation
  Denationalisation
  Earnings
  Earnings
  VAT
  VAT
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Fuel Excise Duties
  Fuel Excise Duties
  Motoring Taxes
  Motoring Taxes
THE ARTS
  Foreign Earnings
  Foreign Earnings
  Arts Council Grant
  Arts Council Grant
EMPLOYMENT
  Venture Capital
  Venture Capital
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Enterprise Agencies (West Midlands)
  Enterprise Agencies (West Midlands)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Women Employees (Burnley and Pendle)
  Women Employees (Burnley and Pendle)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Training Scheme Courses (North-East London)
  Training Scheme Courses (North-East London)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Restart
  Restart
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Local Office Staff
  Local Office Staff
  Local Office (Camberwell)
  Local Office (Camberwell)
  Schizophrenia (Exhibition)
  Schizophrenia (Exhibition)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Local Office, Birmingham (Notepaper)
  Local Office, Birmingham (Notepaper)
  Homeless People (Health Care)
  Homeless People (Health Care)
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Life Expectancies
  Life Expectancies
  Elderly People (Wessex)
  Elderly People (Wessex)
  Unanswered Parliamentary Questions
  Unanswered Parliamentary Questions
  Patents (Amendment) Bill
  Patents (Amendment) Bill
  Mortality Statistics
  Mortality Statistics
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  Blood Products
  Blood Products

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Bypasses
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: 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 how many towns have benefited from the completion of bypasses since 1979.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, between 1st April 1979 and 1st February 1987 Her Majesty's Government completed 67 bypasses or relief road schemes on trunk roads in England, 25 in Scotland and 13 in Wales. Some of these have provided traffic relief for more than one community. Other completed schemes also have a bypassing effect.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, suggestive as it is of considerable progress. However, as there are still quite a number of areas in all parts of the country that have enormous congestion, can he say whether bypasses have priority in the national road plan and how many schemes are in the current programme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Bypasses are indeed one of the main priorities in the Government's trunk road construction programme, bringing as they do relief to residents from traffic noise and fumes and contributing to improved road safety. In England, for example, over 50 per cent. of planned trunk road schemes are bypasses. At the present time there are 19 trunk road bypasses and relief roads under construction in England, three in Scotland and three in Wales, and a further 133 schemes in England, 39 in Scotland and 26 in Wales are in the forward programme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although the information given by the Minister is encouraging, I wonder whether he recalls that we had a debate on a civic trust report dealing with the Armitage package three years ago, and at that time some 1,200 villages and towns had not been bypassed. It was said that hundreds would not have a bypass plan by 1991–92 and nor would one-third of the historic towns. Has the Minister figures to show whether there has been a great improvement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I regret that I do not recall the debate mentioned by the noble Lord as it was three years ago. However, when the current
198
programme is completed very few communities in the trunk road network will not have been relieved of through traffic. There are also local bypasses to be taken into account and we have a very good record in completing those. I am afraid I cannot give a total figure relating to the one which the noble Lord gave.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that when the question of bypasses arises in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the New Forest, the Government will continue to be guided by the recommendations of his noble friend Lord Sandford in the Sandford Report of 1974?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in mentioning bypasses in the New Forest, I presume the noble Lord is referring to the debate that will take place tomorrow. That of course does not concern a national road: it is a local road. But in general terms we shall continue to be guided by those recommendations.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how long it takes for a bypass to get on to the list and from the list on to a programme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord specific details as I suspect that it depends on the planning process to a certain extent and on how much of an inquiry needs to take place. But in general terms I think the time is too long.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the cases I referred to there was heavy lorry traffic? Some of the roads were trunk roads and some were not, but there was heavy lorry traffic. Does he think that the ministry could get some figures and possibly write to me?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can certainly try, and I shall do so.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend expand a little bit more on the local bypass position?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as local bypasses are concerned, we give every encouragement to local highway authorities to build new bypasses and relief roads. That is a principal feature of the new capital only transport supplementary grant system. For instance, for this coming year we have announced support for 257 bypasses or relief roads, of which 183 are in progress and 74 are new starts.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about the bypass at Haltwhistle in Northumberland, which is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and myself? Is he aware that the scheme put forward by his department is quite unacceptable to the local people? Can he say anything about this scheme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have details on the scheme for the A69 Haltwhistle west of Haydon Bridge. We intend to go to public consultation on the scheme as soon as possible.

Enfield Health Authority: Hospital Sites
2.42 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 why the Enfield local health authority has received no reply to the scheme which it submitted to the DHSS 14 months ago for the sale of the Highland Hospital site and the development of the Chase Farm Hospital site as a district general hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the department has now given North East Thames Regional Health Authority approval in principle to proceed with the development at Chase Farm Hospital.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that it was given to me by my local press in exactly those words this morning? Now that the Question on the Order Paper has promoted such a speedy reply, will she be able to satisfy the community health council in Enfield that it will be consulted at all stages in the planning and preparation of the development? Also, will she give an assurance that the resources released by the land upon which housing will be built are used in such a way that there is no duplication of services and that patient care takes priority?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the timing of his Question. Community health councils will naturally be consulted.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not fascinating to see the number of occasions when the Answer to a Question put down in your Lordships' House suddenly emerges a day in advance? We are however grateful for it. Is it not true that too often there are very long delays in taking fundamentally important decisions, and also long delays before answers to correspondence are received from health authorities in such situations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are two reasons why this approval has taken longer than we would normally expect. First, the health authorities concerned applied to the department for a central grant towards the medical teaching aspects of the scheme and it has taken a considerable time to secure evidence that such a grant could be justified. Secondly, the department has also had to be satisfied that approving this scheme would not prejudice the outcome of another current proposal for a hospital development in an adjacent district health authority.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to the Minister for the tenor of the reply. But I hope she will understand that delays of this length cause havoc to the morale of the staff in hospitals whose future is being determined. Will she
200
try to ensure not only that there is less delay, but also that staff are kept as fully informed as possible, even if no progress at all is being made?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am a great believer in liaison with staff over any developments in their districts and regions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there will be a spinal injuries unit at Chase Farm Hospital?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there are two main acute hospitals, Chase Farm and the Highland. Both provide a range of general acute services. Accident and emergency services are available at Chase Farm which will also provide the district's maternity services. Acute surgery will be provided in the new teaching hospital.

MRSA: Extent of Spread in Hospitals
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent multi-resistant and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) also known as Super Staph, has spread in hospitals in London and throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, MRSA has spread widely throughout hospitals in London and to a much lesser extent elsewhere. For the edification of your Lordships, I have placed a copy of a fact sheet on MRSA in the Library today.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that worrying Answer. May I ask whether she is satisfied that infection control throughout our hospitals is good enough; for instance, nurses and doctors washing their hands between visiting each patient? Also, is she aware that MRSA puts great additional strain on wards serving surgical patients and other at-risk patients?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, high standards of hygiene for both patients and staff are very important for control. All staff and patients moving between hospitals known to have a current outbreak of MRSA should be checked to see whether they are carriers. Thorough cleaning of infected wards is an important preventative measure. Infection control nurses have an increasingly vital role to play in the maintenance of hygiene standards. Their primary duty is the prevention of infection in hospitals through effective liaison with all levels of hospital staff, including the organisation of training programmes for health care workers.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what part is played in a matter such as this by the Health and Safety Executive?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, your Lordships will, of course, be aware that the law on Crown immunity has been changed. Environmental health officers will be visiting hospitals as they have always had the right to do in the past. But it would be only sensible for hospitals themselves to take all possible precautions and, of course, to accept any expert advice that is offered to them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that 32 London hospitals have been directly affected by MRSA? I wonder whether she can say how many people have died across the country in the last three years or so—or any other period that it suits her to tell us about—from this very disturbing infectious disease.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the present position is that 70 hospitals have reported isolated MRSA. About 12 hospitals have a continuing and serious problem. Although MRSA has spread, it has done so fairly slowly and some hospitals appear to have been able to contain and eradicate the strain. Sporadic MRSA of other types continues to occur at a low frequency.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may we know the number of deaths?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not have the exact number of deaths. If the noble Lord wishes, I shall write to him. However, I believe that there were very few.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us the symptoms of this disease?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. Alternatively, I suggest that he looks at the fact sheet.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it the case that MRSA can transfer its multi-resistant properties to other bacteria?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can tell the House why some strains have become resistant to antibiotics, if that is helpful. A naturally occurring strain of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus was identified in 1960, sometimes in populations that had not been exposed to methicillin. Many staphylococci produce enzymes which destroy antibiotics. A few of these have altered cell wall structures, which makes them resistant to antibiotics such as methicillin. Once again, let me refer the noble Baroness to the fact sheet, which I believe she will find to be very useful.

Economic Growth Factors
2.53 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 their attention has been drawn to the increase over the past two years of house prices in the South-East of England, the Financial Times ordinary share index and the higher range of salaries as against the increase in the same period of the retail price index, and whether they have drawn any conclusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): Yes, my Lords. However, over the years the relationship between the factors in the noble Lord's Question has not been consistent.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Was he in the House on Monday when his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment told me that, if we were to have continued economic growth, it was essential to restrain industrial wage costs? May I ask towards what sort of society the Government think this economic growth is leading us, if we are to have restraint on industrial wages and on essential services such as hospitals and education and yet have crude inflation in the stock market, property and top salaries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not in the House on Monday when my noble friend made that remark. However, I have heard him say that on many occasions. House prices are determined by agreement between private individuals, and no government, including that of the noble Lord, have ever attempted to dictate to ordinary people the price at which they may sell their property.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whatever the statistics show about the matters contained in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is the important point not whether at various levels of society the standard of living has risen, fallen or stood still during the past two years?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, because of lower inflation and because of other measures taken by this Government, the standard of living in this country has risen over the last two years. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, prompted me to investigate the situation as far back as 1972, which is why I gave my original Answer. That information is contained in a graph which is very complicated, and I shall put it in the Library.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I own my own property and I am seriously concerned at its inflated rise in value? Is he further aware that the rise in house prices in the London and outer London areas in the South-East is nothing short of a downright scandal, and that it is affecting very seriously the social life of many people and particularly young people who wish to get

203
married? There is an answer. The Government know the answer, but they fail to take action.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The percentage of mortgage advances made to first-time buyers in the South-East is very close to the average for the country as a whole. In Greater London it is well above the national average. Over the period from the last quarter of 1985 to the third quarter of 1986, 71,220 first-time mortgages were issued. In the rest of the South-East the figure is 126,130.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, that is all very well. How many of those mortgages were granted to young people, the payment for which will depend upon a husband and wife working? If by chance a child comes along, it is an economic disaster. In how many cases have there been defaults on mortgages, with a building society calling a house in?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, people's affairs are their own. If a husband and wife wish to take the tremendous step—and we know from building society figures that they do—of joining together to own their own home, I cannot see that that is wrong.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the area from which I come 97 per cent. of the property is owned by the local authority? When we started building houses for sale in Docklands, people queued up all night to buy them, irrespective of price.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I have heard the noble Lord say that before. That is why the Government's right-to-buy policy has excited so much interest.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one conclusion that can be drawn from the statistics is that it is almost impossible for anyone from the North to move South to take up a fresh job unless the job has a very high salary indeed? That takes into account the fact that over the last two years house prices in the North have risen by 7.7 per cent, compared to a rise in the South-East of 36.8 per cent. The wages earned in the South, when set against the low sale price of houses in the North, would probably not qualify such people for a mortgage.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, apart from the fact that the Question on the Order Paper refers to the South-East, I think that most people would accept that the main determinant of house prices is the real income of house purchasers. I do not think that there is anything either surprising or revolutionary about that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I moved South in 1975 the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was exactly the same?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. That is a personal circumstance of which I was not aware.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that because of the escalating price of housing, the number of people who default on mortgages is rising? Those people cannot keep up with their mortgage payments, which are determined by the price of the house.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Building Societies Association has just published figures for the end of 1986 as regards that matter. They indicate that the rising trend of arrears in recent years may be reversing, although I accept that it is too early to be certain that that is a permanent change.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the circumstances mentioned are a result of the collapse of the regional policy of the Government? Some restoration of a sensible regional policy would prevent the excessive pressure on land and housing in the South-East and would enable us to utilise the infrastructure which is available in the North.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again I do not think that there is any relationship at all. I do not accept that the Government's regional structure has collapsed in the way in which the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to return to another aspect of my Question? Does he recall that once upon a time the Top Salaries Review Body dealt with top salaries? Last year that body recommended that the heads of the Civil Service, the defence services and the judiciary should be paid salaries of the order of £60,000 or £70,000 a year. That figure represents only one-fifth of the salaries which are now the going rate for certain people in the City. Is this the sort of society which we wish to build?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, "going rate" is a very wide term. I do not have any comment to make on the Top Salaries Review Body, especially as I know that it determines my salary!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if he took action to restrain the top salaries paid in the City so that the most able men, both young and old, who worked there did not receive top salaries, we should simply lose them, mainly to America and perhaps also to Japan? That earning power would therefore be lost to this country. There could be no more short-sighted a policy than that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent is absolutely right. We all know the effects of the brain drain and we want to do everything we can to avoid it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister perhaps confirm that the Government's attitude is that all is well, that there are no problems and that they view the extraordinary rise in house prices with total equanimity?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, for the people in those houses it is clearly a good thing. For those who want to buy them, especially young people and first time buyers, there does not appear to be any problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again. Is the Minister aware that his colleague behind him, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is quite wrong? As late as 1982, increases in house prices in the North and in the South-East were almost the same.

Business
3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on the dangers of the extremes of unilateral disarmament and escalation and before the short debate on prison conditions, my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on health development, cancer screening and AIDS research.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. As is customary in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of both short debates this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is a hybrid order. There was one petition against it and so it went before the Hybrid Instruments Committee which considered very carefully whether it should be referred to a Select Committee. We considered detailed representations in writing and we also had the benefit of hearing the agents for both sides. As the report makes clear, we came to the conclusion that the petitioners had substantial grounds for complaint and they had not failed to avail themselves of opportunities to have the matter properly inquired into. In those circumstances the Hybrid Instruments Committee recommends that the order should be referred to a Select Committee so that the matters complained of in the petition may be investigated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee be agreed to and that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987 be referred to a Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence Options: Dangers of Extremism
3.2 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to call attention to the dangers of the extremes of unilateral disarmament and of escalation of thermo-nuclear weaponry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The future of the strategic nuclear deterrent, as I am sure we will all agree, is a matter of first importance to our country and to its relations with its allies and possible adversaries. It is also a matter of importance—again, I think we will all agree—to the fortunes of our respective parties at the coming general election. The Alliance policy has been plainly set out in the agreed policy document of the Alliance, The Time Has Come. But since attempts are still made from time to time to misrepresent what it is, not least on the front page of The Times on Monday, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, once again, I quote the exact authoritative statement:
"In government we would maintain, with whatever necessary modification, our minimum nuclear deterrent until it can be negotiated away, as part of a global negotiating process, in return for worthwhile concessions by the Soviet Union which would enhance British and European security.
"In any such modernisation we would maintain our capability in the sense of freezing our capacity at a level no greater than that of the Polaris system … We would cancel Trident because of its excessive number of warheads and megatonnage, high cost and continued dependence on US technology … There are a number of possible options including different ballistic and non-ballistic air and submarine launched systems. A final choice could not be made without access to classified information and the advice of the Chiefs of Staff available only when in government".
That is the policy on the deterrent, quite plainly stated, of the Alliance parties. Briefly, as long as there is a question mark over whether the United States guarantee to Western Europe will remain indefinitely, we believe that the British deterrent should be maintained and if necessary modernised pending disarmament. In this we differ strongly from the Labour Party. At the same time we oppose the escalation of the deterrent, and in this we differ strongly from the Conservative Party.
Naturally, our policy has been attacked by both sides. To begin with, Labour argued that our policy will in practice turn out to be much the same as the pro-nuclear policy of the Government. The Conservative Party has argued that in practice our policy will turn out to be much the same as the unilateralist policy of the Labour Party. But these lines of attack have been changing recently. For example, on 3rd December last year during a debate on defence capability and nuclear deterrence the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, informed us:
"This policy amounts to nothing less than one-sided nuclear disarmament".—[Official Report, 3/12/86; col. 848.]
But this month the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Stanley, was saying in another place:
"We welcome the commitment of the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties to the continuance of the British strategic deterrent".
One reassuring feature of a democratic assembly such as this is that if one continues patiently explaining one's policy then eventually one limits the scope of one's opponents for misrepresenting it. One subjects

207
them to what might be called the law of diminishing mendacity. This law is operating exceptionally well in connection with the new defence policy of the Alliance parties.
Our opponents are changing now and are arguing that the trouble with this policy is not that it is unilateralist or that it is the same as the Government's but simply that it is not practicable. A few weeks ago the Government issued an entire open information document purporting to demonstrate this; to prove that the Alliance policy will not work because there is no practicable alternative to Trident. As I shall try to show, the document proves no such thing. It proves in fact that there are alternative options, that the choice between them is complicated and difficult, and that the Alliance is right not to decide on them until, hopefully, after the election, we have access to classified information and the advice of the Chiefs of Staff.
The main burden of this document is that Trident cannot be replaced by cruise. The main reason given is that as cruise has only one warhead, too many of them would be needed and too many submarines or aircraft would be needed to carry them. The key passage is in paragraph 7:
"Our assessment is that Britain would need at least 400… cruise missiles of the type currently available to provide an assured minimum deterrent equivalent to Trident".
Paragraph 11 says:
"To achieve the deployment of the 400… cruise missiles … would require a force of five Trident submarines on patrol at all times, assuming 80 missiles per submarine".
Finally, the document argues that to keep that force at sea, 11 Trident submarines would be needed with 800 cruise missiles. Noble Lords may feel that this puts cruise out of court as a possible option for the Alliance. But, of course, there is an obvious fallacy in this argument. Alliance policy is not directed to replacing the capacity of Trident but the capacity of Polaris. When the noble Baroness comes to reply, perhaps she will give us the correct figures of this equation because she, I am sure, will have spotted the fallacy in the paper.
This error invalidates a good half of the document but it also argues that cruise would be too vulnerable—too vulnerable to interception and too vulnerable because, owing to its shorter range, the submarines carrying it would have to operate closer to the coast. But here again, there is an obvious fallacy. I read that quotation once again:
"Our assessment is that Britain would need at least 400… cruise missiles of the type currently available".
I repeat again,
"of the type currently available".
That means that the Government are assuming that for the next eight years, until the mid-1990s, there will be no improvement in cruise missile technology. That is all it can mean. At the same time the document assumes that Soviet defence technology will increase by leaps and bounds. Intense research and development on cruise are going on in the United States for longer range, greater accuracy, electronic counter measures and guidance systems, but according to the Government all that is going to fail. They give not reasons whatever for supposing that it will. That is
208
one reason why, by the time Trident is operational, there will be 101 United States submarines equipped with cruise and 82 surface vessels equipped with cruise; and why long before Trident comes into service there will be 180 B-52s equipped with cruise.
There is another point in that connection. It may well be that by the time Trident comes into service in 1989 the Americans will have decided that with the advance of technology cruise is a better bet than Trident. If that happens the British Trident project is sunk. No one will then remember the promises made by Mr. Reagan, the former President, to Mrs. Thatcher, the former Prime Minister.
The final argument against cruise in this extraordinary document is that there will be less sea room available because of the short range of cruise missiles. That may be so, even if the range is extended. But if those submarines are vulnerable what about the cruise missile sites at Greenham Common and Molesworth? The Government are enthusiastic in establishing cruise missile bases there, but if the submariners are vulnerable what about the inhabitants of Berkshire? Or is it the Government's belief that the Russians can pinpoint a Trident submarine in the North Sea but have no idea of the whereabouts of Berkshire? Is that the Government's argument? That argument, too, completely falls to the ground.
The final piece of misinformation in this document is that it grossly understates the degree of escalation involved in the Trident project. We all know that the Government are not proposing to deploy the full capacity of Trident. If they did deploy the 14 warheads on each missile—bigger warheads, greater accuracy, independently targeted, with longer range—the degree of escalation could be assessed at not less than 10 or 15 times. Therefore, the Government are not going to deploy the full capacity but only eight warheads per missile. Trident has turned out to be too big for the Government and too big for Britain, as from the start its critics always said it would be. Moreover, the Government will be paying large sums of money for a capacity that they are not going to deploy, which is breaking every rule of cost-effectiveness.
What justification is there for any escalation at all? The Government make no pretence that international relations are changing or that they will change by the mid-1990s in order to justify escalation. They fall back on the one argument that the missile will become increasingly vulnerable to Soviet interception. Ironically, they use the same argument to defend Trident as they use to attack cruise, but in both cases their statements are totally unconvincing and are not supported by facts or figures.
Since there is no official information, we have to fall back on other sources. The best source seems to be the very authoritative American journal Scientific American, which reported in August last year that, after allowing for improvement in Soviet defences until 1990, a Trident project with a government ceiling of 518 missiles would be capable as follows:
"Britain would be able to inflict between 24 million and 68 million Soviet fatalities and to incapacitate up to half the Soviet production base.".
Further improvements in the Soviet defence may in the long run materialise and they will come more readily. I may add, if the Government fail to prevent

209
the Americans from destroying the ABM Treaty, which it looks as though they are about to do at present. But it is plain that the degree of escalation in the Government's plans is far in excess of that needed to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet Union.
The special pleading in this document, and its obvious political purpose, raises the question of the legitimacy of using public money for publications of this kind. We agree that sometimes it is necessary to use public money to inform the public of the impact of decisions by the Government or local authorities; but it is always wrong to spend rates and taxes on propaganda. Just as it is wrong for Labour-controlled borough councils to spend ratepayers' money on tendentious attacks on the Government, so it is wrong for the Government to use taxpayers' money to make tendentious attacks on the Alliance.
Indeed, the offence committed by Conservative Ministers is worse. The emblem on this document is not that of Camden borough council or Conservative Central Office; it is the emblem of the Defence Council. It is a particular scandal to drag the armed services into propaganda on behalf of the Conservative Party. I am afraid that defence Ministers need reminding that their duty to the services comes before their duty to the Conservative Party.
In the time still available to me I turn briefly to the Labour Party's policy of unilateral abandonment by Britain of all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases. I shall be brief because there are so few supporters of that policy in this place, or, indeed, anywhere else. Labour policy does not deny that while the Russians have nuclear weapons the West must have them, too. It does not explicitly deny that. How could it? How could even the Labour Party advocate a policy which would present on a plate to the Russians military and, therefore, political domination worldwide?
However, once having accepted that, there follow inevitable and awkward questions. For example, if it is right for the West to have a deterrent, why is it wrong for Britain to help with it? We have never had an answer to that question from the Labour Benches. If it is right for the West to have a deterrent, does not it follow that a nuclear deterrent can sometimes deter and that the possession of nuclear weapons is not necessarily futile or immoral?
Finally, I think we all agree that on questions of national security such as the British deterrent political parties should be willing to lead public opinion rather than to follow it. Nevertheless, it is gratifying when one discovers that the policy one is accepting on its merits also proves to be popular.
I should like to quote a Gallup Poll carried out a few months ago which asked people to choose among three different policies on the deterrent which corresponded—unlike The Times on Monday—to the policies advocated by the three parties. The question was:
"If you were planning Britain's defence strategy for the next 10 to 15 years, which approach would you be most inclined to follow?".
Three choices were given:
"Britain should get rid of all its nuclear weapons and require the Americans to remove theirs from bases here".
That is Labour Party policy. Thirty-three per cent. agreed.
210
"Britain should maintain a nuclear deterrent as powerful as the weapons we have now".
Broadly, that is Alliance policy. Fifty-four per cent. said yes.
"Britain should have more powerful nuclear weapons".
That is the policy of the Conservative Party. Seven per cent. said yes.
We salute the courage of the Conservative Party, going into an election with a policy on the deterrent which is not only manifestly wrong but grossly unpopular, too. We salute its courage. That is the fate which was predicted for the Alliance parties by some noble Lords opposite.
I recall the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, to whom I have given notice of my intention to quote him today. Last December he said:
"Maybe that is why we see the Alliance backing in the most recent poll yesterday slumping to only 18 points. I suspect that it may well end up at 12 or 14 points if it goes on the way it is going at the present time in its attitude to its nuclear and defence policy".—[0fficial Report, 3/12/86; col. 877.]
For my noble friends these were chilling words indeed. We anxiously await the results of the by-election in Greenwich tomorrow, hoping against hope that, despite the fact that he supported Trident, we shall defeat the Conservative candidate there.
However—and I end on this note—the fact is that the voters now have three choices: they can escalate the deterrent; they can scrap the deterrent; or they can maintain the deterrent pending disarmament. My noble friends and I are entirely confident that the policy that we are recommending is the one that is the best for Britain and the one that the British people want.
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I should like to start my eight-minute contribution to this debate by saying that on all sides of the House we must be very excited about the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union at the present time. Any remarks that I make today will certainly be conditioned by the fact of the efforts that are clearly being made by Mr. Gorbachev, and I think that all of us have to make sure that we discuss disarmament again and again in order not to discourage these exciting changes. A cautionary word must be added, however, that not only since the revolution but before it the people of that great country have never had freedom as we understand it with the power that comes from freedom of expression. One must watch with bated breath to see how far the changes go and one must realise that there are enormous differences still existing.
Let me waste another moment by apologising to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, whom I see in the Chamber, for an inaccurate statement that I made during a debate on 3rd December when I said that he had been the Chief of Defence Staff until 1978, the date at which the then Labour Government approved the development of Trident. That statement was inaccurate. The noble and gallant Lord resigned in 1976. I have apologised to him and I have already written to everyone who took part in that debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has followed an attractive political line in the terms of the Motion.

211
Nobody claims to be in favour of extremes. It is nice for the Alliance to end up in the middle. That is a nice posture. The reality of the situation is that until 1978 the two main parties of alternative government in this country worked on a broadly agreed bipartisan policy. In 1978, after approving the development of Trident, the Labour Party moved away from that position to a major extent.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt, I should like to say that the Labour Government did not approve the purchase of Trident in 1978, or at any time at all. The question was open, as was made quite clear in the 1979 election manifesto.
Viscount Trenchard: Development expenditure, my Lords. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, for whom I have the greatest respect, that design and development expenditure was approved in 1978. It was no great amount but it was approved under the Labour Government. The truth of the matter is—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Lord correct the statement that he previously made?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that is the truth of the matter, as we shall see later. Sadly, the bipartisan policy that existed all through the post-war years has now ceased to exist and the latest policy statement from the Labour Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned toward the end of his speech, entitled Modern Britain in a Modern World, departs from almost everything that the Labour Party has believed in for a very long time. Not only have we departed from a bipartisan policy as a result of a movement in the Labour Party but we have also started to present different impressions of the facts about the defence situation.
At this point I must comment on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Government should not produce open documents on defence issues with public money. Foreign affairs and defence are matters upon which in the past the electorate has, quite naturally, found it pretty hard to make a judgment. It is quite difficult for an ordinary British citizen to be aware of what the Russians have and to know what the Foreign Office believes may be threats from around the world. That is why in the past it has been very important to have a bipartisan policy and a common presentation of the facts, and in the past government documents have not been seriously challenged. I hope that there will be a return to that situation. I do not believe that the parallels or the comparisons that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned have relevance.
Moreover, I do not believe that the Government since 1979, or NATO, or the USA have adopted an extreme position such as the terms of this Motion suggest, either in actions on armaments or in their statements. I shall not weary your Lordships with the facts culled from any source of statistics that one wishes to take, including the International Institute of Strategic Studies, to prove that the conventional
212
balance has not improved since 1979. If anything it has got worse and we have lost our technical edge to a greater degree, as was said in the institute's last two technical publications. The chemical balance has become infinitely worse and the tactical nuclear balance has worsened substantially, which is particularly important when one talks about the removal of intermediate-range weapons such as the SS.20 and cruise, and Pershing. These things have not been extreme.
While I do not agree with quite a lot of what the United States has been saying lately, I cannot accuse it of being extreme. If agreement had been reached at Reykjavik—and I shall come to star wars in a minute—we should have moved on a pretty fast path toward the removal of intermediate-range ballistic missiles while the conventional chemical and tactical weapons balance remains as bad as I have just described.
While there is much propaganda about star wars, it is not disputed that the Soviet Union has an ABM system. It is not disputed that the Soviet Union is far advanced in the production of satellites, and, at the moment, larger satellites than in the USA. It is said that the Soviet Union has been working and researching on lasers for a long time. Taking just those three areas, I do not think that either side can hold the position that it has taken up on the star wars issue. In free democracies we find ourselves continually guilty of using our freedom to criticise our own stance, and that makes negotiation very difficult.
Let me end with one other main point on deterrence which I have mentioned before. I feel that there is a bit of a muddle, not only in the minds of well-meaning organisations such as CND but even in the minds of professional military men between the long history of the rules and experience of war fighting and the modern politics of deterrence, including nuclear weaponry.
Most of us believe that the weapons today are so awful in their destructive power, and so relatively economical in terms of cash and people, that the possibility of their use is, in most of our minds, credited with giving us the long period of peace that we have had in Europe since the Second World War. It is becoming agreed between all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and myself, that there can be no winner in a nuclear war. Surely that fact, if it sinks into the head of a potential aggressor, will show that the threat of the possible use of nuclear weapons may be of use in advancing the cause of either a potential aggressor or of democratic defenders. Bearing in mind that there can be no winners, and that an aggressor presumably wants something, the actual use of such weapons is of no use to an aggressor.
If such an aggressor miscalculated, the use of nuclear weapons could, in some circumstances, be of value to a defender. That is logic. It is admittedly theory because we have never had a situation where both sides have nuclear weapons and one has used them; nevertheless, if that situation is logical and it is believed that a defender will use such weapons or could or might use them, then no aggressor, knowing that there could be no winner in a nuclear war, will aggress. That being the case, we will keep the peace. We shall keep the peace if there is more than one worry

213
in a possible aggressor's mind. Our independent nuclear weapon, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, must be an effective deterrent. I am delighted that he will keep an open mind until he can consult the service experts and others who raised no point—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend when he is winding up his speech, but we must keep to the arrangements which were made. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, went slightly over time and I think that my noble friend has done so. Perhaps we could now try to stick to the timetable.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, may I finish my sentence?
Noble Lords: No.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the finish of my sentence is that in my time in the Ministry of Defence no service chief or civilian quarrelled with the open documents on Trident that we produced.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, several years ago the late Lord Mountbatten made a powerful and much-remembered speech about defence in which he drew attention to the fearful consequences if the human race were to become involved in a nuclear war. That part of his speech is often quoted and used as an argument one way or another. He then went on to ask what in those circumstances we ought to do. He then immediately said, in effect, that one thing we must not do is to upset what is called the balance of terror that exists between the two great power blocs in the world.
It is as well that everyone who quotes his speech also remembers that part of it. I am convinced that that is true. There has been a good deal of argument about what it is that has kept the peace for these many years. One reason the peace has been kept is that both the great power blocs know that if they went to war they would suffer unspeakable damage. The fact that that is true of both sides and is known by both sides to be true is what has helped to keep the peace. There are other reasons at work, but that is a powerful one. If that balance and mutual knowledge of possible destruction disappeared, the danger of war would be much greater.
If this country is asked to pursue a non-nuclear policy, does that mean, as I am told it is supposed to mean, that we should be not only non-nuclear ourselves but should endeavour to persuade NATO to be non-nuclear? If we produce that result and NATO has no nuclear arms but the Warsaw Pact still has, we shall have a recipe for disaster or surrender. One must turn that aside.
If that is not what is meant, if what is meant is that this country should be non-nuclear but should still be part of NATO and that NATO should still have nuclear weapons, let us notice what follows from that. First, as we pointed out last time we debated this
214
subject, it would put British troops in Europe in great danger. They would be alone among the troops on the Western side unprotected by the nuclear umbrella. I do not think we can put our troops in that position.
Secondly, it would deeply upset the whole organisation, and the set-up of nuclear power and weapons in NATO. It is sometimes said that Denmark, Norway, this country or the other in NATO has no nuclear weapons, so why should Britain have them. The answer to that of course is that we are not Norway or Denmark; inevitably we play a great part in the North Atlantic alliance and if we became nonnuclear and refused to give nuclear facilities to the United States it would inflict a fearful twist on the whole structure of NATO's defences.
There is another moral reason. I am always a little hesitant to bring that word into the argument because one should try to credit everyone with good intentions in this matter. What would be our position if we said that we were going to be non-nuclear but were still going to be a member of NATO? Trade unionists have long been acquainted with the man who is glad to draw increased wages won for him by the strength of his trade union, but does not join the union. He has never been regarded, except possibly on the Benches opposite, as an admirable figure. If we say, "We are going to remain in NATO, but we are not taking any of the risks that may be involved in having nuclear weapons anywhere near us", we are saying something new. We are saying that we want to belong to the union but we do not propose to pay the subscription. That is not a credible or creditable stand to take.
If we believe in defence, and if we believe in NATO, we must accept that this country continues to play an active part in it, not only by having nuclear weapons of our own—though that I think is not the most important issue—but by resolutely co-operating with the United States in the preparation of the nuclear part of NATO's defences.
I agree therefore with what is said in the Motion about the undesirability of the extremes of unilateral disarmament. But what about the other extreme that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned—the extreme of excessive nuclear weaponry? I am not sure that I was fully convinced by his argument about Trident, but I think that he put it forward very powerfully, and I shall listen with great interest to see what answer the Government give.
The danger of the world loading itself with so much nuclear weaponry as to threaten the peace will not come about as a result of anything that this country does; we are not large enough in the whole pattern to have that effect. The danger of excessive piling up of nuclear weapons or excessive threats of nuclear power comes from one or other or both of the two very great powers. Our concern therefore with the United States must be, through the ordinary channels of diplomacy, to try to wean it away from policies that will involve the excessive piling up of nuclear weaponry. But let us notice this. If we hope to have any influence in that field, it is no good beginning by telling the United States to take all its nuclear weapons out of this country and not to expect any co-operation from us in nuclear matters in the future. We can say that if we like, but we cannot expect after that to have any effect at all on United States policy.

215
If the situation remains so that we may have some effect on United States policy, I would suggest that we should concentrate on these things. First, is it necessary for it to proceed from the testing and development of SDI to its deployment? There seems to be a difference of opinion in the United States on that question. I hope that we shall be able to keep it on the right side of deployment. Secondly, let us hope that there will be no more rushing into summits with inadequate preparation, leaving a result where nothing practical is achieved and a number of ingenious journalists are writing articles to prove that it has been one of the major successes of this generation. I hope that we shall not have repetition of that kind of unreal thing. Thirdly, I hope that the British Government will continue to press on with the question of verification in every field of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons because the more efficient we can make the methods of verification the greater chance there is of genuine reduction of armaments.
Bearing in mind what has been said about previous speakers and seeing what the time is, I propose to leave the matter there.
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for tabling the Motion, though discussion of thermonuclear weaponry has a certain nightmare quality about it when one talks about the number of casualties or the number of warheads that each side possesses. I should like to focus on the word "dangers", thinking of dangers not only as physical dangers or the dangers of an outbreak of this terrible conflict but as dangers to our consciences.
There are many people in the country who ask: can it possibly be morally right to possess and threaten to use these frightful weapons of mass destruction? It would be a pity if in a debate of this kind that particular note were not heard. Many people in my own diocese find it difficult to understand how I as a Christian leader am not prepared unequivocally to condemn any possession or threat to use thermonuclear weapons. Some of those who take this view are of course pacifists, and there is a long and distinguished tradition of pacifism in the Christian Churches. Perhaps it may find some expression in the speeches to follow this afternoon.
There are others who criticise the Churches and their leaders for not coming out more strongly against the possession of nuclear weapons who are not pacifists. They believe in conventional deterrence, but they feel that nothing can possibly justify the use of such terrible weapons. They must be taken seriously, I submit to your Lordships. To them the danger is to conscience and they are prepared to accept other dangers in unilateral disarmament rather than go against conscience in this matter.
There are some people who argue that nuclear weapons are really no different in principle from other conventional weapons. They point to the horrors of the bombing of Dresden or of Tokyo during the last war when 200,000 people were killed largely as a result of fire. But they are different in extent. Consider that
216
the tonnage equivalent in explosive power of what fell over Hiroshima was, I believe, 12,000 tonnes, and we have now more than 9 billion tonnes equivalent in explosive power represented in nuclear weapons. It is not only that, but we are aware that we are talking about the potential end to civilisation as we know it. I know that that is a hackneyed phrase, but after Chernobyl and what that represented who can doubt it?
However, those who protest against the way in which the Christian Churches accept the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrence do not represent the mainstream Christian thinking in the country at present. Most of us are prepared, sadly, reluctantly, with tortured consciences, to accept that there remains some place for a nuclear deterrent.
Troubled consciences were evident in the debate that we held in General Synod across the road back in 1983. Your Lordships will remember that this was as a result of the report of a debate chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury under the title The Church and the Bomb.. It was not, I hasten to say, a completely unilateralist report as it was represented. It accepted continuing membership of NATO armed with nuclear weapons. I take the points that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, was making on this matter, and of course the report was tackled on those grounds.
It called for the phasing out of Polaris, the cancellation of Trident, a discontinuation of all nuclear weaponry independently possessed by Britain itself and the negotiation of an end to nuclear bases on British soil. The recommendations were defeated in General Synod by 100 votes to 338. In their place there was passed a motion calling on the Government to make a clear declaration that in no circumstances would they use nuclear weaponry first in any conflict—no first use.
We may perhaps argue that that debate was a few years ago and we are now in a changing situation, yet the debate continues not only in Britain but throughout the world. If one looks across the Atlantic to the United States, one finds that the Catholic bishops have taken an increasingly strong stand against the possession by their country of nuclear weapons, something that goes against some words that the present Pope has himself spoken.
The point that I put in front of your Lordships is that we must go on agonising in our consciences about the possession of nuclear weapons. From the point of view of a moral theologian, one of the most effective contributions was made in the debate by the present Dean of Durham, who pointed out that there have always been two types of ethical theory in the Christian Church, one of which says that any act, no matter what its consequences are, if it is immoral should not be engaged in. The other tradition says, no, one must take account of consequences of any act. That type of ethical theory is the one that would justify the continued possession of nuclear weapons because we cannot agonisingly see any way out of our present dilemma without possessing them.
The Dean of Durham said at the end of his speech:
"So long as we keep the threat to the minimum that we can keep it to, then we can take into account that end; namely, the preservation of peace, which the threat is intended to secure. It becomes then justifiable to do something which is unjust".

217
I personally accept that second ethical theory, to which the dean referred. The possession of and threat to use nuclear weapons is, I believe, utterly inconsistent with a religion of love, yet it becomes justifiable to do something that is unjust if the aim is to preserve the peace.
I take also the words of Professor Michael Howard:
"to concern oneself in ethical values to the total exclusion of any practical activity in the dimension of power is to abdicate responsibility for shaping affairs".
I believe that the Christian tradition in this country must continue to try to play its part in the shaping of policy in this terrible and distressing field.
I come back to the moral argument—"as long as we keep the threat to the minimum". British possession of an independent nuclear deterrent does not in my opinion do this. It adds to the dangers of proliferation. I hope that when the noble Baroness comes to sum up she will say something about proliferation.
I do not take the point of view of a former Government Minister whom I heard on radio one day saying that it was perfectly all right for a civilised, organised country such as Britain to possess these terrible weapons but that every effort must be made to avoid their going to others. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander if needed for our defence. It adds to the enormous waste of resources on military expenditure. Mutual deterrence is becoming less stable year by year, and we make our own contribution to that.
What we now see is an escalation in the form of the strategic defence initiative known as star wars, which seems to me to be a thoroughly dangerous fantasy. Nor do I believe that parity of weaponry is the name of the game, because this is also dangerous and leads to escalation.
Where do I stand on this spendidly moderate, mediating Motion put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew? I believe that the main view taken by the report The Church and the Bomb is the correct one, though I can see the problems and that we ought indeed to move to the abandonment of the British independent nuclear deterrent in consultation with our allies but still with continued membership of NATO and reluctant possession of a nuclear deterrent there.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I believe that many people in this country are at this moment rather confused and indeed rather apathetic about defence, which is thought to be terribly complicated and controversial. No doubt it is. The fear of nuclear war is less than it was. Even CND seems to be losing some of its emotional appeal. Like my noble friend Lord Mayhew—whose excellent speech I warmly support—I do not mind if CND loses its appeal. But I worry about existing apathy, for I feel the situation is now much more dangerous than is commonly thought.
What is the danger? It is not that war is likely to result from some excessively provocative action. No—that is possible but still unlikely. I do not believe, for instance, that the Soviet Union will regard almost any action by the United States in Latin
218
America—apart perhaps from Cuba—as a reason for even breaking off talks on arms limitation. Both sides will do their utmost not to get involved in local wars, more especially in the Middle East. Both will continue to put up with the patrolling of their coasts by potentially hostile nuclear submarines. Nor will disregard of human rights—where, incidentally, the Russians seem to be making very considerable progress—do more than put some strain on normal East-West relations. No; I believe that the danger—the not so very long-term danger of war—lies in a very different direction. In other words, it lies right overhead, in space.
Many people in America, perhaps some in Europe and no doubt the Soviet Union, nevertheless feel that the two super powers are set on a collision course: one philosophy, or Weltanschauung, must prevail, the other being abandoned or gradually renounced. This might, so they would say, take place without a world war but one could well occur as a result of the one side being about to possess a vast preponderance of power which, if ever it had to be employed, might possibly result in what they call "victory". Alternatively, it is imagined by some that if the West spends vast sums on nuclear armaments it will oblige the Soviet Union to follow suit, thus resulting in the collapse of the Russian economy. I believe that to be a very dangerous delusion.
At Geneva both leaders said that in their joint view no nuclear war could be won and therefore must not be fought. Nevertheless, an appalling arms race still goes on. Perhaps, apart from its cost, even this might not matter so much provided it was clear that neither side could conceivably knock out all, or nearly all, the offensive nuclear weapons of the other, as it were, in one fell swoop; in other words, that each side retained the assured capacity to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary on what is called a second strike. This is the old doctrine of MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Unfortunately MAD has now apparently been replaced in America by the novel doctrine of MAS—mutually assured security—as a result of this disastrous project called star wars.
Why is it disastrous? It is because, whatever may be said in its favour, star wars is clearly, in effect, a conscious attempt to occupy (before the other side occupies it) what used to be called the high ground in space where, it is thought, the United States can be largely protected from nuclear bombardment and whence it could also, if necessary, destroy or threaten to destroy with comparative immunity the Soviet Union itself. Evidence of such intention, I believe, even if unacknowledged, can be found in the latest Weinberger plan for permanently stationing a large number of so-called killer satellites over the Soviet Union.
It is only natural therefore that unless the ABM treaty of 1972 is abided by, in the sense of agreement on what exactly is implied by research, and not effectively repudiated by what is called the broad interpretation, the Soviet Union will take such precautions as are open to it, none of which, to say the least, will be consonant with any possible agreement on the limitation of nuclear arms. The outlook therefore at the moment is sombre. But that is not all. As has already been said by a speaker, the SDI

219
research may well be useful in preparations for the destruction of the satellites of the adversary. All ASAT—anti-satellite activity—therefore should, consequently, by agreement henceforth be banned. I think that the Soviet Union would agree to that. Observance of such a ban could easily be verified.
What conclusion do we draw from this deplorable situation? The first is that the Russian leadership under Gorbachev will not prejudice Soviet claims to be what it thinks is an equal super power and thus a potential rival of the United States. A kind of modified cold war, and in any case the maintenance of some kind of Soviet empire (short of an unlikely internal collapse), will therefore continue. We must assume that that will be so. But the time has now come when there simply must be agreement on arms limitation if the danger of war and mutual destruction is to be averted and, indeed, if the maintenance of the Western alliance is to be assured.
Gorbachev is at least right on one essential point. If nuclear tests now take place in space we shall all be in some danger of annihilation. Her Majesty's Government therefore must make it absolutely clear that they are entirely opposed to what is called the broad interpretation of the 1972 treaty and, in principle, opposed also to any efforts to prepare for the holding of nuclear tests in space. They must say that they are totally opposed on both those issues. If we publicly take this line we shall not be simply siding with the Russians but trying to keep together the Western alliance which otherwise Mr. Gorbachev one day—perhaps with the assistance of Left-wing governments in Europe—may have a good chance of breaking up.
A really first-class book has just been published by an American professor called Seweryn Bialer. It is entitled The Soviet Paradox, External Expansion, Internal Decline. It analyses with great objectivity the problems posed by the existing Russian empire. Towards the end of this work, he says:
"The time for fundamental decisions with regard to arms control has been reached, a time which may only last a few years … the central decision has to be taken by the United States which … has two options. The first is to press for mutual, verifiable and equitable reductions of offensive weapons. The second is to press forward with unilateral plans of missile defence—the SDI. These cannot be reconciled".
I repeat those words: "These cannot be reconciled".
Mr. Bialer prefers the first option. He says:
"A commitment to SDI will both intensify the arms race and preclude terrestrial arms reductions, carrying with it an unavoidably dangerous destabilisation of the nuclear balance".
In the light of these wise words what general line will the Prime Minister take in Moscow? Unless she favours the broad interpretation of the treaty—which I should have thought was inconceivable—she can, while still remaining a devoted member of NATO, hardly avoid being to some extent an intermediary between the two super powers. She will presumably have to listen to what Mr. Gorbachev has to say about the concessions he may make on arms limitation, always supposing that he agrees with her that the broad interpretation of the treaty must be abandoned, and she might well ask him whether he can make further concessions as well.
220
If this should annoy some members of the tottering United States Administration, well, that just cannot be helped. However, it would surely appeal to a majority in Congress, and it is on that that we must now rely if the ailing President is to be persuaded, possibly to resume the summit talks but at least, by reverting to the narrow interpretation of the treaty, to further the negotiations at Geneva, on the success of which the future of all of us in the Western hemisphere now so obviously depends.
4 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am attracted to the Motion on the Order Paper for a number of reasons, not least that it takes place at a time when there is obviously movement in the international sphere. That is true not only in Russia—as regards which it would be excellent if we tried to support the Russian situation as it is now developing—but also in the chaos which is likely to emerge on the other side of the Atlantic.
However, it is for a much more important reason that I believe this debate is timely and imperative. As I listened to what was said I had the uncomfortable feeling that it was largely a discussion by a number of prisoners in the condemned cell, occasionally visited by the prison chaplain. I honour him for the candour, if he will allow me to say so, and the sincerity of what he said, but I do not believe that an agonised conscience is the only factor that can contribute to practical conversation in the condemned cell.
My problem is a moral one and I share with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester the apocalyptic nature of the threat which now faces us all. It is a threat which is not confined to the deliberate actions of super-powers. As a result of the proliferation of nuclear capacity, there is the prospect of terrorism using nuclear powers to its own advantage, to say nothing of another matter which I believe must find some inclusion in an informed debate this afternoon. I notice—and I hope it is a calculated noticing—many people today, young and old, becoming increasingly cynical. They are finding it very difficult to put up with the kind of world in which they live, except by escaping as best they can from any commitment to it. That is a very dangerous situation and the danger is likely to increase.
The Motion on the Order Paper concerns three kinds of danger. There is the apocalyptic danger to which reference has already been made and I shall not repeat what has been said so eloquently on the matter. We are in imminent danger of a collapse which is far greater than even the scientists have recognised. The Chernobyl catastrophe is only partial evidence of something which goes far deeper; it is the capacity which we now have—the do-it-yourself capacity—to destroy almost anything in this world that can be destroyed.
The second danger is that it would he foolish to assume that in the present situation there is some kind of practice and programme which will be without danger. I speak professionally and I know that my ecclesiastical friends will agree with me when I say that if one persists in things which are wrong for sufficient time, one will lose a measure of the capacity to put them right and there will be a danger in whatever one

221
endeavours to do. I believe that must be reconciled with the present situation. I am prepared to recognise that there are innumerable dangers facing those who seek peace in this troubled world today.
There is a third danger to which the Motion makes reference, but it is not dealt with in any composite degree; namely, the danger of unilateral excessive or extreme action. There seems no purpose in unilateral action which is not sufficiently powerful to do any good. The Russians unilaterally halted their tests but they started them again because it was a comparatively trivial unilateral action which carried no real punch behind it.
It will be no surprise to those who have suffered such speeches as I have tried to make previously that I believe that unilateral action is the only course reconcilable with the Christian faith to which I should like to adhere. However, there is no virtue in saying: "I will if you will". We must make sure that the result of our common action produces something agreeable to both sides. There is now paramount need in view of the increasing danger of the present situation to face a unilateral action which, in my judgment, must go further than a diminution of offensive weapons or the nuclear threat; I am referring to its abolition.
I know that I speak for a small minority in this field, but it would only be honest to say that I am more convinced as the days go by that the essence of the Christian faith finds no substance whatever in the idea of privatisation in economics—to which I shall not refer now—and the idea of the deterrence of terror. There is not place in the Gospels for the deterrence of terror; no place at all.
It seems to me that unless we are prepared to renounce the whole concept of the Christian faith we must take it as intrinsically it is rather than water it down or develop it in terms of what would be suitable or what we think would be practical. I hope that I shall not be accused of arrogance when I venture to say that the essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is obedience rather than the calculation of results which may follow from our own interpretation of what we think would be better for the world and what apparently is the purpose of God for it.
I therefore make my witness very briefly, and I shall not take up the whole of the eight minutes which I have been allocated. I make my witness as clearly as I can to the possibility of one country taking the initiative and believing that by a renunciation of its capacity to take part in the deterrence of terror that will open the door to all kinds of new approaches which I believe are burgeoning within the peoples of the world and are to some extent represented in Gorbachev. Above all, they are represented in the hope, which is now being threatened; that we live in a world where, by the grace of God, we can have peace on earth and good will among men.
What I have said may sound a little like a sermon, but this is the kind of contribution which must be included if we are rigorously and realistically to approach the forthcoming problems which seem to increase in their intensity and in the dreadful consequences that they prophesy. It is in the context that I invite your Lordships to consider again within the framework of this Motion not some kind of partial
222
deterrent which flows from a unilateral renuciation of certain weapons, but that one country—and, please God, it will be this country—will be prepared unilaterally to translate the Gospel of non-resistance and the profession of the love of God. In my estimation that is an infinitely greater opportunity. Whatever the dangers I believe that it would be guaranteed finally in its success in the very nature of the world as I believe it to be.
Therefore I advocate again that the consequences are of secondary importance to the commitment. The commitment to violence today is a commitment to death; a commitment to unilateral and total disarmament is the bellwether of life.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the debate today was originated by the Alliance for a special reason; namely, to make quite sure that people understood the important policy on defence and where we stand. It was reinforced in my mind at a recent NATO briefing I attended for delegates to the Western European Union Assembly where a Conservative member asked the American chargé d'affaires whether he was aware that two of the main parties in Britain advocated unilateral disarmament and the removal of American bases and what effect that would have on the alliance. I hope that the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will assure me that Conservative Back Benchers are informed of the policy of their opponents. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, certainly appeared to be informed upon it. He criticised it. He said that we are in the middle—not a bad place to be—but he did accept that the policy was different from the Labour Party's.
This piece of misinformation in the Conservative Party is, to put it mildly, not very good for democracy. You can criticise an opponent's policy on the technical details and on the alternatives to Polaris. But it is quite wrong to equate it with Labour Party policy which that party can defend. Labour's policy is not our policy. I hope that the Conservative Party will take this on hoard. In any democratic system, you really must criticise your opponent's policies on the facts and not on misinformation. The noble Baroness smiles which I take as a very good sign.
I am not going to take up the whole of my time. Most people who say that go on to exceed their time. I would like to say, however, that I was desperately pleased with the briefing that we had with the leaders of NATO. I am not giving away any secrets when I say that the general line there pleased me. It was the policy we are adopting. It was, "Keep up your guard but take advantage of the tremendous internal changes which are going on inside the Soviet Union which might" —and indeed, I believe, must—"lead to a change in its foreign policy and attitude to disarmament."
It was Goering who said that the German people preferred guns to butter. But once you actually give people butter—which, of course, we in the EC do—they begin to prefer it. It is, quite seriously, foolish of us not to recognise that great changes may be taking place inside the Soviet Union. We must stand with our guard up but ready to reassure the Soviet Union in respect of the paranoia it has about security, and to make genuine advances in disarmament.

223
That is, briefly, the policy which we in the Liberal Party and in the Alliance as a whole have had since the unfortunate defeat or stupid mistake at Eastbourne. We have gone round the country. We have gone to the sources of democratic power in the party. In each and every one—in Scotland, for example—we have received backing for this sensible policy set out for everyone, including the Conservative Party, to read. I have the honour to be president of the Scottish Liberal Party. At the council meeting where we passed this policy, the votes were 110 for and 6 against. This was repeated in the Welsh party and repeated in the English party. Our opponents should recognise that we have a sensible policy, one which will work in the modern world, one which is backed by the Alliance—both parties—and one which is practical. It should not be misrepresented.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the first point to which I want to draw the attention of the House is that if this Motion is aimed first at the Labour Party, it is quite inaccurate. The Labour Party does not stand for unilateral disarmament. The Labour Party stands for the removal of British nuclear weapons, for an increase in our conventional weapons and an increased influence in NATO.
It puzzles me, particularly listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as to who the members of the Alliance are, and who they are speaking for. Are they speaking for the SDP? Are they speaking for the Liberal Party? Are they speaking for the Liberal Assembly? Are they speaking for the SDP Liberal Defence Commission report which has been rejected? Who are they speaking for? Where is this Alliance? Surely there are more divisions between members of the Liberal Party and the SDP than there are even in the Labour Party or the Conservative Party.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we are speaking for the Alliance, the policy of which is set out in the document named by my noble friend, Lord Mayhew, in his opening speech.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is dependent on whether one can recognise an alliance between two sets of politicians who constantly disagree with each other and who have been represented at the Liberal Assembly by a resolution which is much closer to the policy of the Labour Party than it is to the document that has been referred to.
We have weekly seen Dr. Owen—who is supposed to be one of the leaders of the Alliance—staking his political future on the continuation of the British bomb. What is this policy? It is a contradiction of the resolution passed at the Liberal Assembly. It seems to me that the only description that fits the defence policy of the so-called Alliance is that it is a marshmallow policy occasionally spiced with Dr. Owen's brimstone.
Where do the Government stand? The Government stand apparently four-square behind Trident. I would like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether she agrees that the possession of Trident would greatly escalate the nuclear power that has been centred on
224
Polaris. I asked a member of the Government whether the logical conclusion of their policy was that, whereas today's nuclear warheads could obliterate the whole human race, by the 1990s, with the possession of Trident, the human race could be obliterated five times. I was told by the member of the Government, with his normal inflated pomposity, that it was a question not worth answering. Is it the policy of the Government that deterrence needs the human race to be obliterated five times?
I wish to deal for a moment with what is happening in Europe. It is not just the Labour Party that is under attack. We have seen the defence policy of the Labour Party under attack by General Rogers. Now we understand that General Rogers is to be replaced by General John Galvin who has made no secret of his belief that the world is polarised and that policy must be geared to the acceptance of that polarisation. We do not accept that polarisation. I would remind noble Lords that when the Danish right-of-centre government unilaterally decided to move to a more defensive nuclear policy it was immediately under pressure from the Americans.
When the Right Wing Dutch coalition government unilaterally decided to scale down its nuclear tasks, and when it reopened the issue of its acceptance of cruise in the farce that followed Reykjavik, it was under attack by the Americans. Now when the Canadian Liberal Opposition supports the ban on United States testing of cruise over its territory and declares that it believes that Canada should be a nuclear-free zone, once again that pressure is brought, just as it is now being brought on the Labour Party because of our defence policy. Since Chernobyl, the exposure of star wars, the attack on Libya and also the sinking of the Soviet submarine in the Atlantic, opinion in Europe and all over the world is changing. This can be shown from public opinion polls sponsored by the United States.
The polls show that in Western Europe opinion is rapidly changing in its attitude towards the whole nuclear issue. We on these Benches believe that the bomb has never been a ticket to any top level conference—that is a pose or a macho policy. We are a middle-strength state and we should recognise that fact and act accordingly and act constructively, as do Norway and Canada, who are both members of NATO. Neither countries have nuclear weapons. Our action should be through the United Nations, the EC, or the Commonwealth. We do not believe that the Soviet Union, with its ramshackle economic system and grave internal and external problems, would be so mad as to even contemplate absorbing 300 million Western Europeans.
We demand and will demand the removal of Soviet nuclear weapons and occupying forces from Eastern Europe. We support and shall continue to support those struggling for their freedom in Eastern Europe. But we reject the deception that British nuclear weapons can in any way influence the Soviet policy. Such weapons can only threaten the survival of the British people.
Our policy is to concentrate and extend the use of diplomacy, discussion, increased trade and above all international institutions to encourage the liberalisation of the Soviet Union. This can be

225
achieved by setting an example from this country together with the increasing number of Europeans and peoples of other continents who are rejecting nuclear weapons as a solution to the human problem. We believe in setting an example. There is a distinct and coherent policy of defensive deterrence which can reduce the possibly fatal European tensions. That is the clearly worked out policy which has been laid before the country by the Labour Party and is the policy which we believe will be supported by the people of Britain.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, in the limited time available I should like to confine my remarks to a few observations on unilateral nuclear disarmament, and then to consider the Alliance's bargain basement alternative.
First, I should like to say that as Parliamentarians it is our duty to support policies most likely to prevent another world conflict, and to ensure that if ever one should erupt that our country is as well prepared as possible.
If those proposing universal disarmament, namely, nuclear disarmament, were only from the loony Left, as it has now become called, I might be able to sympathise with them—if not to absolve them. But, I fear that there is an element among the advocates with much more sinister motives. I am sure that many members of CND are sincere in their beliefs, however misguided. But there is also a cynical element using these idealists for their own ends. However, if we stay simply with these idealists, how short are their memories? Are they not advocating very similar policies to those that prevailed before the last war? We buried our heads in the sand then and we very nearly lost them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one moment? Was that not the policy followed by the Conservative Government?
Lord Rodney: That is quite correct. We have learned by our mistakes: hut, unfortunately some other people have not. I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, I was waiting for it.
My Lords, the name of the game then was appeasement from all sides. I was rather young in those days, but if I remember rightly it was from all parties. The policy was: do not do anything to upset the Nazis. Now the policy is: get rid of all our nuclear armaments. Rid our soil of these nasty things and any nuclear bombs or rockets flying around the place will not come our way. What a pipe-dream!
Following the same line of reason, if we had scrapped all our bombers during the last war the enemy would not have bombed us. But, we go further still now—we have nuclear free zones. I admit that I have never had a lucid explanation as to how one maintains such zones, although I understand that some councils are spending quite substantial sums of money in promoting them. Surely, if we have learned nothing else from the Chernobyl catastrophe, we have come to realise that nuclear clouds are no respecters of frontiers, or even of council boundaries. The whole
226
concept of unilateral nuclear disarmament, which to me is today's equivalent of appeasement, appears so illogical that I find it hard to believe that anyone who subscribes to such a concept really has the interests of our nation at heart.
I was happy to note from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that at least we have one point in common: we both disown and condemn unilateral disarmament. But I think that is about as far as we can go together. I referred earlier to the Alliance's bargain basement policies. As with many apparent bargains, I think they will not turn out to be such a great bargain. As I understand the matter, they have cobbled together a plan which at least has resulted in some agreement among themselves, but which really seems to give us the worst of all worlds. The plan would mean continuing with Polaris beyond its effective lifespan, using cruise missiles and French ballistic missiles, which possibly will not be technically compatible.
I do not wish to be disrespectful to the noble Lord, but when he was speaking there was a little jingle going through my mind:
"If 'if's and 'ands' were pots and pans
we wouldn't need a tinker."
If I may say so, the impression I had was that we wait and see. But how long can we wait and see? Surely decisions have to be taken now. We cannot wait until the opportunity arises, if ever, of getting the information from the right sources. A decision has to be made now.
In contrast, this Government have adhered to a logical and rational plan of maintaining Britain's own effective independent nuclear deterrent, which they are now proposing to up-date in time for the 21st century. They are not proposing to wait and see. How is it possible to put a value on national security? Our present policies have secured us against world conflict for over 40 years. Should we now put all this at risk and follow the Opposition's plans for scrapping our whole national deterrent, and that of our allies on our shores, in exchange for some increase in conventional weaponry which has never proved to be a deterrent to an aggressor in the past? Or, should we follow the Alliance's policy of a nuclear deterrent on the cheap, which to me seems to me to be neither fish nor fowl. I think not, my Lords. I believe that the very finality of a nuclear war, even to the most aggressive, is its greatest deterrent. With conventional weaponry, wars have always existed. With the ultimate in destruction, which regrettably nuclear weaponry is, I believe that we have a means to eliminate world conflict—that may sound slightly high falutin'—but we have to maintain our position or we will lose that deterrent.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am concerned with nuclears, not as weapons but as deterrents. I wish nuclears long life and success as a deterrent, for the continued survival of the human race depends upon the success of the nuclear deterrent. That is what we have to face up to.
If one believes in a deterrent one must also believe in being deterred. I hereby declare that I am deterred, and so I believe is every sane man and woman in this country, because we are totally indefensible. The Russians know that very well. We could never in any

227
circumstances use the deterrent for the simple reason that we live in a glass house, and the Russians know very well that we live in a glass house.
When I was spokesman for my party, I went as the guest of the American Air Force to the Rand Institute of Strategic Studies. One of the things they studied was the amount of nuclear attack capable of killing a nation. By killing a nation they meant the same definition as we have of killing a human being; so injuring the brain that all control of the body ceases, and ceases permanently.
What is the scale of the attack that can bring that about in each nation, my Lords? I said, "What about England?" They gave me a figure. The other day I told this to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and I asked him, "What do you think the figure will be?" He said, "About 10." Actually the Rand figure was 11. That is the degree of our vulnerability: 11 nuclear bombs—and those were bombs much smaller than existing ones—from which we have no possible defence. This would make us cease to be a unit as a nation capable of management or capable of government. Who can accept that?
The condition of a deterrent is that it should be credible. If we seriously want to make our deterrent credible, the only thing we can do is to send for the Yorkshire Ripper and make him Prime Minister, because only a well-established homicidal maniac could possibly use the weapons when we are in a position of vulnerability.
What then is the deterrent? In my view it is in fact NATO. But not NATO as a military alliance. As a military alliance it is a joke. The Americans are drying out; the Belgians and the Dutch are home at weekends; the French have gone home altogether. We are the only effective army there. Nobody who seriously studies these matters imagines that NATO, if it were attacked by the Russians, would be out of the bag for more than a week.
But what happens then? What do the Russians do then? What do they do when they get to the coast? They find themselves at war. At war with America; at war with the great god Poseidon in all the seas of the world around them. Is that a position the Russians want to get into: a hostile population; no trade; a perpetual blockade? China is a bit of a menace there. It is a formidable deterrent. It is that threat that there will be a war in which America and all the seas are against them.
What do we do about this? What is the sensible position for us to take? I certainly do not think that it is to spend our money on a weapon that we cannot possibly use. But unless we have a homicidal Prime Minister nobody could believe that we could use it. I certainly do not think that the wise thing to do is to say, "Now we are in government, Americans get out". That is a nonsense. Of course it is.
I personally believe that it would not be all that difficult to negotiate with the Americans and say, "Is it really sense for NATO to have its nuclear weapons in an indefensible position? We cannot defend them here. We cannot defend you here. We must really spread further off". I think that would be sensible.
228
I have also always believed in conscription. I just do not think that it is healthy for a society to have three generations which have never pulled a trigger. When you get into that sort of state, nations do not live long. People ought to have a responsibility, and sense of responsibility, for defence within their country.
I also believe that it is perfectly good sense to say, "We are a far more effective partner in NATO if we have in fact a unit which cannot, unlike the rest of you, be immediately overrun; which is firmly defended by forces organised very much on—what is the word for it, my Lords?—formal lines. There is much prospect there of convincing the Russians that we can give them at least as much trouble as Afghanistan—and they have not liked that at all. That seems to me to be the sensible way in which we should be thinking.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I always listen with fascination to the orations of the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. I did not quite gather whether he regarded conscription as the ultimate deterrent or not, but I entirely agree with one point he made. Any defence policy must necessarily be credible. The real issue before us is: what is a credible policy for our time, our age, given the differences that have now arisen?
It is now 42 years since the end of the last war. Given the aggressive policies of Stalin, the very dubious greyness of Brezhnev and the erratic era of Krushchev, it is almost certain that Russia was prevented from expanding into Western Europe by one thing, and one thing only. That was the existence of NATO, backed by the American deterrent.
It may be one of the regrettable facets of life—and although I so much admire him I disagree entirely here with the noble Lord, Lord Soper—but I believe that we have had 42 years of peace in Europe because of the existence of the alliance, backed by the ultimate deterrent. It was not regarded as a weapon. It is only in recent times that people have started to talk of the nuclear weapon. It was always the nuclear deterrent, the possession of which made the use of other weapons inconceivable because it might have led to the use of the deterrent.
A credible policy for our day has to pay regard to what has happened since that time. Clearly, the first requirement is to guarantee, so far as we can, the security of our country and of Western Europe. Therefore, it is very important to consider what has preserved peace. Secondly, it is equally important to make sure that our defence position is not so hidebound as to prevent progress from a state of collective security to one of common security for which the whole world yearns and which Russia needs as much as we need it.
I believe therefore that the Alliance defence policy is credible for our time. We have to pay regard to the fact that you cannot have massive armaments for 42 years without building up in our country, in the United States, in Russia and in every other part of Europe, whether to the east or to the west of the Iron Curtain, powerful vested interests in the armaments industry, in the armed services and so on. I have no doubt that Mr. Gorbachev, whatever efforts he is making to change the approach of Russia in foreign affairs, just as

229
he is trying to change Russia internally, is faced with enormous reactions from vested interests within his own country. Likewise, we know that in the United States there are very powerful vested interests in armaments, and so on, as there are in our own country.
What, then, is the right posture for a country like ours to take at the present time? First, I think that most of us believe in collective security through NATO. It is impossible to subscribe to NATO and refute our obligations as a member. NATO is the best guarantee of our security. But the obligations—and here I speak to the Labour Party—include acceptance of the allies' bases on our soil; that is American bases. We should insist on full consultation and joint decision-taking with regard to the use of those bases.
How is it possible for a country like ours, which has sheltered behind NATO and the American nuclear deterrent, to say, "We will clear out your bases from the United Kingdom: we want your deterrent and we want to be part of NATO, but we do not want to be sullied in any way by having your bases on our land"?
That is an impossible position. It would lead to the break-up of NATO. This policy threatens its very existence. I am sure that the Labour Party policy, by its extremism, threatens the very existence of NATO. That could produce the most enormous consequences in the USSR as well as in our country. It could change the balance there and lead to the emergence of hardliners dominating Gorbachev. And it would mean changes certainly within the United States.
On the other hand, it seems to me—I am trying to keep my remarks very short—that the danger of the escalation of thermonuclear weaponry is enormous. I deplore the present lack of leadership in the United States. I think it is shattering Western Europe and faith in the alliance. The deterioration we have seen in the last year or two in European-American relations, particularly in regard to American pressure for wide interpretation of the ABM Treaty to enable the deployment of star wars, as well as its research programme, is reprehensible.
If the cry should go out from Western Europe to the United States for positive, more sensible and more enlightened leadership there and the cementing of the alliance, then this country should not go along with the United States. We are in a position to have enormous influence on the United States at the present time and I think we could take the lead in Western Europe. Surely, it is high time that the western pillar of NATO—the European pillar—pulled itself together and had a common policy, a common attitude. The Alliance policy in time leads to that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wish I could believe what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quite sincerely believes: that it is the nuclear weapon that has kept the peace. Quite other factors have preserved us from war, and we might perhaps remember in passing that in this so-called peaceful era 40 million people have been killed in wars all over the world—
A Noble Lord: Not in this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:—and that the nations participating in those wars, in spite of the fact, if I may refer to the seated interjection, that some of them have been armed with nuclear weapons, have not used them. They have not stopped the wars and they have not stopped the killing.
The notion that nuclear arms, by themselves, will keep the peace has not been borne out by the facts. All that has happened is that we have been fortunate enough in Europe not to have a third world war. But the situation is getting more and more dangerous all the time, and most people who have mentioned this point agree. They do not dispute that we are getting more and more weapons and are reaching a situation in which, if we move into star wars, we shall probably be unstoppable. They recognise this.
I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on introducing this Motion. I applaud his courage for doing so in the circumstances in which we find ourselves this evening. But my congratulations are modified by the fact that the Motion talks about "unilateral disarmament". Nobody in this House, with the sole exception of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, believes in unilateral disarmament; and that is what the Motion says. If the debate is between the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Soper, I must regretfully tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that I think he has lost it.
However, most of us are not arguing about what is in the Motion: what we are talking about is unilateral nuclear disarmament. This smudging over, this moving to the idea that the nuclear weapon is different from anything that has existed before and must be treated as the special weapon that it is, and because of that one automatically does not want any weapons at all, is not Labour Party policy. Therefore I venture to say that in introducing a Motion which seeks to suggest that it is, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is not acting with that standard of accuracy with which I have always credited him in the past.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should just like to say that this is a drafting error, for which I apologise.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful but it is an unfortunate drafting error because it seems to me to have spiked the noble Lord's argument. I am sorry that in introducing the debate he did not make it clear, at any rate to me, that the Motion contained a drafting error. He seemed to me to go out of his way to emphasise the error and to talk about Labour Party policy and about the Labour Party as though it believed—and perhaps it would be a good idea if it did, but it does not—in the policies advocated so eloquently and movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Soper.
I am sorry that we are not that kind of party, but we are not. We are a party which believes in strong conventional armaments in this country and in maintaining our position inside NATO. If my noble friend Lord Stewart wants to know the answers to his questions, curiously enough, the questions set out in the latest Labour Party defence policy are almost precisely those which he asked. Why does he not read the document issuing from Walworth Road? When he has done that he might dispute the answers; then we

231
should hear a very interesting speech from him, and I look forward to it.
During our last discussion on these matters the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, referred at col. 901 of the Official Report of 3rd December to what he called my "usual scaremongering efforts". In that debate the case against Trident was put most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, from the Government Benches. I followed the noble Lord in pointing out that beyond Trident was the case against nuclear weapons as a whole. I referred to nuclear weapons as a means of terminating our civilisation. This is what the noble Viscount called scaremongering.
But if he wants more effective scaremongering than I have been able to produce, let him look at what Lord Mountbatten of Burma said. There, indeed, was effective scaremongering. The fact that Lord Mountbatten was not a unilateralist, and I never suggested that he was, does not affect the fact that he recognised—and carried that out in what he was saying—that we were in the face of something which was no longer a weapon. We were in the face, for the first time in human history, of the means of totally destroying ourselves and all that we have done and represent, and of reducing this earth to something like the moon. That is within our power.
If we go on saying, "We recognise this but are not going to do anything about it, like the Alliance. We are just going to qualify it and try to carve up an agreement which will bring the policies of the Alliance together. We will try to get it together and push something over which does not mean anything but will somehow please the public", it will not please the public. It will not achieve the object which is sought and it will destroy the credibility of both members of the Alliance if they go on like that.
It was reasonable at one time to do this counting, which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is fond of, to add up how much we have on this side and how much there is on that side. When the things being counted were Messerschmitts and Spitfires I was very interested in that count, and I think it was entirely valid in the war that we were carrying out then. But it is absolutely useless when what we are counting up is whether we can destroy the world five times over or 10 times over. We have reached a stage of total nonsense and the danger is that, when we have it in our power to destroy mankind and all that we have done, we are messing about with the detail of the matter and forgetting about the situation which we are truthfully in at this time.
I have more that I could have said, but I say only this. I do not think there is a perfect policy capable of being carried out by any party under the sun in this situation. All I would say to your Lordships is that the calm factual policy now being put forward by the Labour Party is the only one which seeks to carry into practice the recognition of the special lethality of the nuclear weapon that I have talked about. It is because of that that I commend the Labour Party's policy to your Lordships.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, today Mr. Perle and Mr. Nitze are in London for the inside of a day to consult us on the reinterpretation of the ABM treaty. They are to report back on Monday. A week or two ago, the State Department was to take six months over this work. We must wonder what is now the great hurry. Last week, Mr. Weinberger said to Congress
"We should try to develop … and deploy strategic defences as quickly as possible".
He must be understood to speak for the Administration. He is talking about a space-based weapon known now as a kinetic kill vehicle. The way to deploy these would be to garage them in armed satellites over Soviet territory or indeed ours. The preliminary system would comprise some 11,000 weapons. These or others could of course in time be able to strike down to earth as well as into space.
Deployment is obviously against the ABM treaty and so is testing. The Foreign Office lawyers cannot be telling the Government anything else. Senator Nunn has said that there will be a great constitutional crisis in the US, if the Administration tries to reinterpret the treaty to allow testing. It cannot do this: neither the Russians nor Congress will agree. Breaking the treaty would signal to the world that the United States will deploy its SDI or such part of it as works. It would follow on the breach of the SALT II terms, the mining of the Nicaraguan harbours, the contempt of the World Court's ruling on that, the betrayal of the West's anti-terrorist policy, the reported attempt to kill a head of state with bombers based in this country and the illegal gun-running by companies funded under the so-called democracy programme launched by the President in this building.
It would signal an arms race in space. It would also cause the Soviet Union to respond far beyond its present research. It is most unlikely that this response would not put paid to the deterrent effect of any ballistic missile system this country might have. Lastly, reinterpretation would destroy the disarmament negotiations. President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev agreed at Geneva that these should cover three things: strategic nuclear weapons, intermediate nuclear forces and preventing an arms race in space. The US negotiators in Geneva have already been ordered to cease negotiating on space.
Why the increased haste? Come to think of it, why the sudden imposition of General Galvin of Central America fame to replace General Rogers? The Pentagon used to think that they could get an irreversible momentum behind the SDI before the end of President Reagan's term. They now understand they will have to do it quicker. And all along for three years now our Government have been dragged along behind the SDI, weakly producing agreed statement after agreed statement with President Reagan, which he then tears up. Will today be the day they speak out? Now more than ever it is urgent for us to change the system whereby the United States, whatever it does, formally negotiates with Russia for the whole of NATO. We must now join the negotiations. I wonder whether the Minister of State will be able to give us some news of this morning's talks in Downing Street.

233
So much for the ABM treaty and SDI. Now for our own so-called independent deterrent—so-calleder and so-calleder; that is, if we ever get it at all. We are discussing defence and that means worst case analysis. That the United States is what our own Minister of Defence, Mr. George Younger, calls "Our greatest and closest ally" does not absolve the Government from responsibility for Britain's national interest. We on these Benches have often expressed our doubts about Trident II. The Government once had their doubts, too. The open government paper of 1982 said they were going to build hulls larger than required for the Trident I which they had earlier intended to buy,
"in order to retain the flexibility to switch, if necessary at some later stage, to a later missile whether it be Trident II or some successor system".
So at that time anyhow they were not all that sure themselves about what to get. Now in the most recent open government paper they say that they are building a warhead that can only fit Trident II.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic various events are taking place. The Government should be considerably less sure about Trident II than they were five years ago. There is the United States internal budget deficit, put at 169 billion dollars this year, and there is "Gramm-Rudman". The congressional budget office is already looking at alternatives to Trident II for America, including reliance on Trident I up to 100 per cent. It is clear where that would leave us. Trident II is too many eggs in one too vulnerable basket.
What is the legal standing of the agreement between the Prime Minister and the President for the sale of the Trident II missiles to us? It is in fact just an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President. It has no Senate ratification. It is no more than an executive agreement in United States law. What, anyway, is United States law for this President? And if there is anyone here who does not know what happened to the Hyde Park and Quebec agreements after the Second World War, and to the agreement to sell us Skybolt, all of which were executive agreements, they should not be responsible for the defence and independence of this nation.
There was no historian of nuclear affairs on the small group of defence experts who advised the Prime Minister to opt for Trident I and then for Trident II. Had there been the Government would have been reminded that our nuclear weapons were developed as much to establish our independence of the often oblivious US decision-making as they were against Soviet threats. Nor was there a lawyer to guard against the possibility of reinterpretation of our agreements.
The Government do not have Trident contracts with US firms. They rest on the good pleasure—and good faith—of the United States Administration only. The Government are presumably thinking about that every day now. Yet they sail on regardless, as if they are not putting our national security in the hands of others whose extraterritorial claims are often excessive.
Then there is what happened at Reykjavik. Her Majesty's Government must also be thinking of the bright idea of two quite subordinate US officials. Mr. Perle who is today's visiting advocate of the breaching of the ABMT was one of them. This bright idea was
234
passed up the table to President Reagan and put straight to the Russians, without the least attempt to contact the United States chiefs of staff, the allies, or anyone else. The idea was that all ballistic missiles should be abolished by 1996. If Mr. Gorbachev had not saved the Government by his opposition to SDI, we would not have Trident II. Moreover, the President has said that everything he proposed at Reykjavik remains on the table. But perhaps he misspoke.
The Government have, I think, welcomed the proposal for a 50 per cent. reduction of ICBMs. Is any such agreement conceivable without a no-transfer clause? The latest Trident open government document is very poorly argued indeed. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mayhew has dealt with that matter sufficiently. The only point I should like to make is that the new Soviet sea-launched land-attack long-range cruise missile—the SSNX.21—has a 3,000-kilometre range. There is another missile on the stocks which is half as big again. Yet the Government are still judging cruise missile technology by the present 500-mile standard.
To expect the future of strategic weapons to stay with ballistic technology and with that only for the next 30 or 40 years is absurd. That is what the Government are doing and that is what we refuse to do.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject today. There are 50,000 missiles in the world, equivalent to 1 million Hiroshimas. The Home Office has estimated that if ever such weapons were fired, 29 million people would die in the United Kingdom alone. We believe, as do many people who have looked at the subject, that we cannot continue, as Henry Kissinger said in 1979, to base our security upon the credibility of mutual suicide. What we attempt to answer with our policy is the question of what we in Britain can do about it as members of NATO, which is, and which will remain for the foreseeable future, the only possible basis for our defence and security.
For us, the biggest threat to peace lies in overwhelming dependence on nuclear weapons which are sustained at the expense of our conventional forces. NATO strategy is increasingly based on untenable assumptions. The chief among these is the strategy of flexible response, which obviously includes the readiness to make first use of nuclear weapons. This means the acceptance of a strategy of limited nuclear war. This arose from the laudable desire to prevent massive or early use of nuclear weapons in a European conflict by introducing the threat of gradual escalation, which would be stopped by a cry of, "Enough", from the enemy. That has been erased by the fact that the electro-magnetic effect of nuclear explosions would completely disrupt command control of communications and by the recognition that the strategy of deploying sub-strategic nuclear weapons in the front line is inherently unstable because it would require a first use of them or to lose them action in any European conflict.
It is also clear that for us in Western Europe proximity and population make the idea of limitation

235
a fantasy in any case. The tragic example provided by Chernobyl was, to say the least, disastrous. But the discharge of even a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe would be perhaps even more devastating both to the population and to our troops. Even if a nuclear war could be confined to Europe, it would still be an irreversible cataclysm on a continental scale.
It is not surprising that Henry Kissinger and others have called the NATO threat of the early use of nuclear weapons suicidal. It has long been obvious that limiting a nuclear war is extremely unlikely. Many people have concluded that the doctrine of first use is flawed and must be rejected in favour of a doctrine of no first use. Our policy is to get rid of British nuclear weapons and of American weapons in Britain, to cancel Trident, to decommission Polaris and instead to make qualitative and quantitative improvements in our conventional forces. The policy is deliberately to combine nuclear disarmament with increased conventional credibility. That would provide a non-provocative defence policy.
We give the highest priority to nuclear disarmament. We believe that it would be a tragedy if we failed to respond to what could be one of the most dramatic changes in history taking place in the Soviet Union. We are not talking about taking unacceptable risks with our security. Arms control must be accompanied by proper verification, and the Soviet Union will have to learn that lesson if it wants its changes to be accepted as genuine.
We are pleased that Mr. Reagan has confirmed that the proposals of Reykjavik are still on the table. We believe that the threat to progress comes from Mrs. Thatcher's unwillingness to support total nuclear disarmament and her determination to keep a British independent nuclear deterrent.
First, it is highly questionable, despite the promise made by Mr. Reagan (which contradicts his statement), that the proposals made by him are still on the table, that we should get such a deterrent anyway. In the view of Professor Laurence Friedman, who is an adviser to the Select Committee on Defence in another place, the prospects of Britain getting Trident if the Americans agree to a cut of 50 per cent. are, in his words, "dodgy". Few people other than the Prime Minister believe that the Americans would stand by placidly and allow Britain to increase its nuclear capacity by 800 per cent. while over five years they were engaged in a cut of 50 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Carver, has said more than once that he can see no conceivable circumstance in which a British nuclear deterrent could be used without the concurrence of America. The combination of the cut imposed by the cost of the Trident programme and the effect of other reductions in spending mean that between 1985–86 and 1988–89 spending on non-nuclear equipment will be cut by 30 per cent.
In 1986, the Labour Party Conference once again committed itself by an overwhelming vote of five to one to our country's membership and participation in NATO. Not only shall we direct the money saved by cancelling Trident but we shall also spend what is
236
necessary in order to maintain our conventional commitment. We stand for strong national defence and for a strong contribution to NATO. Ninety-five per cent. of our defence spending is in NATO and 5 per cent. of our gross national product is committed. It could not be said that a government with the firm intention of continuing this level of spending, while also devoting the money saved from the cancellation of Trident, are not seriously committed to NATO.
Adam Roberts, Professor of International Relations at Oxford, although he does not accept Labour Party policy, has nevertheless said,
"complaints about … Labour's proposals do not mean that the extreme charges so often made—that they might wreck the whole structure of NATO—have any validity. An alliance that could withstand de Gaulle's headlong assault in 1966, not to mention all the ructions of the past decade, is not likely to collapse because of what Labour proposes".
As to the suggestion that the United States could decide to pull out of Europe, our decision to maintain a high level of spending on defence will be most welcome to many Americans.
We believe that the facts will speak for themselves. Poseidon is being phased out and its removal is only a matter of time. But when American nuclear weapons have been removed, that will still leave 135 US military facilities in being or planned in Britain. There are other facilities in Britain of even greater importance to America. The assumption of a conventional role for the F-111s will strengthen our security in Europe. Nor will American nuclear warships be excluded from British waters.
Labour is far from being alone in wanting a fundamental review of our defence programme. The leader in The Times of 11th December 1986 said:
"There of course exists a respectable case for cancelling the Trident missile. We do not accept it—but those who do include a number of senior officers and politicians of all parties".
In his article Professor Roberts went on to say:
"Many have rushed in with criticisms of Labour's proposals. But whatever faults there may be in their formulation they represent a response to real problems. One is that NATO is far too heavily committed to the first use of nuclear weapons in the event of a major attack by the Warsaw Powers. Labour is facing up to the over-extension of limited defence resources by putting its emphasis on conventional forces and it is responding, however inadequately, to public concern about nuclear weapons and bases".
Our proposals are a serious contribution to a debate which has not taken place for 40 years and which is now urgent.
Mrs. Thatcher and the Conservative Government not only are doing no new thinking; they are taking action which is an obstacle to full nuclear disarmament, which Mr. Reagan and many others would like to see; which provides an incentive to the proliferation of nuclear weapons which could be made more difficult to control; and finally which is weakening the defence of Europe by failing to meet our full NATO conventional commitment.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, nuclear arms control is an aim we can all endorse in one form or another. No one questions the catastrophic effects of the use of nuclear weapons, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Mancehster; no democratic state would wish to spend money unnecessarily on

237
escalating thermonuclear weaponry, a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. But there are some forms of nuclear disarmament that are wrong. This would certainly be the case if Western nuclear powers were to be significantly cut back unilaterally. There is no reason to suppose there would be any response. The Montebello decision of 1983 led to overall reductions of a third in NATO's stockpile of shorter-range nuclear warheads in Europe. There was no Soviet response. The United Kingdom has not produced chemical weapons since the late 1950s. This has not deterred the Soviet Union from building up a substantial chemical weapon stockpile.
Unlike the unilateralists of the Labour Party, we do not believe we can change the world by opting out, by washing our own hands of nuclear weapons and asking others to do likewise. The fact is that we face nuclear weapons across the East-West divide in Europe. We need to ensure that neither nuclear blackmail nor nuclear weapons themselves are ever used against us. The fact is that they do deter, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Paget, said.
Given present military realities, which of course include the Warsaw Pact's superior numbers of conventional forces and substantial stockpiles of chemical weapons, nuclear weapons are an essential element in the NATO strategy of deterrence and in the United Kingdom's contribution to that strategy. European security is inconceivable without them. But this is a factor for stability, not instability.
Since the possession of such weapons by both super powers, Continental Europe has enjoyed one of its longest periods of peace in recent centuries. It is no accident that there have been recent signs that the Soviet Union is willing to consider a significant scaling down of nuclear stockpiles. I doubt whether this is a result of a sudden conversion to the principles of unilaterism. On the contrary, I believe it reflects evident Western readiness to maintain effective defences. Without INF deployment we should not be so close to an agreement to remove SS.20s from Europe. Perhaps I may say how glad I was to hear the wise remarks of my noble friend Lord Rodney, who set out this argument.
This Government, unlike noble Lords on the Benches opposite, are not prepared to undermine Western security on the hazardous and uncertain byways of unilateralism. We believe that security is achievable at lower levels of armaments. We remain committed to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world through significant, balanced and verifiable measures of arms control. I listened with care and interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I shall read it with interest tomorrow and draw it to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Jenkins of Putney, that they might, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest it. It would be good for them.
That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed on a number of arms control priorities with President Reagan in November of last year, including a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons and an INF agreement. These priorities are both radical and sensible. What such an agreement would do—and
238
it would be an historic agreement of the greatest significance—would be to reduce the existing levels of the super powers' nuclear arsenals to a much lower level. Contrast this with the agreements of the 1970s which sought simply to control permitted increases in nuclear systems. In the present circumstances the Government believe that the approach now envisaged is the correct one to adopt.
This is an immensely ambitious and difficult undertaking. But the priorities of 50 per cent. cuts and an INF agreement are built on areas of convergence in United States and Soviet thinking. As such they are infinitely more realistic—and thus more important —than more distant goals such as the complete elimination of broad categories of weapons. On that, it is clear that the positions of both sides are far apart. The strategic implications require careful thought. The basis of this Government's approach has always been to pursue what is practical and achievable. Significant progress has been achieved, in part as a result of the two meetings between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. We look to the two sides, in a practical but far from unambitious way, to build on the progress achieved and to turn it into concrete results.
What can Her Majesty's Government contribute? First, we are in close and regular contact with the United States Administration both bilaterally and within NATO. Secondly, we have also maintained a dialogue on arms control with the Soviet Union. Thirdly, but not least, we continue to play an active part in the multilateral negotiations on disarmament, including chemical and conventional weapons, which are a major factor in the overall strategic equation; and in the work to maintain and strengthen the nonproliferation regime.
My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Renton, visited Moscow in January and had extensive discussions on a wide range of arms control issues. No doubt arms control will be one of a number of subjects which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will discuss during her forthcoming visit to Moscow. As a major member of NATO and of the European Community and as a nuclear power, our views carry weight and our opinions are sought—something which, if I may suggest to the Labour Party, is unlikely if the Americans are asked to leave Britain and we disarm unilaterally.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no; I am not giving way. I listened with great care to others and time is limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked a number of questions. He referred to killer satellites, which is totally irrelevant to the debate, if a fascinating subject. The Camp Daivd discussions identified priorities for arms control. The noble Lord will be aware of them: first, an INF agreement with restraints on shorter range systems; secondly, a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons over the next five years; and, thirdly, a complete ban on chemical weapons—all with effective verification. These have now been endorsed by NATO Ministers at their December meetings. This is an illustration of the influence that

239
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has had in her conversations with President Reagan when she has met him.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also asked me about views on SDI and the ABM treaty. I can do no better than quote what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 19th February:
"First, we have no locus in interpreting the ABM treaty. Secondly, deployment is clearly a matter for negotiation, as we have agreed. Thirdly, we have received satisfactory assurances from the United States that there will be consultation about any significant change of policy in relation to SDI research. Fourthly, the Government fully support the SDI research programme, which is permitted by the ABM treaty. It is vital to our defence that the West should always be at the forefront of new technology.".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/87; col. 1054.]
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me what consultations there might be, with the visits of Ambassador Nitze and Mr. Perle. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary had good discussions this morning. These form part of continuous consultations which stem from the Camp David meetings. We look forward to pursuing this over the next few months at the Geneva negotiations and as the United States strategic research continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked me about the position of Trident. The most helpful thing I can do is refer him to the policy statement which came out on 15th November 1986 following the second Camp David meeting, in which:
"The President reaffirmed the United States intention to proceed with its strategic modernisation programme including Trident. He also confirmed his full support for the arrangements made to modernise Britain's independent nuclear deterrent with Trident".
Why Trident? We think it pitches our deterrent at the right level for the period during which Trident will be operational. It is no escalation of our relative nuclear capacity; that is, in relation to the threat we face—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not make. The number of warheads carried by Trident compared with Polaris when it entered service will be increased by two-and-a-half times at most—not eight times, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, or fourteen times as its opponents like to claim.
By comparison, notwithstanding its superiority in conventional forces, the Soviet Union has increased the size of its vastly superior strategic arsenal fivefold since 1970. Trident is the minimum force which will be required to maintain the deterrent which has been supported by all governments of the past two decades. It is a deterrent which if left to Polaris—and few dispute this—would become increasingly ineffective and more expensive to run.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, quoted from a poll, but I notice that the questions did not include whether we should let our deterrent become obsolete or whether we should seek to preserve its capability in relation to what others are doing—two crucial questions. By contrast, Trident's technology will last well into the next century. It has a greater range, giving submarines more sea room and offering greater flexibility in the number of warheads and missiles. Trident is also cost-effective. At an average of only 6
240
per cent. of the defence equipment budget it represents outstanding value. Put another way, over the life of the programme only three pence out of every pound spent within the total defence budget will go to pay for Trident.
Let me answer in more detail the points which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made in his opening speech. He began by quoting his party's statement on defence. He said, "In Government we would maintain with whatever necessary modernisation our minimum nuclear deterrent until it can be negotiated away". Even though the leaders of the Alliance claim to be keeping their options open, the Liberal/SDP pact has decided in advance that it would cancel Trident. It has managed to do that although it says it cannot make up its mind about anything else until it has had access to classified information. Dr. Owen seems to think that French ballistic missiles might be adapted to British use. I am not sure how the French or indeed the Liberal Party would regard that, but the system could not be developed in time to replace Polaris in time for the mid-1990s.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, floated the idea of a sea-launched cruise missile to replace Polaris; but cruise missiles have a more limited range, as I have already said. Furthermore, they are more vulnerable to the existing and potential air defence system of the Soviet Union. In fact, in an exchange about Trident in your Lordships' House on 19th February the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, used an analogy involving a motor car. I shall continue it. One can say that the Alliance's policy of extending the life of our existing Polaris deterrent would be like keeping an old car; it would be ever more expensive to run and ever less effective. In practice, does not that amount to unilateral nuclear disarmament by the back door?
Those who claim that Trident has had or will have a negative impact on the arms control process are deluding themselves or allowing themselves to be deluded. Mr. Gorbachev acknowledged at Reykjavik that the United Kingdom and French deterrents could increase and be further improved. He was right to conclude that they constitute no obstacle to a substantial programme of nuclear disarmament by the two powers whose armouries are preponderant.
There is a long way to go before that will be significantly less true. But also we have never said that we would never participate in the nuclear arms control process. This would be conditional on substantial cuts in the arsenals of the super powers and no significant change in Soviet defensive capacity. I should remind the noble Lord, in case any doubt remains, that even if 50 per cent. cuts in the super power arsenals were achieved Trident would still represent a smaller proportion of Soviet strategic warheads than did Polaris in 1970. Those noble Lords who are mesmerised by the simple increase in the numbers of British warheads should look at the increase in the numbers of Soviet warheads. In that light, increase does not mean escalation since the increase in Soviet warheads has been even greater. What matters in deterrents is capability against threat.
Armaments would not exist in an ideal world; nor perhaps would the need for insurance policies. But we are where we are and we live in a world which remains full of risks and where the need for insurance policies

241
remains. That is why it is prudent for the Government to maintain an effective deterrent. This leaves us with no better option than to pursue nuclear arms control but not at the price of laying ourselves open to aggression; and to maintain our own deterrent but not above a level dictated by prudence. The arguments may not be comfortable ones but I believe they are compelling, that they are responsible and that this Government's policy rightly reflects our awareness of the two theoretical dangers to which the noble Lord's Motion calls attention.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I put this point? She made great play of the effect of British possession of nuclear weapons on American policy. Can she say how it has affected American policy towards, for example, Nicaragua, SALT II and Libya?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if the noble Lord had followed what I was saying—and from his observation it does not appear that he did—he would realise that the point I made is that nuclear weapons have made a contribution towards giving us the longest period of peace in Europe this century, and indeed in Europe as a whole for centuries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will not interrupt me and will let me finish my argument. That is apart from the fact that America is within NATO. That is what I was talking about and that is what I was referring to. Nuclear weapons of course have not been used in Central America or anywhere else.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. On these Benches we have listened with the greatest care to the arguments used on both sides about the Alliance's policy towards the deterrent and particularly to the noble Baroness the Minister. I think we can say that the nature of the arguments used and not used has been a source of great encouragement to those who sit on these Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cancer Screening and AIDS Research
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement concerning cancer screening and AIDS research.
"The Government attach particular importance to reducing deaths from breast cancer and cervical cancer. In both cases early detection can lead to successful treatment. Breast cancer is the commonest form of cancer among women in this
242
country. Each year there are something like 24,000 new cases, and 15,000 deaths, from the disease. In July 1985, the Government appointed a working group under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Forrest to consider the position. I am today publishing its final report and I would like to express the Government's thanks to the group for its work.
"The report has concluded that screening by mammography—X-ray of the breasts—will enable us to reduce deaths from breast cancer. The Government accept the proposals made in the report and accordingly have decided to implement a national breast cancer screening service. This will provide for screening every three years for all women between 50 and 64 throughout the United Kingdom. My colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be putting into effect proposals broadly similar to those I am announcing. We are determined that breast cancer screening should be implemented as efficiently, as effectively and as quickly as possible. This will need careful planning to ensure that all the necessary back-up facilities, as well as the screening centres, are available. It will mean assessment and diagnostic facilities, treatment facilities, counselling and after-care, and training for key groups of staff.
"We have, therefore, decided to provide additional funds for each regional health authority to have at least one centre in operation within the next 12 months. The funds will also enable four of these centres to provide a training facility for the whole country. We shall expect the locations of the first centres to be announced by May of this year. An extra £6 million will be provided in 1987–88 for the first centres.
"In addition, I shall shortly be sending to the professions and to health authorities a draft circular containing my detailed proposals for implementing breast cancer screening in England. I shall be calling for plans before the end of this year from each region to extend the service over the next three years to cover all women in the age groups concerned. The report envisages that up to 100 centres are likely to be needed in England. I shall also be setting up an advisory committee to advise on the development of screening and to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency. Breast cancer is a major scourge. We believe that these measures will achieve a substantial reduction in mortality from this disease among women of this age group.
"Cervical cancer kills 2,000 women each year and we are no less committed to reducing that figure. The great majority of these 2,000 deaths are among women who have never had a cervical smear under the existing screening programme. We have already taken urgent steps to increase the effectiveness of that programme and, in particular, to increase the proportion of the population at risk who are being screened. Computerised call and recall systems should be operating in 109 health authorities in England by next month and in the remaining 82 over the next 12 months. These will enable women to be sent personal screening invitations, usually from their own general practitioners.
"Our first priority is to persuade more women to come forward for screening. We shall closely

243
monitor the success of the system and we shall keep under review ways of making further improvements. In addition, I shall be asking health authorities to make two specific changes.
"First, since the number of cases among younger women has been increasing, health authorities should rationalise existing arrangements for screening women under 35 by ensuring that the call and recall system begins at the age of 20. Secondly, I shall be asking each health authority to make a specific, named individual responsible and accountable for the organisation and effectiveness of screening.
"Our proposals for both breast and cervical cancer screening take account of the wide range of evidence available from other countries. I am convinced that these proposals will make a substantial contribution to the cause of women's health, which is a key priority for the Government.
"Turning to AIDS research, as the House is aware, there is at present no vaccine against the virus or cure for AIDS itself. It is for that reason that the Government have mounted their major public education campaign. It is also important, in addition, that we in this country should make an effective contribution to the international effort to develop a vaccine and a cure.
"In recognition of this need, the Medical Research Council has recommended a new directed research programme aimed both at developing a vaccine which will prevent infection and also at new anti-viral drugs to treat people who are already infected. The research would be directed from the centre by two scientific steering committees which will consist of some of the country's leading scientists. There will be two specially appointed full-time directors and the programme will be built up by letting specific contracts to the most appropriate laboratory, public or private. This proposal goes beyond the usual approach of research initiated by the investigator.
"The Government are extremely grateful to the MRC for taking a lead in formulating these proposals, which are based on wide consultations among outstanding British scientists, by Sir James Gowans, the Secretary of the MRC, with Sir David Phillips, the Chairman of the Advisory Board of Research Councils. This country has scientific strengths which should enable it to make a distinctive contribution to these important lines of research. The Government commend the readiness of the scientific community to collaborate in tackling this major problem.
"Accordingly, the Government welcome the proposal and accept it in full. We will therefore launch in 1987–88, through the Medical Research Council, a new directed research programme on the lines the council has proposed. For this purpose my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will increase the grant-in-aid to the MRC by £14½ million over the next three years. The grant in aid will go up by £2·5 million in 1987–88, by £5 million in 1988–89 and by £7 million in 1989–90. The programme will be closely
244
monitored by the council, with my department and the Department of Education and Science. This will enable us to review progress against results. I should make it clear that the directed research programme will not affect or hinder any research initiatives by pharmaceutical companies.
"This new programme should not be seen as an isolated venture. It is not. It will be part of an international research effort. We will build on the work already done, especially in the United States, and in turn contribute to the international body of research information that is being built up. In the United States all the medical scientists I met in my recent visit were unanimous in their view that the United Kingdom could indeed make a distinctive contribution to AIDS research.
"The House will appreciate that it is impossible to predict the progress of this research. I have made it clear in earlier statements that we cannot expect a vaccine or cure to be generally available within five years. But this programme will help us to make progress in three ways. It will enable this country to make a full contribution to AIDS research. It will mean that we are better placed to collaborate with, and benefit from, work that is being done in other countries; it will increase the chances of developing a vaccine and finding a cure. I hope that the House will welcome the new proposals."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. At the same time I should like to thank Professor Sir Patrick Forrest and his colleagues for their report, which I have not read in full but which is obviously an outstanding document. Thanks should also go to the Medical Research Council for the advice on which the Government are acting.
The three subjects in question have aroused a great deal of interest in this House from which a great deal of pressure for more action and resources has come. The pressure has been to provide additional resources for vital research into AIDS and HIV infection, to proceed with the organisation of an effective call and recall system for cervical cancer, particularly for women aged between 20 and 35, and to tackle the very high death toll from breast cancer in older women.
We naturally welcome the progress that has been made in each of these fields. It indicates the value of repeated and persistent pressure from your Lordships' House and from another place. The announcement has been a long time coming. It has come the night before a by-election, which is natural. Good news is welcome at any time. In a grey world, good news will always he welcomed by your Lordships' House even if that good news seems in some cases to be a little late and its content perhaps rather small.
May I put some questions to the noble Baroness? My first question is about cervical screening and breast cancer. We know that about 2,000 women in Britain die of cervical cancer each year and that 60 per cent. of them have not been screened. In almost all cases the deaths could have been prevented by an effective call and recall system. The last time that I asked the noble

245
Baroness from this Bench about a call and recall system, she said that by 31st March 1986 only 33 health authorities had put such a scheme into operation.
In view of that rather slow progress, is the noble Baroness confident that 100 per cent. of the health authorities will have come into line within the next 12 months? I hope they will. The department promises screening every year for breast cancer. If effective, that could save the lives of more than 3,000 of the 15,000 women presently dying each year from breast cancer. I am pleased that there is to be an extra £6 million. Will the money simply be for the four centres that will be established in different parts of the country? Or will part of that £6 million go to finance the work and responsibilities of health authorities in setting up a call and recall system?
Can the call and recall system for cervical screening be used for older women affected by breast cancer? Within an effective computer system, the two call and recall systems may well work to good effect for women of both age groups.
Your Lordships will remember that in October last year my noble friend Lord Rea asked the noble Baroness about payments to GPs, seeking to know why, if they were to be paid for screening women over 35 they were not to be paid for screening women under 35. The noble Baroness may be able to answer that question. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs asked about a screening service in the Palace of Westminster. I wonder whether there is news from the Administration Committee about that.
I turn to the second half of the Statement which deals with AIDS. We naturally welcome the additional funds. Deep concern is felt in the country about cuts in research funds. It is good to see that in one field we are moving forwards rather than backwards. Even now, the sums referred to by the Secretary of State and repeated by the noble Baroness are, in many respects, small for research on a subject as vital as AIDS. It is a minute proportion compared with that available in the United States. It is less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the general cost of the health service.
Can the noble Baroness indicate the Government's thinking on three areas of research? Can she say where she thinks the priorities lie? The discovery of an effective vaccine is clearly the highest. No one doubts that it will be some years before that is available. It is a high prize if it can ever be won.
There is a second stage. What priority will be given to those people who have already contracted the infection, have the strain within them but have not developed the disease? That is an important group of people, first, to identify and, secondly, to help. Bearing in mind that there is a five-year incubation period front contracting the infection to the onset of the disease, that would seem to be acutely important. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has any information as to whether the MRC will be looking at matters such as diet. Some pilot research projects have dealt with the effects of diet on this group of people. That seems a possible field for research, but there may be others. It is an important area of research because there is no way in which we can stop the many hundreds of thousands who already have the infection
246
from contracting the disease. Vital research is needed to ensure that they do not contract the disease.
It would be helpful to know whether the Government envisage research in other fields such as the sexual behaviour of, and HIV transmission among, prostitutes, and the various types of homosexual behaviour. That would be studying preventive measures.
We welcome the Statement. It is a positive one. I have my questions and doubts as to whether the resources are adequate for the task but, for what we have and are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful!
5.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this important and welcome Statement. Like all Gaul, the Statement comes in three parts. The first relates to screening for breast cancer; the second, cervical cytology and screening for cervical cancer; and the third is the need for reources for research into AIDS.
On these Benches we warmly welcome all the steps that the Government have announced with regard to screening for breast cancer. We shall support them in every possible way with, perhaps, one proviso. It is one that is referred to in the Statement and in the report of Sir Patrick Forrest's working party. We too should like to add our thanks and congratulations to Sir Patrick Forrest and his colleagues on the working party for producing this admirable report on breast cancer screening. The proviso is that we should like to underline the need for monitoring so as to validate, or otherwise as the case may be, what is being done.
It is unfortunate that medical progress is such that once one introduces a new procedure, it is liable to enter medical practice and become like some form of ritualistic religious observance, and stay there for all time. Once there, it is difficult to remove if we later find that it has not proven to be cost-effective. I hope that there will be proper monitoring.
That leads me to the second part of the Statement with regard to cervical cytology and screening for cervical cancer. We warmly welcome the steps that are being taken. We welcome what is said about computerised call and recall systems, the recognition that the number of cases among younger women has been increasing and that the call and recall systems should begin at the age of 20.
I note that the Statement says that each health authority will be asked to make a specific named individual responsible and accountable for the organisation and effectiveness of the screening. I hope that the names will be made known to all those to whom they may be useful. That includes many noble Lords and many patients. I again underline the importance of monitoring and validation. Hitherto, there is no doubt that we have wasted resources because of the way in which the screening programme has been conducted. As the Statement emphasises, those women who are most at risk have never had any smears while those women least at risk have been having smears with almost clockwork-like regularity.

247
That has been wasteful. The proposals in the Statement I believe promise to bring that to an end.
I come now to the important part of the Statement on the funding of research into AIDS. That is very welcome. As your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology has shown, the funding of scientific research in Britain has been deficient for all sciences, and medical science in particular. There is no doubt that it is desperately needed for research into AIDS. I am glad that it is now being provided in the way that it is, and not with kind of strings that some doctors would have regarded as unacceptable.
Referring to priorities, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I personally believe that it may be 20 years before we have an effective vaccine in force and in use. It takes a long time to prepare a vaccine. However, I believe that there is hope of establishing and developing an effective therapeutic agent that might render patients non-infected as soon as it is taken, as in the case of tuberculosis years ago. When that happens we will indeed have made progress.
So far it seems that progress has been made by the Americans who, I venture to suggest, have proceeded with some of these substances on a scientific basis that would not have been regarded as wholly acceptable by our own scientists. In that connection, what is needed here is not merely the funds but the skilled manpower. In my experience, since most of the cases of AIDS occur in London, most of the clinical work in caring for those cases has been undertaken by academic clinical staff. They are the very people who should be doing the research but who, up to now, have not had time to do it.
I believe that Britain leads the world with its virologists and microbiologists. I hope that we shall see British scientists in those fields taking as full a part as possible into the research of this very worrying condition. We regard the Statement as very welcome and should like to make that absolutely clear.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, for their welcome to our initiative.
I wish first to answer the point concerning the money spent on breast cancer and whether it would cover the call-recall system. The money is for all facilities for 14 centres, one in each region, including the four training centres, as I said in the Statement. The call and recall systems require only a small modification to the system, and the costs should be covered by the £6 million for these 14 centres in the first year. The GPs are remunerated for general medical services, including cervical cancer screening, out of the generality of their fees and allowances.
Women aged 35 and over, among whom 94 per cent. of deaths from cervical cancer occur and who are generally less likely than younger women to come forward for screening of their own accord, remain a priority. General practitioners will continue to receive an item of service payment as an additional incentive to them to persuade these women to be screened.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, surprised me when he spoke of little money for AIDS research. It is very
248
important that your Lordships take on board that we have agreed every penny that the Medical Research Council has asked for—approval of its proposals for direct research into vaccines to prevent AIDS, and the drug therapies for those who are already infected. The money additional to the MRC existing grant-in-aid to permit this was £2·5 million in 1987–88, as I have said then £5 million, and then £7 million, totalling £14·5 million. The MRC, the DES and the DHSS will monitor and review progress, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me.
There is at the end of the day no guarantee of success. One has only to think of the money that has been spent on the common cold, yet that remains a baffling situation.
The plans that we have made will put Britain in the forefront of international action to tackle breast cancer. We take our commitment to prevent this disease, as well as looking after the health of our women, as of paramount importance.
The new returns completed by health authorities should provide a range of additional information on cervical screening programmes, including numbers invited for screening, numbers who accept and the proportions of each five year age group that have been screened within the recommended period. These returns will be introduced in 1988 as part of a broader improvement in NHS information. Following completion of implementation of computerised call and recall systems, similar arrangements will be introduced for breast cancer screening. The Medical Research Council has consulted eminent United Kingdom scientists working in fields of research relevant to drug development for AIDS patients. They are very enthusiastic about such a programme of research. and see no difficulty in pursuing it or in gathering together teams of scientists who will work in a collaborative fashion.
As to the 1988 deadline for the call and recall remit, we are confident that the whole country will be covered by call and recall systems by March of next year. They have already been implemented in 49 out of 90 family practitioner services, as I said. By March this year 109 of 191 districts will be covered, the remainder by March 1988.
As to whether monitoring of the breast cancer screening programme will be undertaken, it is proposed to appoint an advisory committee on breast cancer. The terms of reference will include monitoring the programme. The final point concerns the Palace of Westminster screening facilities. I suggest that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness may like to consult my noble friend the Chairman of Committees about this point.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I do not wish to appear ungrateful in speaking, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to something that I think is vitally important.
This morning Sir James Gowans came and addressed Sub-Committee II of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He was talking about these various matters. One thing that he said with certain pride was that in this country we have young

249
people who have been able to serve and rise to this emergency because they exist in the MRC and in the universities. Thus they can be brought together to work on the problem of AIDS. That is the programme the Government have decided to support.
The point that I wish to make—I hope that it does not seem uncharitable—is this. Unless the Government pay attention to the advice that the research councils have given, that the ABRC has given and that the Royal Society has given as well as the Select Committee of your Lordships' House—that we must keep the research base of British science in the universities and in the research councils—when something like this happens again, the young people will not be here. I therefore draw attention to this point.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I will make sure that my right honourable friend is informed of this aspect. I have a feeling that the noble Lord's worries are needless.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I can welcome without hesitation the first and third parts of the Statement on breast cancer and AIDS, although I share the doubts about the Government's willingness to maintain the funding and standard of medical research.
It is three years since I raised in this House the question of cervical screening. It has been pointed out this afternoon that 2,000 women a year die unnecessarily from cervical cancer. I asked at that time whether the Government would take a lead in reducing the recall period from five years to three years, at least for women between the ages of 20 and 35, and to increase the facilities for women over 35. It seemed to me that the Statement was much vaguer on its proposals for cervical cancer than for breast cancer or AIDs research.
Will the Government now pledge themselves to take a lead in this matter? Will they use all their influence throughout the country to reduce both the recall period from five years to three and to increase substantially. radically and quickly the whole policy of encouraging women to take advantage of the smear facilities? Will they increase those facilities in order to bring down this tragic annual loss of life?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have considered reducing the period for screening. At the moment we are not convinced that this is necessary. The most important factor is that GPs invite their patients to be screened. The best way that this can be done is on a local basis. It is extremely important that women take up the offers and facilities which are already available for them for screening.
The major number of deaths are among older women, but we have reduced the age at which cervical cancer screening will be done. We accept the Forrest conclusion on research. We accept that determining the optimum interval between screening is a high priority.
On breast screening, we also recognise the importance of the other Forrest suggestions for further research. I am picking up the former point of the noble
250
Lord. Lord Hunter. The DHSS, the MRC and the UK co-ordinating committee on cancer research will be considering how these research proposals may be included in future research programmes.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have two brief questions. Taking up the cervical cancer point, it is very welcome that the Government have recognised the spread of the disease in the earlier age range, towards 20. But whereas the figure of £6 million is attached to the breast screening proposals, there is no figure in the Statement attached to the action which is recommended for cervical cancer screening. Perhaps the noble Baroness will say a word about that.
On the research funding, are the tranches given here—£2·5 million, £5 million and £7 million—Treasury dictated or will the Government respond to the MRC's assessment of the lumps in which they will need the money? In other words, is it demand led?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the last point, extra money comes from the allocation from the Department of Education and Science. As I said in the Statement, both the DHSS and the DES will be monitoring what goes on in the MRC research. However, the funding has been provided on the basis that the MRC asked for it. It has obtained what it wants and there is no question of any Treasury input into the "ifs" and "buts" of the sum of money which I have announced.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from me that millions of women will find great relief from the announcements that have been made this afternoon? However. does she recall that some time ago I urged upon her support for the initiatives that are increasingly being taken by trade unions—in particular by the Union of Shop, Distributive, and Allied Workers—to try to ensure that screening facilities are made available in workplaces, offices, shops and commercial premises? Will the Minister again consider whether it is possible to encourage more women to take advantage of the facilities? They may for some reason or another be inhibited, but might be encouraged to do so in a workplace. Certainly the union to which I have referred, and many others, have good arrangements with large employers and these should be encouraged.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I well remember the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and myself on the matter. There is no reason, if it suits local authorities—for instance in rural areas—why screening could not be done by mobile vans. There is no reason why the mobile vans should not call at places of work if it was so wished. It is up to the local health authorities to work out the best plan for the people who live in the area. All areas vary.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not answer the question about additional funding for the cervical cancer programme.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it was about extra money. The changes needed in cervical cancer screening are mainly organisational: a matter of making the best use of health authority resources.

Prison Conditions
6.7 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge rose to call attention to the deterioration in prison conditions as recorded in various recent reports; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My purpose tonight is simply to press for action. I believe that the conditions in our prisons have deteriorated steadily and dangerously over the past three decades and have now reached a critical state which cannot be allowed to continue, not only because they are dangerous but because they are a disgrace. I believe that there is one basic cause for this trouble; namely, prolonged overcrowding. Many other things are wrong and need changing but none, I believe, can be successfully tackled until this basic fault is dealt with.
I believe that there is one quite quick remedy; that is, the immediate use of the Secretary of State's powers of executive release which were given to him in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. I shall therefore use my 15 minutes' introductory time to expand these propositions and to demand action. I hope that other noble Lords will take up and discuss all those other serious things which need to be done. However, I do not want to waste the impact of my demand that something should be done about overcrowding.
My approach is not party political. I have not agreed what I propose with my colleagues, but only with NACRO. However, I am confident that on these Benches, on most of the Labour Benches, and indeed on some of the Tory Benches, my general proposition will be thought sensible though there may be criticism of detail.
We have had half a dozen governments in the past 20 years, alternating between Tory and Labour. Each one has done a number of things which had to be done, but always too late and too little. Not one has made a head-on attack on overcrowding. The British people have for far too long allowed their governments to evade adequate remedies, not exactly through callousness but through failure to spend money where there do not seem to have been many votes. Each government has inherited a very difficult situation and each has left it worse than before. Therefore when I attack the conditions I am not attacking this Government, nor indeed the Minister who has to reply, beyond the fact that nobody else but them for the moment can do anything about the situation.
I shall not spend long demonstrating how bad things are. Last week no fewer than 393 prisoners could not be squeezed into any prison and had to be housed in wholly unsuitable police cells. Report after report and book after hook come out saying that they cannot go on much longer without explosion. NACRO's 1986 report; the Howard League and Prison Reform Trust reports; the report of the AGM of the prison governors a week or two ago; V ivien Stern's excellent book which every noble Lord should read entitled Bricks of Shame; Andrew Rutherford's very thought-provoking Prisons and the Process of Justice, to name the most recent, all say the same.
Perhaps I should refer especially to the Chief Inspector of Prisons' report for 1985, from which I shall quote one or two frightening statements of fact.
He says:
"We were driven to the inescapable conclusion that parts of the system were wholly preoccupied with survival … There is little new to say about overcrowding, except that it worsened considerably … the surging numbers were so rapid that an already overstretched system came perilously near to breaking point. The Home Secretary's attention was drawn to the inadequate supply of lavatories, baths and showers, the severely curtailed use of workshops, the prolonged periods prisoners spent locked up two or three to a small overcrowded cell, and the enormous pressure on visiting-rooms, even when visits were restricted to the statutory minimum of 15 minutes because of numbers … If the prison population is not reduced by the use of alternatives to custody and if drastic inroads cannot be made into the time defendants spend in custody awaiting trial, then new ways of coping with the prison population will have to be found".
Those are strong words and they are difficult to laugh off.
The background to all that sad history is, I repeat, overcrowding. The inmmediate pressure on the administrators and the service has been so great that in all this time they have never caught up with themselves. As a result, useful innovations are eventually ruined and scrapped in favour of basic necessities. I suppose that the worst feature is the pressure on staff which has led to officers being used in a way which is quite unreasonable, but without which harassed governors could not cover their duties at all. At last, as the department's newly published paper A Fresh Start shows, a really serious effort to sort matters out is being made and is, not unexpectedly, meeting the kind of difficulty which is always met with when abuses are allowed to settle into accepted customs.
The whole system depends on overtime in a way which is plainly indefensible. One of the side problems is that those training and dispersal prisons which are not overcrowded have their staff constantly borrowed to meet emergencies in the local prisons which are overcrowded. Therefore the good facilities which some of them have for work, education and recreation cannot be properly used for lack of supervision. I praise the Government's initiative and hope that all parties will strive for agreement.
My noble friend Lord Harris will deal more fully with that issue later, but I must add that a prison officer's job is difficult and may be dangerous even in good conditions. However, it can be really rewarding. In conditions of the kind about which we are talking it is wholly frustrating and the prison officers have coped with remarkable patience.
I shall repeat my three propositions: first, the conditions in many of our prisons are no longer acceptable; secondly, they cannot be made acceptable until overcrowding is tackled; and, thirdly, there is an easily understood and quite simple administrative manoeuvre which could relieve the pressure and give time for longer-term remedies to do their work. I believe that most people will agree with the first two propositions. We must try to convince the Government of the third. However, first I shall elaborate a little more on the realities of overcrowding.
Over 20 years crime reported has risen by 75 per cent.; prison capacity has increased by 9,000 places to 42,000; and the actual prison population has increased from 33,000 to 47,500. I believe that this week the figure is 48,000, but I do not insist on that. The overcrowding factor—and this is what I am talking about—has increased from 5 per cent. to 14 per cent.

253
(in other words by 300 per cent.) and the number of prisoners two or three to a cell has trebled from 5,540 twenty years ago to 17,000 today. That last fact is the worst feature of all.
The slopping-out routine is a blot on our civilisation, but applied to two or three to a cell it is a disgrace which our grandchildren will look back on with incredulity. It derives directly from overcrowding, because even if the money for integral sanitation were available the pressure on space is such that wings cannot easily be closed for renewal. A complete end to it is not even planned. Under the present very major building plans we are told that there will still be from 10,000 to 20.000 prisoners subject to this humiliating routine when the present plans are completed in 1991.
I said that that was the worst feature of all, but perhaps even worse is the deprivation of those diversions which make confinement tolerable; namely, visits, work, physical training, recreation, education, the library service, wing meetings, and "Any Questions" sessions. All those are curtailed or dropped one after the other due to staffing chaos, which is itself due to overcrowding, so that the unfortunate man or woman, boy or girl, is left locked up often for 23 hours a day.
The way forward was first mooted in the May report in 1979 (I have forgotten the paragraph but I can look it up). It was subsequently made possible in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The debates in Committee on Clause 32 of the Bill made it clear that its use was envisaged in just such a situation as exists today—a situation of severe crisis. When the Home Secretary came to see some of us in July, he said that he thought it would be prudent to regard executive release as a measure of absolute emergency. I wish to tell him this evening that that is exactly what faces him today.
We suggest that a limit should be set to the number of prisoners that may be admitted to prison and that the intake should be regulated by executive release. If the number of people that the courts send to prison exceeds the agreed limit, places must be made for them by releasing some of those already there. The limiting figure would be based on the certified normal accommodation—which we call CNA—which is now 42,000 as against an actual daily population of 47,500, which is what the Minister told us last week.
Obviously, the huge excess cannot be put right in one go. We recommend its gradual reduction down to the CNA level within two or three years. That could be done by knocking, say, one, two or three weeks off the sentences of all prisoners due out in the coming year. That is a figure which, in relation to a sentence of six months or more, is quite irrelevant to the punishment side of the sentence. It would exclude those sentenced for violence and those on very short sentences—say, up to three months.
We calculate that a two weeks' reduction of this kind would reduce the average daily population by some 2,500 places. As these prisoners would have been released anyway by the end of the year, the reduction would be only temporary but would have substantially eased the pressure during the 12 months. The same or more would need to be done for one or two years in succession. However, at the end of that
254
time one could reasonably hope that other methods, to which I shall refer in a moment if I have time, would have begun to work.
There are far more short-term prisoners than long-term prisoners and they are mostly kept in the most overcrowded local prisons, so the relief would come where it is most needed. Like the Garter, there is no damned merit about this proposal. It is an administrative device to deal with an intolerable situation. The point is that the arbitrary and temporary administrative procedure would reduce pressures in a way everyone, particularly staff, could see was a genuine effort to cope with the evils we have been discussing. and would change the widespread feeling of frustration in the prison world to one of hope for a real improvement.
I would hope that if some such scheme were adopted the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice perhaps would explain it to all judges and magistrates and ask them to give the new temporary arrangements their blessing and not feel it necessary to increase sentences to meet it. I believe courts know very well that present conditions in prison are shamefully bad and could very easily be persuaded to go along with any expedient which looked likely to ease a dangerous situation.
I said I would refer to many other intractable problems. I am not going to; I do not have time. Such questions as remand, bail, hostels, blacks in prison, women in prison, AIDS, new ideas from America such as the offenders' tag and privately-run remand homes, could all be looked at, could be introduced, and some changes would actually be effected. Above all, the important thing is now to send less petty offenders to prison in the first place. Andrew Rutherford is especially interesting on this subject in the book I have already mentioned. He analyses periods of growth and decline in the use of prison in different countries and divides them into expansionist and reductionist periods.
The last reductionist Home Secretary we had was Winston Churchill who in 1910 used executive release freely during his time in office with the result that the prison population remained around 12,000 until the early 'forties. Since then the mood has changed and the population had grown by almost 80 per cent. by 1947 and has been expanding ever since.
I am not here to discuss these fascinating long-term theories today. I am trying to persuade the Government that they are sitting on a volcano, that there is only one way of avoiding further explosions, and to beg them to use it. Before I sit down I want to say how pleased I am that a Law Lord is going to take part in this debate. We have not had that honour in the past six debates on this subject and we are extremely pleased to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, tonight.
I want to be proud of our prisons, not ashamed of them. What I am suggesting is a necessary first step in that direction.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, I have one point only to make. It concerns the prison visitors' centre at Strange-ways Gaol. First, may I give some background. We have two sorts of prisoners at Strangeways Gaol:

255
convicted prisoners and prisoners on remand. The prisoners in the gaol total 1,707—many, many more that the place was originally designed for. The important question at the moment, because of the growth in their numbers, is that of remand prisoners. We have 578 remand prisoners and 1,129 convicted prisoners. In the case of prisoners held on remand prior to trial, a percentage will not be found guilty of the crime of which they are accused; and a percentage will not be imprisoned even though they are found guilty.
Remand prisoners have as many visitors as can be crammed into a quarter of an hour every day, morning and afternoon. The convicted prisoner is allowed approximately one hour for visiting every four weeks. The growing number of prisoners held at Manchester has increased the number of visitors. It is our treatment of those visitors about which I want to speak. For 17 years I have led a charitable organisation set up to relieve social deprivation among clients of the Greater Manchester probation service and to assist that service in the rehabilitation of offenders, which we do—so successfully, in fact, that we increase our boundaries every year.
We were alerted by a girl working in the probation service inside the prison about the conditions that had to be endured by visitors. We did not believe her; so we went on several occasions to see for ourselves. She was right. The prisoners' families—men, women and children of all ages—were squatting in the streets for up to two hours in all sorts of weathers. It was a scene of absolute degradation. There were no toilets within half a mile. We wanted to do something about it.
It so happened that the guest speaker at our 1958 annual general meeting was the right honourable Willie Whitelaw, who now sits on the Front Bench opposite. He was able to do something for us later on through first-hand knowledge. When he comes to open a prison visitors' centre in a fortnight's time he will see a fine place where people are able to keep dry and where they can have a cup of tea in peace. He will be pleased with it.
We decided to go ahead with the visitors' centre despite the fact that we had no idea where the money was to come from. We felt it brooked no delay. The bodies that we roped in to comprise the management committee were Save the Children Fund, NACRO, the probation service, the social services, the area health authority, the WRVS, and my own organisation, Selcare, which was given the job of heading the project and being responsible for the management of it. Of course, we needed funds. We were very fortunate in being able to persuade the residuary body of the Greater Manchester Council to fund us up to £185,000 in order to start. That was a good helping hand forward. So was the help that we received Iron the ten metropolitan boroughs which constitute the Grants Committee of the Greater Manchester area. We have now a first-class visitors' centre with a creche for children. There are four employed paid staff, one seconded by the probation service and one by the Save the Children fund. There are four voluntary WRVS helpers on duty at any one time. We are indebted to them, too.
256
There are funds for a limited period that we have found ourselves. This is a centre where visitors can be treated with dignity while they wait. They do not need to trail their children into the prison; the children can be left in the creche in safe custody. We can fund the place until March 1988. After that, we believe that it should be the responsibility of the prison service.
The place is now well run. It is well worth a visit by any Member who is interested and who wishes to see for himself what can be done with a little effort instead of talking about it so much.
The present management committee is quite prepared to take on the job in the future but has to know, in order to plan for the future, who will be responsible for funding after March 1988. Perhaps the noble Viscount will help us again when he comes along because then he will see what it is possible to do. With his help. I am perfectly certain that it can be managed.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for introducing this debate, and for his most timely speech upon it. I hope that I may be excused if I do not stay until the end of the debate, but I have some duties over the road to perform in connection with the General Synod.
Christians have plenty of reasons to be concerned with prisons, whether they think of the parable of the sheep and the goats: of a clause in the Litany; or what is written in the Epistle to the Romans, concerning the duty of the state in punishing offenders. Incidentally, there are only two secular priviliges known to me that remain to a bishop. One is to enter your Lordships' House, and the other is to visit at his pleasure a prison establishment in his diocese. There is no need for me to emphasise the escalating rates of crime in the country—they are terrible. Perhaps it should be pointed out that violence against the person accounts only for 3 per cent., and sexual offences for only 6 per cent., whereas offences against property comprise 95 per cent.
It is interesting that in his recent working paper on criminal justice the Home Secretary associates crime with wider problems, such as the weakening of the family and a decline in standards of conduct and respect for authority. But whatever are the causes of crime, I cannot help but recall the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones in his response to the gracious Speech from the Throne. He said on 18th November, 1986 (at col. 144 of Hansard):
"The United Kingdom now sends more people to prison, both in absolute numbers and relative to its population than any other major West European country."
That must give us pause for thought.
The number of prisoners on remand clogs up the whole system. The awful consequence of being a prisoner on remand is that one in three of the prisoners will be pronounced innocent—one in three may have been in prison for nothing. If one is found guilty, one might not be given a custodial sentence, which in some ways is worse. A further injustice is that whereas the time spent on remand may be counted against a custodial sentence, it does not count towards the minimum for parole. Parole is given to some 73 per

257
cent. of prisoners. But if a prisoner is on remand with a short sentence he may well serve longer than he considers to be just.
Prisoners on remand have to be taken to and from the court by prison officers. By 1985 prisoners on remand comprised 21 per cent. of the entire prison population. If the number of remand prisoners. exceeds the number for which provision is made in a local establishment, the whole system is then under strain. Prison officers have to be taken off their normal duties. Then activities for which special policing is needed tend to suffer; namely, education, workshops, physical education and even the use of the library. This is the main reason why inmates have to spend so much time in their cells. Prison officers are drawn off to act as guards for remand prisoners going to and from the courts.
Last week at Winson Green Prison in Birmingham the number of remand and unconvicted inmates was 423. The provision is for 300. Winson Green is 22 officers under establishment and last week the average overtime was 17 hours, 35 tasks had to be dropped every day. The number of inmates on remand is not the only problem. At Winson Green the prison officers consider that 900 is the right figure for inmates. The prison authorities consider that they can cope with 1,100. but that 1,150 and over present real problems in matters such as sewage and kitchen capacity. Yet, the numbers exceeded 1,150 on two occasions last week, and on one night the figure was 1,170. The average number of inmates was 1,131. When police cells are being used in London as the noble Lord mentioned, congestion is caused all the way down the line. Extra inmates are posted to Bedford, and thence to Winson Green and so it continues.
There are two urgent problems. First, how to cope with this explosive short term problem of some five and a half thousand inmates above the certified normal population. Secondly, what should be done in the long term. The policy of building more prisons is already seen to be failing. They are not keeping pace with the increase in the number of people being sent to prison. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, obviously we need less prisoners.
I do not think that the parole system can be further extended. In any case it is rather objectionable because the judges have ruled that the rules of natural justice do not apply to parole, it is a discretion. There is not much more mileage in remission—one third of the sentence is already remitted unless there is bad conduct. To increase remission would make a nonsense of the length of the original custodial sentence. There remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the executive release. I shall not repeat what he said, but hope that note will be taken of it in places where decisions are made.
A form of prison-capping already takes place in the state of Minnesota in the United States. Indeed, the French Minister of Justice threatened to use prison-capping in France last year. It is vital that the judiciary should be separate from the Government. It would be appalling if that were not the case. But the Government can and should insist that the prison population does not produce what the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group has called conditions that "are intolerable in a civilised society".
258
The Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility recommended prison-capping in a statement they issued last year and I hope due note can be taken of what has been said in this debate.
I do not wish to criticise the judiciary to whom we owe great respect. But they ought not to pass so many custodial sentences. I know that restraints on custody are written into the law. I know that the Court of Appeal and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House should influence the number of non-custodial sentences. But, the fact remains that we have a higher proportion than other comparable countries. Whenever I personally tackle a member of the judiciary on this matter I am told that they have to reflect public opinion. I do not believe that this is public opinion, except in the case of violence and sexual crime which, as I have said, is a very small proportion of the whole.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote some wise words in his introduction to Breaking Out, a report of the British Council of Churches Penal Working Group. He said:
"We treat crime both too seriously and not seriously enough. Too seriously in that we often impose conditions of imprisonment which are. by most people's reckoning, too harsh;…not seriously enough in that the policies to 'deal with' the problems caused by crime are too often piecemeal and provisional".
Breaking Out rightly states:
"Imprisonment is at present a practice without a clear policy".
I hope that we can have a clear policy which keeps our numbers within bounds.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, perhaps I may answer one point raised by the right reverend Prelate as he will be leaving, but I hope he will read Hansard. I was informed at the administrative officers' conference last week, that last week they unlocked exactly the same number of people at Birmingham as they did at the end of the war, with one-third less staff at the end of the war, and provided a better regime.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl has said but I am merely recalling the figures which I have been given officially by the Prison Authorities.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, the subject of the debate, as your Lordships know, is the deterioration in prison conditions, but it is axiomatic, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, that the root of the problem is overcrowding. We are speaking against a background of prolonged and growing crisis due to overcrowding—overcrowding which has been with us for at least two decades and which is growing progressively more acute.
I can speak with some authority and knowledge on this matter. That period of 20 years happens to coincide with the time during which I have been involved in our penal policies and criminal justice system, since I became the first chairman of the Parole Board in 1967.
We have been warned repeatedly of an increasingly "explosive situation"—words which have been used

259
twice in this debate. We have been warned most recently by the Prison Governors and the POA of an impending breakdown in the system of control. We were warned by the Prison Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants as long ago as 1976 of the shape of things to come. Only last month it told us that the riots of 1986 were, "but a rehearsal". In the words of one prison governor, "We may not be able to cope with the next one".
On the other hand—and this is the burden of my few words this evening—over all those years we have repeatedly received constructive recommendations for resolving the crisis. Reports from every committee—committees of inquiry, and others—which has addressed the problem, from the Advisory Council on the Penal System under Sir Kenneth Younger in the 1970s onwards, all show a remarkably consistent accord on what is needed. The All-Party Penal Affairs Group, to which the right reverend Prelate has just referred, adverted to two of the recommendations in a 10-point programme for reducing prison overcrowding which it submitted to the Home Secretary in April last year. We did so in two previous reports—one in 1985 entitled The Rising Prison Population, and a report in 1980 entitled Too Many Prisoners.
The two recommendations were these: to lower the maximum length of sentences right across the board, except of course for the very serious crimes such as those excluded offences in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Those found guilty of crimes of that order account in any case for, at the most, one in five in our prison population. If we subtract those approximately 8,000 remand prisoners referred to by the right reverend Prelate and 10,000 juveniles and young offenders, we are left with some 80 per cent. of the prison population who clutter up our local prisons.
They have been referred to as ordinary prisoners; as non-violent offenders. Many of them—in fact most of them—are petty, persistent and inefficient offenders who number about 10,000. For the most part they are dealt with in the magistrates' courts. For all of them research findings over many years have indicated that much shorter sentences than currently permitted and imposed are no less effective than longer ones. The latest authority for this is that excellent document, Sentence of the Court.
The other measure has been recommended on a number of occasions under one title or another. It was aptly entitled in 1977 by a Conservative Party study group set up by the then shadow Home Secretary (now the noble Viscount who is the Leader of our House) and chaired by Sir Edward Gardiner, Custody and Control. It was favourably commented on when I raised it five years ago in the House in a debate in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was taking part. I was glad to see that, until a few moments ago, he had found time to come and sit with us.
The measure would consist of a two-tier sentence served partly in prison and partly in the community under certain prescribed conditions of control and after-care. The whole length of the sentence need not be less than the total general run of current sentencing
260
practice. If it were applied only to ordinary offenders—those who are non-violent, petty and persistent—I understand that it would have the effect of reducing the prison population by some 5,000.
The sentence would, in effect, be equivalent to the application of the parole principle to all such offenders, with two important differences. First, it would be the courts that would apply it. Secondly, the tedious parole assessment procedures would be dispensed with, saving much time and money and also saving much anxiety on the part of prisoners themselves. I say that in the knowledge that the present chairman of the Parole Board is with us, and I have the greatest admiration and support for the system so long as we cannot get it better.
It has the proven benefit of supervision and support in the community. It would meet a popular—and proper—demand for retribution. It would provide the shock effect of imprisonment without the damaging effects of prolonged incarceration. Therefore, I ask how else a policy of shorter sentencing, called for by so many authorities and expert committees over so many years, is to be achieved.
Exhortations, in particular to the magistrates, by the Lord Chief Justice himself, and I think the Lord Chancellor. appear to have had little effect. Drastic action is urgently needed. But either, or both, of the measures to which I have referred would require legislation, and the situation is now so critical that crash action is called for.
It was precisely for such an eventuality that executive release, so called, was placed on the statute book in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. That would provide the necessary breathing space while legislation for shorter prison sentences is enacted. My noble friend Lord Donaldson has already made a powerful case for that step to be taken.
These are radical changes in our whole approach to penal policy. They would get our criminal justice system out of the groove in which it has been grinding on for far too many years. They are not put forward by people who are soft on crime or sentimental towards criminals. There is ample evidence that shortening the periods spent inside our prisons would not—with exceptions which would rightly be made by the courts—weaken the impact of imprisonment on criminal behaviour.
Nothing less will suffice to change course from the unending and growing crisis which can only lead to disaster. Therefore, I beg the Government to look again at all the advice they have had—the constant advice on this subject—to heed the warnings they have also had and to act courageously without delay.
6.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I make it a rule to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, almost blindly—except of course up Everest or other dangerous mountains—and I find it easy to follow him this afternoon, and to follow the other eloquent speakers. It seems to me that there are two broad ways of assessing the present situation. One is the way that has been brilliantly explained to us—if I may use that word about an old friend who does not like compliments; (well at any rate he pretends not to like

261
compliments)—by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. The other is the way summarised, I hope not finally but perhaps provisionally, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is much respected already in his office.
I must comment on one thing he wrote recently, which I hope does not represent his final opinion. In reviewing a remarkable book—I gave him short notice of this question, and it was very courageous of him really to set an example to other Ministers—by Vivien Stern referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson (which in my eyes is the best book ever written on prisons; and I have read a great many) the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, wrote this in a review in The Times:
"much has been done to improve the situation in recent years."
One would not think so from hearing the earlier speakers.
"We want to continue this policy."
That would be bad news if it was the last word that the noble Earl had to say on the subject. I hope that at least when today's debate is over he will reconsider that position in conjunction with the Home Secretary.
The last time I spoke on prisons in November, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I drew attention to what I am afraid one can only call—I do not want to use extreme words—the very unfriendly attitude taken at the present time by the Prison Officers' Association towards the Home Office. I should like to see the Ministers coming forward a little more in these arguments with the prison officers and not so much left to the officials. They should not be left in the firing line to the extent that they are. There is this unfriendly attitude. When I indicated that to certain officials they told me that unfortunately the leaders of the prison officers would not talk to them. I shall leave that to others to sort out.
Leaving out all the diplomacy, the tactics and the improvements that I hope can be effected in the mutual relationship, there is no doubt whatever—and here I speak with knowledge—that the prison officers will remain very critical indeed of the Home Office and the Ministers who preside over it while this overcrowding continues. There is really no doubt at all about that, however much one tinkers with it. You can have a fresh start or do similar things under other names, but until you deal with the particular issue that has been concentrated on this evening there will be no improvement whatever in the very bad relationship which exists today between the Prison Officers' Asociation and the Home Office and its Ministers. The conclusion, after studying the views of the prison officers, must be that from their point of view and the point of view put by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other speakers, the two points of view are identical.
The question is: what can be done about it? We have many times here pleaded for alternative remedies and there have been explanations about how these remedies could be applied. That cannot be said too often. But in these few minutes I am going to do nothing more than express my strongest possible support—I have no authority to speak for my party but I should be surprised if I were out of line in this matter—for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about executive release. I think the message ought to go out from this House that that is
262
what the House of Lords is standing for today. I cannot expect the noble Earl to announce this evening that a completely new policy has been adopted between 6.15 and 8.45 p.m. but I hope he will say that he recognises the strength of feeling; and it is not just emotional feeling but a feeling that springs from expert knowledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned Winston Churchill. I will quote what he said on 20th July 1910 and then draw to a close. Winston Churchill (then Home Secretary)—he was a Liberal at the time, which ought to appeal to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches; but he became a Conservative later, which ought to appeal to noble Lords opposite—said that the Government had,
"made a general pro rata reduction of sentences over the whole area of the prison population. The remissions which were granted on this occasion affected 11,000 prisoners, and at a stroke struck 500 years of imprisonment and penal servitude from the prison population. I am glad to be able to tell the House that no evil results of any kind have followed from this".
I am certain that no evil result of any kind would follow from the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and that much good would come about as a result of them.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it is about the remand prisoner that I wish to speak, following up what was so eloquently referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham: the 24 male prisoners and Holloway. I initiated a debate in this House on the same subject in 1980 on the May Report. The May Report had described the situation as a scandal and the conditions as degrading. There were then 6,500 remand prisoners, 14 per cent. of the total prison population. Today, seven years later, there are 10,000 remand prisoners, 22 per cent. of the prison population—a situation described by the Home Affairs Committee as completely unacceptable, and later as an affront to human dignity.
At that time prisoners waited 25 days on average for trial. Today they wait for 55 days and in London they wait for 100 days. Half the men will receive no sentence of imprisonment when they come to trial. Two-thirds of the women will be released when they come to trial. The 8,844 untried yesterday are innocent in the eyes of the law, and waiting to hear the case made against them. Every day last year, 60 women—yes, my Lords, women—on average were locked up in police station cells, while over a hundred beds in Holloway were empty. That is a brutal anomaly which for some reason the Home Office is incapable of solving.
In 1980 the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the figure of 6,500 must cause all in this House the greatest concern. What concern should we feel tonight over 10,000? Last week, as has already been said, the Minister wrote an article for the Guardian. The word "remand" appeared nowhere in the article. He spoke, as we have heard, of a strategy to reduce demands on the system; yet the most acute of all demands got no mention at all. The reason, I fear, is that the position today is worse than it was seven years ago and that nothing has been achieved during those seven years. If I am wrong I am sure the noble Earl will tell the House what he failed to tell the readers of the newspaper.

263
The £360 million programme paraded in that article (and no doubt to be paraded tonight) will not solve the problem. It is the policy towards local prisons which is the mischief: it is the manner in which the money is spent which is the mischief. Local prisons are starved of capital investment and crammed with untried and short-term prisoners—significantly the least articulate and the least likely to rebel—and so we have the creation of what a recent governor of Wormwood Scrubs described as, "the dustbins of the system".
Let me spell out once again, and perhaps for the last time, what could be done with political will and dedication. First, we should re-categorise these prisoners. Half receive no prison sentence and many of those who do go straight to a category C or D prison; yet all on remand are put in categories A or B. The majority of them do not need the high security of local prisons, of hand-cuffs and black marias. They do not need the intensive level of escort, the banging up in cells and so on.
Secondly, we should build, take over or convert less secure buildings and create remand hostels near main court centres. We should get these remand prisoners out of the local prisons and reduce the mad merry-go-round of escort duties. I should like to emphasise the lunacy of women travelling from Holloway over a hundred miles to court and then a hundred miles back around the South of England. The prison officers could then return to their proper job of caring for the prisoners in the prisons.
Thirdly, we should take in hand the whole bail operation in the main magistrates' courts. This could and must be a structured operation, embracing the duty solicitors, the CPS. the probation service and legal aid arrangements concentrated in one bail court. Information units could be set up to provide the justices with the facts on which decisions could be properly made. Outside agencies, particularly those dealing with ethnic minorities, should he brought in. The Nottingham justices' decision should be repealed and bail hostels provided in the right places, and used. Applications for bail could be fixed and repeated if necessary at fixed periods, and the results could be monitored and published.
Fourthly, a code of minimum standards should be established. Mr. Leon Brittan has also burst into print lately in an article in The Times on 17th February. He said:
"Minimum standards would be a mere symbolic statement of aspirations and would not help to achieve them.".
There, if I may say so, are political complacency and despair.
Sir James Hennessy, our admirable Chief Inspector of Prisons, has been asking for a code in report after report and now he has lost patience with Ministers and set up a study to formulate his own code. A code, as Sir James knows well, would be an incentive to force the hands of sleepy bureaucrats and rudderless politicians to give some basic rights to those locked-up men and women, lost behind prison walls.
Finally, there is a passage in Mr. Brittan's article with which I wholeheartedly agree:
"Increased dialogue with the judiciary is certainly essential and should not be regarded as an attempt to encroach on the independence of the judges".
264
I should like also to welcome the presence here tonight of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and, if I may say so, it is typical of him that he is the first learned Law Lord to attend such a debate.
Is it not astonishing that, whereas, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointment of magistrates, for their necessary qualifications, for their conduct in court and for their training, when we discuss their performance on the job, the sentences that they pass and their bail decisions the noble and learned Lord plays no part?
I end by asking the Minister, who is, if I may say so, a man of humanity and good sense, how much longer he is prepared to tolerate the internationally recognised disgrace of the remand situation in this otherwise civilised and caring nation of ours? Can he continue to permit the trauma suffered by the majority of these 8,000 persons who are freed from custody when they come to trial, with the broken homes, lost jobs, debts incurred, families devastated to no purpose and without justification, with the ensuing bitterness and disillusionment with the processes of the law which merely breed contempt and criminality? I hope he will cast aside his official and, no doubt, complacent brief and give the House a fair and direct answer to this the crucial question which underlies my noble friend's Motion before the House.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has given us by this debate to raise again the theme of a debate which I introduced here last year about the problems of women in prison and the conditions that they suffer. But this time I do so with the support of a report which the TUC produced earlier this month, and which concentrates on different ways by which conditions for women and their whole position within the penal system could be improved. There is little doubt that much of the anxiety and many of the recommendations which are put forward in this report and in this debate echo my debate in 1985, so I hope very much that this time the Minister will look carefully at what the TUC has said in its discussion paper and take heed of some of the recommendations it has made.
First, as a background to its paper the TUC gave some of the most relevant statistics concerning women in prison and crime. It pointed out the important fact that as women represent such a very small proportion of the prison population—only 3 per cent.—very little research has been carried out about women in the penal system and indeed about their conditions in prison. Very little research has been done on the effect of imprisonment on women; what conditions in prison would be best for them; whether they need a different sentencing policy and what alternatives to prison might be more appropriate for women.
The most recent figure of the number of women and girls in custody was for 31st December 1986, when it stood at 1,573. Over half of those women were there for stealing in some form or other, and the rest were there for offences such as not paying fines, drug offences, offences relating to prostitution—mainly as a result of fine default for soliciting—and the remainder, just under 400, were sentenced for violence against the

265
person. The report went on to say that the proportion of women offenders receiving custodial sentences has risen from 2 per cent. in 1974 to 6 per cent. at the present time. The TUC also made the point that in 1984 as many as 17 per cent. of women imprisoned throughout that year had no previous convictions.
The paramount conclusion that the TUC came to was that women should be sent to prison only as a last resort and when no non-custodial option is available to the courts. It said:
"The probation order could be used for the overwhelming majority of female offenders, except those whose offences are of such gravity that the public needs to be protected".
I do not think there could be any better way of relieving the situation in prisons than to follow that overriding conclusion and recommendation of the TUC.
It came to this conclusion, first, through examining the kind of crimes that women committed and deciding that a custodial sentence was in most cases inappropriate. It also examined how prison affects women in their dual role of offender and mother. It is surely true to say that special regard is paid to the dual role that women play in every other area of their lives, such as when a woman combines being a paid employee and a carer of children or elderly relatives. So it should be logical to pay the same regard to women who unfortunately are fulfilling this dual role of being a mother and a carer of elderly and dependent relatives while in prison.
The report points out that a 1982 survey showed that of the women prison population of that year, which was 1,288, 56 per cent. had a total of 1,649 children. So there were 1,649 children who were deeply affected by the imprisonment of their mother. Here, quite rightly, the report stresses that imprisonment for a woman, besides being a loss of freedom, has an extra dimension, which is the intolerable anxiety and trauma not only through being separated from her children but also through worrying about what is happening to them. So it seems right that the report should stress that insufficient account is taken of the problems that affect women who have family responsibilities.
In this respect the report advocates that, besides women being given bail whenever possible or being released on parole, more experiments should be carried out as they are in other countries about their visiting conditions in prison. It argues that to help a woman keep contact with her family, and to remake contact as a constructive woman and mother, she should have the use of the telephone, unsupervised visits and so on. I do not have time to point out any of the other recommendations, but I should like to touch on areas in which the report particularly concentrates, such as the number of women who are in prison through committing offences because they were mentally disturbed. That aspect has already been touched on. There is no possible doubt that there are more women in prison, and it is a hard problem to deal with women who are in a prison environment which is detrimental to their particular mental state.
The report also touched on the whole question of mothers and babies in prison, and on the numbers of drug offenders and disturbed women in prison. It pointed out the need for therapeutic units to help
266
women to overcome drug or alcohol problems while they are in prison, rather than allowing them to come out into the community in the same state in which they entered prison.
The TUC discussion paper contained many other ideas and recommendations. They all pointed in the same direction, which was the need for change in policy and attitude away from regarding it as essential for women to be punished through the use of custodial sentences rather than having a more humane way of dealing with the problem by taking into account family responsibilities and more appropriate and imaginative methods which are remedial rather than punitive.
I have saved my last half minute to put a question and suggestion to the Minister on another subject which I think is extremely relevant to the Motion on the Order Paper today. I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks it may be a good idea, which would assist our prison service when formulating policies, to ask prison governors, on their retirement, to write what I should like to call valedictory reports. It seems amazing that all the wisdom and experience which our prison governors have acquired during their careers should not be drawn together and put into a document which could then be channelled into the thinking on how to improve conditions in prisons. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that suggestion. What made me think of that idea was the much-respected valedictory dispatches which ambassadors write on retirement and which presumably help the Foreign Office to formulate foreign policy.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to apologise to your Lordships' House for popping in and out of this debate. Unfortunately, the timing clashed with another commitment. I wish in the short time allowed to add a few remarks on the subject of women in prison. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has already spoken on the subject.
I do not think that there is necessarily a case for dealing differently with men and women who are offenders. However, I suspect that a great many of the points which I wish to make about women will apply equally to men. My personal experience is limited to women, however, and that is why I wish to talk about them.
I had the privilege of doing a short study on the subject, and I was struck forcibly by the fact, which I think that no one denies, that a great many women (and I suspect men as well) are in prison who ought not to be there. I have had discussions with a number of people and with the highest in the land in connection with imprisonment. They all agree that there are a great many people in prison who ought not to be there. Since there is such widespread acceptance of that fact, I find it hard to believe that it is not possible for us to do something about it. When I discuss this matter with people in the Home Office, they say, "Yes, certainly something should be done", and then nothing happens. Perhaps it is unfair to say that nothing happens; very little happens.
I hope that we can be practical and not simply talk in general terms. We all know that over half of the

267
women who are in prison on remand do not ultimately receive custodial sentences. It seems extraordinary that we should hold women in prison who are ultimately either not sentenced or, when they are sentenced, receive non-custodial sentences. That must be wrong. Think of the disruption caused by taking a woman from her home and putting her in prison, only to find, after weeks and sometimes months in prison, that that is not where she ought to be.
Why can we not have more bail hostels? We are spending an enormous amount of money on building new prisons. Why can we not divert some of that money in order to build more bail hostels? I am told that many of those women have to be in prisons because they might escape. Most of the women of whom I was aware when I was doing my study were not the sort of people who were going to take a private plane to the Caribbean; most of them would have got no further than Fulham. In addition, many of them had nowhere to go. If one or two such women escaped, would that really be as serious as continuing the horrible practice of holding people on remand whose offences are afterwards found not to warrant imprisonment?
I ask your Lordships to think for a moment of the disruption this causes in homes and also of the cost. If a woman with children is in prison on remand, something must be done about the children. If they are put into homes or into care, that is an added expense and an added disruption. We should have a drive to get more bail hostels or to get more supervision through the probation service so that tabs can be kept on those women at home to ensure that they do not disappear between the time that they have been arrested and the time that they are sentenced. Surely that is a practical step which could be taken.
At the other end of the process, a very large number of women (although not such a high proportion of women as of men) return to prison after release. As several people, including probation officers have said to me, many of those women return to prison because they cannot cope outside. They have had a prison sentence; many of them are rather inadequate people to begin with. Often they are unskilled, with no training to sell when they leave prison. With the present level of unemployment, it is very difficult indeed for such women to re-establish themselves and live on what they can earn. If the families of such women help them and welcome them back, that is one thing. But a great many such women do not have families to go back to, or their families do not want to know. They then attempt to cope in run-down lodgings on social security benefit, and sooner or later they run into debt or go out on a desperate binge and they are back in prison. In many cases, they simply cannot cope outside prison.
Surely we can have better after-care arrangements than we have at the present time for such women. They need someone who can see, during the early weeks when they first come out of prison, that they are helped to readjust by close contact. That system would not be anything like as expensive. We would need an increase in the probation service. However, it would not cost anything like the money we spend on prisons and on women who return to gaol, as a large number of them do.
268
Reference has been made to psychiatric cases. The days are past when people think that any woman who has offended must be a psychiatric case. That is of course not true. However, it is true that there are women who are psychiatric cases either because they were psychiatric cases before they offended or, as appears to be the case, because some women react to imprisonment differently from the way in which men react. It is said that men externalise their anger and violence and that women tend to internalise such feelings. That is a generalisation. But it is an opinion which is widely held.
Surely prison is not the place for genuine psychiatric cases. Why have we not developed secure units in hospitals? I have discussed that matter with senior members of the nursing profession who say to me, "We need resources to build secure units and it is taxing on the staff, but it could be done". If hospitals were given resources to build secure units within the hospital and if they had adequate staffing, I suggest that they should not then have the right to refuse to take such women. I know that the medical profession may not like that suggestion. When I made the suggestion to the governor of Holloway Prison concerning one particular case, and remarked that she was surely a medical case, he said, "Of course. I tell the courts that such a woman should not be here, but they say to me that there is nowhere else that she can go because hospitals can refuse to take her but prisons cannot".
Surely that is wrong. If we had secure units in hospitals, why should the medical profession have the right to refuse to take such cases? The National Health Service is a national service, just as the Prison Service is a national service. Given the proper resources that surely is the right way to deal with it.
If we could deal with the people on remand and have much better after-care services, and deal with psychiatric cases through secure units in hospitals rather than retaining them in prisons—and admittedly this will take longer—it would make a sizeable cut in the total female prison population. None of this is too difficult to do. We can all see how it can be done.
Finally, for those who are not violent—and the great majority of women offenders are not violent but just an intolerable nuisance—surely better organised, rigorous and vigorous community service is what is required rather than prison. Here again if we gave our minds to it, it could surely be done.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence. It was only yesterday evening that someone thought fit to suggest that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary might take part in this debate. As noble Lords will know, we have been somewhat unusually busy in the Appellate Committee over the past day or two, including today.
I suppose that a speech from a Lord of Appeal is thought to be relevant becaue he at least has probably been one who has contributed in the past to the prison population. I hasten to say that in my appellate capacity in the Court of Appeal I have also removed those who have been sent to prison. It is not a one-way traffic. When addressing sentencing conferences of

269
circuit judges I have urged upon them the appalling difficulties of the present position. I was stimulated into breaking the ice and taking part when I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, a fellow bencher of mine and granted silk in the same year, would be taking part in the debate. I know his particular affection for the judiciary and I wondered what he might have in store for us.
I was very anxious—and I think the anxiety was unnecessary—that someone should be present to repel any suggestion that the judiciary is not deeply conscious of the present position. If I may go back to the judical career of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, about 25 years ago, I remember it well because he was the recorder of Devizes and I was the recorder of Swindon.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Bath.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I always noticed that he fixed his sessions immediately after I had held mine so that there was no work left for him to do and he could return to his highly lucrative practice. Even among the few cases with which he was prepared to deal I am sure he will accept that the sentences that he and I imposed in our capacity as recorders for burglary, theft, dishonesty and fraud were considerably higher than they are today.
The reason for that is simple. Twenty-five years ago we were told by the experts, the penologists, that there was a high reformative content in the prison existence and that people should not go in for short sentences as the opportunity for this reform would be denied to them. I remember the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, addressing a number of recorders and impressing upon them the dangers of undersentencing. That was factor one. Factor two was that the prisons were not then as appallingly overcrowded as they are now. In the past decade the misconceptions of the criminologist have been thrust to one side and we know that the reformative content of prison is minuscule. Secondly, we are aware of the appalling dangers of the present overcrowded system.
Perhaps I may indicate how this has been reflected. The Lord Chief Justice, who has recently left your Lordships' House, said in 1980 in the case of Regina v. Bibi:
"This case opens up wider horizons because it is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure, if an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, that the sentence is as short as possible, consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal.
Many offenders can be dealt with equally justly and effectively by a sentence of six or nine months' imprisonment as by one of 18 months or three years. We have in mind not only the obvious case of the first offender for whom any prison sentence however short may be an adequate punishment and deterrent, but other types of case as well.
The less serious types of factory or shopbreaking; the minor cases of sexual indecency; the more petty frauds where small amounts of money are involved; the fringe participants in more serious crime: all these are examples of cases where the shorter sentence would be appropriate".
The final excerpt from that judgment to which I would invite attention is this:
"What the court can and should do is to ask itself whether there
270
is any compelling reason why a short sentence should not be passed. We are not aiming at uniformity of sentence; that would be impossible. We are aiming at uniformity of approach".
That case has been constantly referred to and is before every sentencing conference that takes place with new judges.
I referred to the position of those who break trust. Another case in 1985 called Barrick was the subject matter, again, of guidelines from the Court of Appeal on this very subject. The Lord Chief Justice said:
"It was not long ago that this type of offender"—
in relation to an offence involving fraud by an accountant, a solicitor, a bank employee or a postman—
"might expect to receive a term of imprisonment of three or four years, and indeed a great deal more if the sums involved were substantial. More recently, however, the sentencing climate in this area has changed.".
The Lord Chief Justice went on to deal with the various categories of case. He said this:
"In general a term of immediate imprisonment is inevitable, save in very exceptional circumstances or where the amount of money obtained is small.".
The Lord Chief Justice then dealt with various categories. He went on to say:
"Where the amounts involved cannot be described as small but are less than £10,000 or thereabouts, terms of imprisonment ranging from the very short up to about eighteen months are appropriate.".
That is quite startling if one compared the position ten years previously. It has had this effect. It has resulted in sentences for theft between 1979 and 1985 coming down significantly. In 1979 the average sentence was 12.7 months. It was down to 10 months in 1985. For burglary it was 18.2 months; down to 15 months now. All indictable offences: average 18.6 months; down to 16.6 months. So the first point I am anxious to make is that there is no question of the judiciary being other than deeply conscious of the situation which exists now and anxious to try to assist in its alleviation.
One does not need to go far to find the reason for the increase in the prison population. First, it has gone up very significantly so far as concerns the Crown Court. In 1982, 80,700 persons were sentenced. Three years later that number had increased to 89,085. Of those, 50 per cent. do not receive an immediate sentence of imprisonment. That, again, is very significant because it is only the more serious offences that come to the Crown Court.
Secondly, there has been an increase in drug offences. I imagine that all your Lordships approve of the policy of stiff sentences for those particular offences. Thirdly, the parole restrictions on sentences of five years and more in certain categories have had the inevitable result of more people staying for a long time in prison.
The overcrowding is in the local prisons. Dr. Thomas, the penologist at Cambridge on whose works many of us relied when we were sentencing and on which those who are sentencing still rely, having made a study of this subject, concluded that the overcrowding in the local prisons is due in the majority of cases to young offenders; that is, under 29 year-old recidivist burglars. For those who say that there should be fewer sentences of imprisonment I think the judiciary is entitled to ask: in the course of our

271
obligation to protect the public what exactly are we expected to do with them? Sixty per cent. of young male offenders have at least three previous convictions. Sixty per cent. of the adult male prison population has at least six previous convictions. That is the sort of situation which we have to deal with and against which the public are entitled to receive protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to executive manoeuvres. They exist. Let me tell your Lordships of one. Of all sentences between nine months and 18 months, and indeed two years, where there has been time spent on remand nearly 80 per cent. of prisoners are let out after six months. That is a disquieting fact to some members of the public. The suggestion that the judiciary must be asked to co-operate with executive manoeuvres is clearly one which can receive an optimistic answer. Judges go on conscientiously and with anxiety asking themselves, "Do I send this person away for nine months, 15 months, 21 months or two years knowing full well that it will not make a half-penny worth of difference because he will be out after six months?" It is suggested that there will be an improvement with a lower maximum. It is rare indeed that the maximum is used. When it is, it is usually with the full support of the public.
I have trespassed on your Lordships' time and I am conscious of that fact, but since you have all said it was high time that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary spoke I plead that immediately in mitigation. I really arrived here to repel an attack which I am delighted to say was never made.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for his speech even though he sentenced us to 13 minutes. It was very well worth it. He made a point which is absolutely right. The problem that has arisen in our prisons and the deterioration of them is due to the increase in crime.
Although we find it reprehensible that there are more of our citizenry in prison, on a proportionate basis, than in any other country in Western Europe, to put the matter in its correct perspective, it is right to say that there are as many people in prison in the state of New York this evening as there are in the whole of England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice said that judges and magistrates should not send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not believe that they do send them to prison unless they consider it absolutely necessary.
It so happens that I find myself in agreement with every speech that has been made this evening. That is very difficult. I do not want to follow any of them. I suggest however that we need basically to re-think the general efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of our present prison system. Are we really getting value for money? Are our thoughts about this whole matter conditioned by the stern Victorian prison and the ethic that it served in its way? After all, the Victorians had a penal policy. Are we now conditioned by that inheritance? Is it not time that we thought in different terms?
272
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly pointed out that the greatest single problem in the prison population at the moment is the 60 per cent. burglary recidivists—youngsters under the age of 29. What is the best way of dealing with them? I suggest that we turn our backs on the old concept of the stern Victorian prison and think in terms of prison camps. We are told these days that land is no longer absolutely essential for agriculture, as it once was. We are told that there is a great need to improve our environment. We believe, I think rightly, that one of the great problems in local prisons, where there are these large populations, is that the prisoners are kept in idleness. Nothing is worse for the hope of eventual reform, or changing a person's attitude and bringing him back to the path of the observance of the law, than is idleness. The real criticism of the British prison system is that it makes it very difficult indeed for a person who has been in prison to return to the life of a law-abiding citizen. That is because of conditions in the prisons and the difficulties of aftercare, and so on.
There is great scope for new thinking. Why should we not have much cheaper edifices built in the countryside, not far from the centres of crime? Why should we not have prison camps for the under-29 recidivists who are not regarded as dangerous and some of whom are in need of training? Why should we not have prison camps for those offenders in need of training? Why should we not have prison camps for those many offenders who need treatment? Why should we not have them for high security prisoners of a certain category. Modern electronic devices would enable such camps to be as secure as many of our top security prisons. They would not perhaps be suitable for all prisoners because we must have regard to the fact that there is internationally organised crime with a great deal of money behind it. All I suggest is that there is scope for a great deal of re-thinking in this matter.
We cannot go on stuffing prisoners into local prisons. They are often recidivists and the judges or magistrates do not know what on earth to do with them. Judges sentence them for as short a sentence as they can, knowing perfectly well that they will probably end up in a local prison. But what else can they do? Is it not time that we rethought this whole matter?
In suggesting prison camps, one of the problems is that people who were involved in the last war immediately think of concentration camps. Others would think of holiday camps. People think of Russian prison camps. In fact we should think of an environment in the open air where prisoners can be kept at work for at least eight hours of the day. They would be in a different kind of environment. Nobody knows better than the Minister all the in-built problems that exist within the prison service today. They will never be resolved within the confines of the old Victorian prisons.
Many of the problems in our prisons could be solved if one took a different kind of approach. I am certain of only one thing; that the prison population of this country will not fall. We have to find different ways of dealing with it. Even if we take every single step that has been advocated here this evening—and I agree with all of them, including executive release—the problem will only be solved temporarily.

273
We seem to be following the example of the United States in many areas. With the kind of society that we have today, we must look to the United States for an idea of where that society will take us. I think, regrettably, it will take us in the direction of much fuller prisons than we have today.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like other speakers, I should like to begin my contribution by offering the warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, not only for having initiated this debate but also for the comprehensive and excellent way in which he dealt with the subject. The noble Lord tackled the problems in a very fair and humane way.
Anyone who has waited for as long as I have in the queue to speak must find himself bound to echo my sentiments when I say that I have been deeply moved as well as heartened by the depth of knowledge and experience that has come from every single speaker in the debate. Everyone has had a significant contribution to make. I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know that everyone has taken the opportunity offered by this debate very seriously indeed. At the end of the day we want the Minister to indicate that he too takes it seriously.
I want to declare two interests. First, I represent in Parliament the interests of the Prison Officers Association. As part of my credentials may I say that in the past 12 months I have visited prisons at Bexhill, Bristol, Maidstone, Lindholme, Bedford, and Wakefield as well as the Maze and Magilligan in Northern Ireland. I am therefore not unfamiliar with the conditions in prisons although I am not an expert on them. Like everyone else I must rely on reports from a range of people and acquaintances in this House. in the prison service and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also made that point.
Reference has been made to the article by the Minister. I want only to say that I believe that it was truthful but, just like another gentleman we know, I think that he was being somewhat economical with the truth. He did not complete the picture that he was drawing. I want the Minister to be open and frank with the public. Conditions in prisons are not related simply to one side of an argument which rests upon the description of prison staff as the greedy, grasping, overtime-happy prison officers that they have often been called.
We have heard tonight some very relevant remarks about the other side of our prisons. It must be understood that the living conditions of prisoners are the working conditions of prison officers. There have been appalling, disgraceful, and I think the House will agree, shameful episodes. No one attaches blame to any one particular cause. We hope to get out of this situation. The Minister ought to tell it as it is. He ought to remind the public of the conditions that exist in our prisons.
A document has been sent to me by the Howard League for Penal Reform and I should like some of its observations to be put on the record. Perhaps they can also be given publicity in other ways. Recently the Chief Inspector of Prisons is reported as saying:
274
"When the time for slopping out comes the prisoners queue up with their pots for the few toilets on the landing. The stench of urine and excrement pervades the prison. So awful is this procedure that many prisoners become constipated—others prefer to use their pants, hurling them and their contents out of the window when morning comes".
In its report last year the Social Services Committee remarked:
"We are astonished that there are not regular outbreaks of disease in prisons".
We know that such conditions exist. I think that it is time for the Minister to be prepared not merely to acknowledge them but to tell the public that such are the conditions under which prisoners are serving their sentences.
Much has been said about the harm that is done to men and women by living two and three in a cell rather than in three cells. What I meant to say was rather than each living in one cell. That was a cell out! The point needs to be made that, in general, prison officers take the view that many of the problems are being marginalised. It is not that they are not taken seriously but that they are not given the highest priority. A high degree of priority is given to such schemes as Fresh Start, but I shall not discuss that tonight. Too little attention is paid to tackling the underlying problems. I have heard more than one noble Lord say that until problems such as those that have been paraded before the House tonight are tackled vigorously, other problems will remain even more difficult to deal with.
I should like to tell the House some of the solutions that have been put forward by the prison officers. I quote from evidence that has recently been given to the Select Committee:
"The first and perhaps the most important initiative we would suggest is that steps should now be taken to substantially reduce the prison population. There are without doubt many people within our prisons for whom such sentences are unnecessary—minor offenders who, at worst, are only of nuisance value to our society. Fine defaulters, civil prisoners, prostitutes, shoplifters, etcetera, could effectively be dealt with by the imposition of non-custodial sentences. That measure alone would provide enormous relief to the system… There are a number of other aspects of our prison system which give us cause for serious concern. Our experience illustrates clearly that young offenders must, where at all humanely possible, he isolated from the undesirable influences of' mature adult offenders. In order to achieve this situation we would recommend the immediate cessation of the detention centre system. Detention centres have now become an ineffective and under-used (by the courts) part of the prison system. The 'short, sharp shock' regime has been proven to be a dismal failure; it has little or no effect".
Time is pressing and there is a lot that I wanted to say.
May I just refer to the recent report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I was struck by the amazing number of problems that he came across in eight prisons owing to the wrong use of staff; that is, staff who should be used for certain duties having to undertake other duties.
Paragraph 2.02 states:
"Local factors also affected the quality of life of prisoners. For instance, in a number of the establishments we inspected the arrangements made for the supervision of workshops and education classes were such that a diversion of discipline officers from the classrooms or workshops to other duties inevitably resulted in prisoners being locked away in their cells".
In paragraph 2.08, he adds:
"At Lincoln, a modern and well-equipped three-storey workshop, capable of employing over 200 prisoners, was operating on average for a mere eight hours a week, primarily because of a shortage of disciplinary officers to supervise inmates".

275
Paragraph 2.11 goes on:
"Overall, however, work opportunities for prisoners were poor … partly because the workshops themselves were not kept open, or were only kept open for reduced periods, when discipline officers were called away to other duties".
At paragraph 2.15—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I have to reply to the debate at 17 minutes past eight at the very latest, and there are four more speakers.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was under the impression that I had taken less time than others but in deference to the Minister I shall sit down now.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, there have been two references to Winston Churchill during the debate. I venture to quote him again. When he was Home Secretary and was addressing those responsible for law and order, he urged them to remember that there was treasure, if only they could find it, at the heart of every man. I refer to that for no reason other than that it focuses on the different climate in which we work in this context today.
I have been asked to speak, and I shall do so briefly, upon the Scottish dimension of the problem. The Scottish dimension is in almost all respects about twice as bad as that of England and Wales. I am disappointed that the Minister's colleague from the Scottish Office has left the Chamber, but no doubt what is said in this context will be passed to him.
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. But it is past time for talking, is it not? We know that the situation is explosive. We know that it is scandalous. All that has been said this afternoon. No one has denied it. There are too many people in prison who should not be there. No one denies that. The situation is about twice as bad in Scotland as it is elsewhere. It is explosive. We have had some little local explosions in Scottish prisons of late. We had the unrest in Peterhead among the prisoners who took hostages. They set fire to part of the prison. Shortly afterwards, that behaviour was emulated in Barlinnie, Glasgow's enormous old barracks of a prison.
The timing of the debate is a great tribute to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. This week, prison vans taking prisoners to Barlinnie have been turned back. The prison officers are refusing to accept them. There is no room at the gaol, to the immense hilarity of course of the prisoners, who apparently cheered until it echoed. Let us think of the disruption that causes the unfortunate police who have to take Barlinnie's wretched rejects into the local police cells.
The time for talking is over. It reflects no credit on successive governments that, after all these years, it should be urgently necessary to direct attention to the problem. It has all been said so often over the years. There is no simple solution. There is no perfect solution. The problems are so intractable because for some 30 odd years governments have neglected them.
276
For too much of that time I was involved, not in prison administration but as a lawyer in various guises, in the criminal courts. At one stage, I was a civil servant trying to reform the courts through which most of the criminals in Scotland had to pass on their way to prison, in the hope, which I am afraid was rather a vain one, that a little more speed and efficiency there might help to brighten the scene.
I said that the problem was about twice as bad in Scotland as elsewhere; that is true. I was always aware of that. That was confirmed by the careful and detailed information I received today from the Scottish Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders. Because time is so short, I shall not detain your Lordships longer.
I hope that the Minister will accept the urgings of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, throw away his brief and tell us what the Government propose in order to prevent in the short term a recurrence of the little local explosions in my neck of the woods and in the mid-term their re-emergence in the years to come.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for initiating this debate and giving me a chance to say a few words about a problem that has been only touched on so far—the new disease of AIDS in prisons. I do not want to level criticism at prison officers, governors or anyone in prisons, but rather, if any criticism is justified, and I think that it is, at the Home Office and the Government behind it for not making enough resources available to deal with that dreadful new problem.
The epidemic highlights how difficult it is to take on board a new problem such as this when the prisons are already so overcrowded and overstretched. The case for doing something about it, perhaps along the lines that have already been suggested by several noble Lords, will become that much stronger if it is recognised that the fate of the rest of us depends upon what happens in prisons and, above all, what happens to drug misusers who are perhaps the most important group at risk from the disease. That is because one of the chief routes along which the virus can travel into the general population is via drug injectors who share needles.
The most crucial group is comprised of men and women who obtain the money to support their drug habit by prostitution. If they are infected they are liable to pass on the virus in that way. No one knows the exact number of drug misusers, but it is clear that it is large. The report recently published by the Parole Release Scheme, which is supported by the Home Office, points out that 3,500 people were sentenced to imprisonment in 1984 for offences involving controlled drugs. The Parole Release Scheme interviewed a number of drug dependents and found that about half were in prison for offences other than drug offences. That may suggest that the total number could easily be approaching 7,000 or going above that figure. The number of drug misusers in prison is on the increase.
That is not altogether surprising, because many of those people are addicts and without help they cannot

277
kick the habit. Unfortunately, as things are, the prisons cannot give them much help. If society cannot do better than it has been doing, not just those people will be punished; we shall all be punished for our neglect. It will not do to go on putting thousands of drug addicts into prison every year and then to toss them out again without any decent after-care. To them, prison gates are revolving gates and that constitutes a grave danger to the rest of the population.
That same report estimated that the reconviction rate among drug dependents may be over 70 per cent. The prison authorities have already done a great deal of commendable work training their staff to deal with the epidemic. There is still a gap—it is a grievous one—in what is being done for the education, re-education, treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers.
I suggest that the need is very great, a need for a determined effort to make sure that all prisoners know the facts about AIDS and can get counselling if necessary. More important, an effort is needed to set prisoners, including remand prisoners, on the road to rehabilitation in a period when they are withdrawn from drugs.
Any good work done in prisons will be nullified unless more attention is given to after-care, which means more resources, including more voluntary agencies like Narcotics Anonymous working both in and out of prisons. Unless an energetic attempt is made to rehabilitate drug users from a starting base given by the prison, I dread the consequences for the whole populaton of these islands. If we do not act, on our own heads be it—and that is certainly not meant to be a metaphor alone.
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the House will be gratified to learn that this will be one of the briefest speeches that I have made in the Chamber, given that we have over-run our time in a fairly spectacular manner.
I put on one side the issue of Crown immunity in prisons, which I told the Minister I intended to raise, and come to the second point with which I want to deal, the question of remands in police custody, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilson of Langside.
The problem began in 1981 in the course of a dispute with the Prison Officers' Association. It was then a short-term crisis. It was dealt with efficiently both by the prison department and by the chief constables of the forces concerned. It was then unavoidable. Since then, as a result of the acute overcrowding in prisons, we have witnessed the creation of what is a second prison system in this country.
We have all complained about conditions in remand prisons, and that has happened again tonight. The conditions are deplorable, but in police cells conditions are abominable. It should be remembered —my noble friend Lord Hutchinson made the point, and it is self-evident—that these men have not been convicted of any criminal offence and a significant
278
proportion of them, even if convicted, will not be sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Let me quote from the Police Review of 15th August last describing the situation in one set of police buildings in London:
"The Metropolitan Police opened up their doors to the press. It wasn't their fault that they couldn't match the facilities of remand centres. At Arbour Squre, prisoners were cooped up in twos in cells smaller than the standard prison cell. The prisoners' main complaints were that they had to defecate in the same room as their cell mate and were handcuffed together in groups of three or four, sometimes watched by police dogs, for as little as 20 minutes exercise a day".
That is wholly deplorable. What we want to know tonight is what the Government propose to do to deal with the situation.
We have in the House constantly complained to the Government about what has been going on. The present Home Secretary, I am sure wholly sincerely, has told us how concerned he is about it. That is of course exactly what his predecessor said.
Let me quote what Mr. Brittan said on 4th January 1984 when he wrote an article in The Times:
"I have repeatedly said that the practice is highly undesirable. Police cells were not built to hold such prisoners. Their use causes hardship both to the prisoners and to their visitors, especially lawyers. Valuable police resources are tied down. That is why I decided last July that the practice should cease and set the end of 1983 as a target for bringing it to an end".
He went on to say:
"by last Friday, all police cells were cleared of remand prisoners committed to prison custody by the courts. How was this achieved?"
He then made some self-congratulatory noises about the prison building programme. Mr. Brittan's promise lasted for precisely three days. Three days later the prison cells were once again being occupied by prisoners.
That was bad enough. But the situation is now getting a great deal worse. In January last year an average of 11 prisoners a night were in police custody. This January it was not 11 prisoners a night but a minimum of 67 prisoners a night. The figures ranged from 67 on 2nd January to 348 by the night of 30th January. By 10th February it was up to 362. Not only are these prisoners being held in shameful conditions but they are being deprived of proper opportunities to consult their legal advisers—a point made consistently, as the Minister will be aware, by the Law Society.
The Metropolitan Police can hold only around 260 a night; otherwise they would not be able to hold the ordinary prisoners whom they arrest in the course of an evening. As a result prisoners are being dispatched to police stations in Kent, Hertfordshire, Essex, Hampshire and Sussex. Think of the problems, not just for the prisoners and the prisoners' families, but also for the prisoners' legal advisers when they are attempting to discuss with their clients a proper criminal defence.
Many chief officers of police have expressed to the Government, in the clearest terms, their concern about the situation. I repeat that what we want from the Minister tonight is not a further expression of concern, which I am sure will be sincerely meant, but some indication that the Government will take action.

279
The situation as regards remand prisoners is wholly outrageous, and action must be taken at once to deal with it.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for introducing this vital matter and a word of apology to the House if I have to leave—I hope that I will be forgiven—immediately after concluding my speech as a result of a long-standing engagement, for which I am already late.
We have heard, and heard eloquently time and again over the years, those of us who have participated in debates on prisons, the complaints renewed tonight about prisoners on remand, a point eloquently repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. We have heard about psychiatric patients in prisons who ought to be removed to hospitals in every single debate that I can remember. We have heard about the executive action under Section 32 in nearly every debate that I can remember. We have heard in nearly every debate that I can remember about the need for bail hostels to be increased.
Thus we come to a very definite crisis point. The Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to recent reports. I could not find a more recent report than that of the Prison Reform Trust dated 24th February. It gives the figures up to last Friday. They are as follows. On Friday, 20th February there were 48,181 people in prison in England and Wales plus a further 393 untried prisoners held in police cells. The report states:
"This is the highest number on record, exceeding the previous all-time high of 48,200 which was reached in August 1985."
It goes on to say that, because all these are seasonal figures—in regard to the winter months, for some reason the figures are usually lower—we can anticipate that it will soon exceed the 50,000 barrier. The report continues:
"The population has increased by over 1,000 in the last three weeks. This is equivalent to three new prisons the size of Albany."
If we are not in a crisis now, I do not know when we expect to be.
That having been said, there is one thing that I tried to do. Another report that reached me only this afternoon is most interesting. It is an extract from a book written by Dr. David Downes, a Reader on Social Administration at the London School of Economics. He has been kind enough to send it to me, with permission to quote, provided that I say from where the quote comes, as is proper. There is a chapter in the book entitled "The Depth of Imprisonment: an Exploratory Study in England and the Netherlands."
Let me say at once that if my time is cut short I cannot think of a nicer person than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be responsible for doing so. We were all delighted to hear what he had to say.
The article deals with a comparison with which he dealt in a most detailed way between the prisons in the Netherlands and British subjects who were prisoners over there, and prisoners who were Dutch prisoners in our prisons over here. In the couple of minutes that I have at my disposal I shall deal with a matter which I regard as very pertinent. If other people have
280
overcome problems one can see how one can do so and one can always learn. I quote from this study:
"The contrast between the British and Dutch penal systems is usually drawn in terms of the length of sentences of imprisonment. The average Dutch sentence of three months or so is far shorter than the average British sentence of roughly 10 months, a difference which principally accounts for the much smaller proportionate size of the Dutch prison population relative to that of Britain."
He says furthermore in his book (at page 19 of this interesting extract):
"Another prisoner sentenced to four and a half years in prison for armed robbery"—
that is in Holland—
"thought he would have received a 15 year sentence in Britain. Estimates of the difference were roughly in the range of English prison sentences being three times as long."
This is a current analysis. In spite of all the lectures which take place, all the wishes that are expressed to the judiciary, and with the judiciary acting with the best of good faith, the fact seems to remain that our sentences in this country for comparative offences are much longer and more severe than elsewhere. We have talked about prison conditions and everything has been said about overcrowding that ought to be said. However, perhaps I may draw attention to a few other factors.
On accommodation, obviously in Holland, as one would have expected, they have a very much better system than ours from the point of view of accommodation per cell. The commitment to one-to-a-cell rule was sharply expressed in resignation terms by a senior member of staff in an Amsterdam prison. "If two go to a cell", he said, "I go." That is the attitude in Holland. Look at the accommodation we have here, my Lords. Consider what we could do to encourage prisoners not to become recidivists—and it is the recidivists again who are filling our prisons. What do they do in Holland? I learned from this book that apart from anything else they pay four times as much a week to a prisoner as we do, with the result that that prisoner is able, as a result of his work, to get necessities, including postage for his letters and tobacco. The amount that a prisoner receives in our country makes it absolutely essential that he choose between tobacco, essential toiletries or letters to his family. That is literally the case and it is brought out in this book.
What do we do to encourage our people when they are in prison to find work afterwards, and to be rehabilitated? I have been reading what they do in Holland. By way of comparison, we are far behind them. It is summed up in one sentence with which I shall conclude my remarks. In other countries—not in all other countries, but in those that we ought to be imitating—they have the maxim of prisons as punishment. We appear to have the maxim of prisons for punishment. That cannot be right.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has provided for this interesting debate on prisons. Because prisons are a closed community, with which the vast majority of the public have no contact, there is all too little public knowledge or debate about them. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord for the chance to set out for the record how the Government

281
see the future of our prisons and the conditions of those who live and work in them.
The noble Lord's personal commitment to prisons and the welfare of prisoners is of course well known to me. As president of NACRO he is closely associated with an organisation which carries out much good and practical work in this field, and I should like to pay my tribute to that organisation.
Noble Lords have had much to say about adverse conditions, overcrowding and impoverished regimes. I accept of course that these problems exist and I shall have a good deal to say about how they are being tackled. But I want today to correct the impression that the House may have that all prisons present problems of the kind described in this debate. It depresses me that so much of the criticism that is being voiced about the prison service is solely negative, often emotional, often ill-informed and in very general terms. I am sorry that some of your Lordships have followed that path today. That criticism ignores the many positive initiatives that our prisons are involved in and denigrates the good commitment of the staff, both in headquarters and in the establishments.
"Prisons are overcrowded" is an oft-repeated criticism. That is not universally true. I readily accept that some are, but well over half of our establishments are not overcrowded. Overcrowding has been with us for years. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the Labour Party, with Liberal support, had a very good opportunity to do something about it before we came to power but they blew their chance. I shall have more to say about that later on.
The training prisons and young offender establishments provide good conditions for both staff and prisoners, and positive regimes. In the short time since I have taken on this responsibility for prisons I have visited a wide range of establishments across the prison system. I can therefore speak from my own experience of some of the excellent work that is being done.
On a recent visit to Featherstone, for instance, a training prison in the Midlands which opened in 1976, I found good conditions and no overcrowding. The regime provides a full daytime and evening education programme, physical education and excellent workshop facilities, and the majority of prisoners are fully occupied. During my visit I was told that 23 per cent. of inmates on a recent light engineering vocational training course had obtained employment in this line immediately on discharge. Turning to the education side, it is to their credit that that department had one inmate who was recently awarded an Open University degree.
Noble Lords may say that this is the exception rather than the rule, but that is not so. Many other establishments have similar regimes with equally positive features, including work for the community, often for the disabled. May I cite just two further examples. At Cookham Wood, a female prison, prisoners attend a local swimming pool each week to help with swimming lessons for the disabled. And at Long Lartin, a top security prison, a group of prisoners, under the guidance of the education officer, undertake a project each year in support of a charity. Last year they produced an illustrated diary for 1987 and donated the proceeds of £2,500 from sales to a local hospice for children—all good work, my Lords.
282
There are also positive developments to report on the workshop front. It has been suggested that the rationalisation of prison workshops has led to a deterioration in regime provision. That was not the intention and it has not turned out to be so in practice. A good example of progress is at Lincoln, where three shops which were recommended for closure have been reinstated as a result of local initiative and agreement to reduce discipline cover to one workshop patrol. At Liverpool, workshop hours have been doubled in a number of shops by, among other things, the use of shift systems, and at Bristol workshop performance has improved to such an extent that better quality products and quality control to British standards are being considered.
Having tried to lighten somewhat the unrelieved gloom of the picture painted by some of your Lordships, let me return to the very real problems confronting our older prisons. Those particularly affected are the Victorian local prisons which, because most of our London prisons come into this category, are the ones which will be most familiar to the House. The problems of overcrowding, outdated facilities and limited regimes which your Lordships have so graphically described have their roots in the years of neglect by successive governments. No new prisons were built in England and Wales between 1918 and 1958, and the level of investment in refurbishment and maintenance was entirely inadequate until this Government took office.
The other major cause of the problem is the rise in the prison population. The 1985 summer surge in the population to over 48,100 which put heavy demands on the capacity of the system to cope was not repeated during the early part of 1986. Unhappily it has now climbed again and last Friday the number detained in prison establishments was again over 48,100.
Overlaying these problems, and constraining measures to tackle them, are the inefficient management systems and inflexible working practices which have for too long placed a straitjacket on progress in the prison service. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had this job he did so much to try to improve the situation. I am grateful for his support for the actions which the Government are now taking.
So, what are the Government doing about the problems we have been debating this evening? We have a strategy which is now well established for bringing about the improvement all of us with a concern for the prison service want to see in prison conditions and the way the service is run. This will be familiar ground to some of your Lordships. Nevertheless, it needs covering again because too often people speak as though the Government were taking no action at all to bring about improvements.
Before I outline in more detail the measures that are being taken I want to say a word about minimum standards. It is sometimes argued—as it has been today by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—that a code of standards would help to identify areas of need. But as I have indicated, the areas of need are well know; the problem lies in finding and implementing the solutions. The Government are not persuaded that the development of a code of minimum standards

283
would contribute to the search for improvements. It would certainly not be helpful to those establishments which, because of physical constraints on the rate at which progress can be made, would not be able to comply with some of them. It is action, not words, that is needed, and that is what we are providing.
There are, I know, many people who would put the emphasis in improving conditions entirely on reducing the number of people in prison. This is not a practicable way forward. The size of the prison population is directly determined by the remand and sentencing decisions of the criminal courts. The courts in turn have to deal with the cases which come before them; their decisions must reflect the seriousness of the offences and have regard to public feeling especially about some particularly unpleasent types of crime. The courts are rightly independent of the Government.
The noble and learned Lord, in what I thought was a brilliant speech, explained the current thinking of the judiciary and answered many of the points raised by others of your Lordships. It is entirely right for the executive to set the parameters, including non-custodial sentences, but it is up to the judiciary to decide what the right sentence is, taking into account each individual case. It is the duty of the Home Secretary to house someone who is remanded or convicted to custody when sentenced by the judiciary.
However, what the Government can do and have done so successfully is to provide the courts with a range of alternatives to custody which are suitable for all but the most serious offender so that prison places can be reserved for those from whom the public needs to be protected. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be pleased to hear that we have given the courts the best range and flexibility of non-custodial sentences in any country' in Western Europe. The Government have given high priority to expanding and strengthening alternatives for more serious offenders, particularly community service and the probation order.
Some 13 per cent. of those convicted of indictable offences now do community service or probation. We have enlarged the attendance centre system for the under-21s. We ensure that fines are pitched at a realistic level and fine enforcement is swift and effective. We have established compensation as a sentence in its own right. We are experimenting with reparation schemes. Nevertheless, we are still examining new non-custodial options, tough and demanding ones in which the courts and the public can have confidence, because we wish to increase the range further and encourage the further use of our existing ones.
It is also the Government's job to ensure that the courts are kept fully informed of the aims and availability of alternatives to custody, and their relative costs. It is vital that those who take the decisions should base them on a full appreciation of the resources involved.
A large part of the recent rise in the prison population is attributable to those awaiting trial or sentence. This group has increased by more than a third over the past five years—faster than any other. The Government are taking vigorous action to tackle
284
this aspect of the problem by encouraging the courts to grant bail wherever appropriate; increasing the resources of the Crown Court and improving the management of court business; and providing additional courtrooms and circuit judges. Also, following field trials permitted by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 we shall shortly introduce regulations applying statutory time-limits in some areas of the country governing the periods during which people awaiting trial may be held in custody. It is our intention to extend the scheme across the country.
Turning to the prison building programme, this Government have reversed the decline of the earlier part of this century by establishing a programme for building 20 new prisons. Three of these opened in 1985 along with RAF Lindholme, which was converted and brought into use to cope with the 1985 population surge. These new prisons, together with 17 more which are being built or planned, should provide a further 10,600 places by 1995. These will be places with integral sanitation in prisons offering a full range of facilities. A major refurbishment programme is under way to provide another 6,600 extra places—a total of 17,200 new places in all. Priority is being given in the refurbishment schemes to improving access to sanitation. By the end of 1990 some 28,000 prison places will have access to sanitation.
This Government have made a similar investment of other resources in the prison service. Between 1979 and 1986 the annual average number of prison officers has risen by nearly 20 per cent. while the annual average inmate population has risen by less than 11 per cent. Over the same period expenditure on the service rose by a third in real terms and is set to carry on rising. This compares with an increase of only 12 per cent. in real terms under the previous administration, and a cut under that administration of 35 per cent. in real terms in expenditure on prison building. That is where the Labour Government, with Liberal support, blew it.
No one can doubt the Government's determination to devote the resources and manpower necessary to improve the prison service. Another essential ingredient in our programme, without which the looked-for improvements will not materialise as expected, is the package of proposals known as A Fresh Start. They are the latest, most far-reaching and significant measures for improving efficiency and securing the best value for the greatest ever amount of money being spent on the service.
Some of your Lordships are already aware of the details of the proposals. I do not have time to go into them today except to say that they involve changes in pay, complementing and working arrangements for prison officers. The aim is to allow staff to be deployed more flexibly and to better effect, thus freeing valuable manpower to pursue improvements in regime standards for prisoners.
Before leaving the subject of A Fresh Start I should like to welcome the POA's national executive committee's decision to allow its members to participate in the development stages of A Fresh Start. As a result they can fully appreciate the benefits of the proposals we are offering.

285
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned the number of people who were being held two or three to a cell. The number being held three to a cell is at the moment less than it was in 1976. Naturally, some of them have been moved and are being held two to a cell, which we believe is a better option than having them three to a cell. However, that does not solve the problem of overcrowding, which we are tackling by other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked about the percentage of those remanded in custody who receive non-custodial disposals, and he gave some figures. About 70 per cent. of those remanded in custody and whose cases are disposed of by the Crown Courts receive custodial sentences. That proves—although they are not held for some of the time in conditions which we would like—what difficult decisions the judiciary must make when remanding someone to custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that it is all the fault of an increase in crime. If the noble Lord has looked at the facts, he must know that the annual increase in crime has not changed much since 1950. He cannot suddenly blame it on an upsurge in crime now. The figures in this country are comparable to the rest of Europe. Let us just pause a moment to consider Europe. There has been that often quoted and very misleading statement that we sentence more of our population to prison than any other country in Western Europe. That is utter rubbish, whether it be the total prison population or the detention rate per 100,000. We do not sentence more than any other country in Western Europe, let alone the EC.
Let us also compare our growth in prison population with that of Europe. There are only three countries in the EC whose population from 1st February 1983 to 1st February 1986 actually grew at a slower rate than ours. That of Holland—a well quoted example—grew by 24 per cent., whereas in England and Wales it grew by only 5 per cent. in that period. The building programme in Holland proportionately is much greater than the vast building programme that we have in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also asked about prisons in the countryside: why do we not turn agricultural land into prisons? A great number of complaints 1 have received from penal organisations around the country say, "Do not build any more prisons in the countryside because of the difficulties in visiting, particularly for the remand people. You must build prisons in town centres which are close to courts, and that will save all the problems with escort duties". I am afraid we have a conflict of opinion on that front.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked whether governors should not have a chance to write a valedictory report when they left. We would welcome that. It is an excellent idea. Some already do that and they are not slow to let us know their views. Some have joined voluntary organisations to very good effect. We would encourage that, because when we have a difficult situation in certain areas of the service we welcome constructive comments.
As for the TUC Women's Conference, it would be premature for me to comment on a comprehensive document containing some 52 recommendations, if I
286
remember rightly, before there has been a chance to debate it over the next couple of weeks. I am sure that it will be brought to my attention, and I shall give it the utmost consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned bail hostels. The department has no evidence of serious difficulties in finding places for existing bailees. We do this a lot of the time in co-operation with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation where necessary, and we are extending a number of hostels. I should like to consider the point further, because if it can help to relieve the situation so much the better. The probation services in various parts of the country is currently experimenting with court-based schemes which it is hoped will reduce the remand population. The effect of the scheme is to raise the courts' awareness of bail accommodation. That just illustrates how important it is to keep the judiciary informed of all the various alternatives. The noble Baroness mentioned, as did several of your Lordships, after-care, but I do not think I have time within the remit of this debate to go into that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned detention centres. The few that I have managed to go to so far I have found very impressive. They have very good regimes and particularly good training and educational programmes. I remember going to one at Usk where a class was being taught and those present did not have a clue how to speak English when they came in. The prison service is providing a great educational service, and it is sad to see a lot of the detention centres not being fully utilised. The noble Lord will know that we are taking certain steps within the Criminal Justice Bill to try to get detention centres used more.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised what has unfortunately become the annual problem of prisoners in police cells. I share his concern. A lot of the problem is because we were short of prisons when we came to power. The rising trend was there to be seen and he must regret, as much as we regret, that more money was not spent on prison building in his day, which would have helped to solve the problem.
What are we doing about it? One of the important things we can do is to optimise the use of the existing prisoner state, where necessary, by changing the functions of establishments to match functions which have occurred and which are projected to occur in the nature of the prison population. I found the rigidity of our prisons one of the difficulties; I should like to see them much more flexible. This is one area in our new and refurbishment schemes where we are concentrating on trying to make sure that they are implemented as soon as possible to be of maximum benefit to the remand population.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, went fairly wide on pure prisons when talking about AIDS and drug misusers. From what I have heard all round the service, a great compliment must be paid to Dr. Kilgour, who is head of the Prison Medical Service, for the enormous improvements and the enormous trouble it has gone to to inform prisoners and staff alike of the consequences of AIDS and drug misuse. We realise that there are problems in some areas of the prison service, but by no means all.

287
I hope that it is clear from what I have said so far that the Government see the strategy I have outlined as a means to an end. That end is the provision of an improved regime for prisoners, a more satisfying role for prison officers and better conditions for both.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is lucky that I have no more than a minute and a half to reply becaue I feel almost speechless at the reply that the noble Earl has given. He knows that I respect and like him, but, quite honestly, nobody in the prison service hearing his speech would recognise what he was talking about.
Of course there are good prisons. We all know that. We are not talking about them. I acknowledged them to start with. I said that above all things I am not attacking the Government. Other governments have done just as badly. The noble Earl has simply defended himself in a way which is almost unnecessary—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe): My Lords, I must now ask the noble Lord whether he wishes to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The answer is that I do. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Employment Guarantee Bill [H.L.]
8.37 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Long-term unemployment—that is to say, unemployment of more than one year—is at an unprecedented scale in our society. It is much higher both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the labour force than it was between the two world wars. For example, in 1933 long-term unemployment was approximately half a million. It was equal to 3·3 per cent. of the labour force. In 1986 it was more than one and a quarter million and it is 4·9 per cent. of the labour force. That is the problem we have to face—not unemployment as a whole, but long-term unemployment. That is what causes both the poverty and the demoralisation. Detachment of so many people from the daily discipline of having to go to work and receiving an income at the end of the week inevitably has far-reaching effects, both social and economic. When a worker is unemployed in the first place he has some clothes in the wardrobe, some food in the pantry; he has some savings, he has a tax refund, he gets some redundancy pay and he gets unemployment benefit.
However, in due course that all disappears, the clothes get worn, the foodstock, savings and redundancy money are depleted. There are no more tax refunds and unemployment benefit is withdrawn after a year. Many people are dependent upon the Social Security benefit that they receive. It is long term unemployment which is causing the severe poverty that we are experiencing.
288
Unemployment also has a severe effect of demoralisation. The first effect of unemployment is boredom, but in time that boredom becomes increasingly burdensome. The unemployed person thinks that it is his own personal failure and begins to lose his self-respect. He loses the self-discipline which is associated with going to work every day. In some cases there is an erosion of the skills which he used in his work. His own health and the health of his family is affected. He finds it increasingly difficult to get work because money is needed for stationery and postage for job applications, and the fares to go for an interview and also to be decently dressed for that interview. If someone has been unemployed for years then he probably does not have that money.
Unfortunately, the employer is prejudiced, and one can understand this. Employers feel that a person who has been unemployed for so long must be inadequate, or may have lost the discipline of work, and is more likely to have had an erosion of skills. Employers feel that taking him on involves an additional unnecessary risk. Employers have plenty of risks without taking on any more with their eyes wide open. Consequently, the long term unemployed have fewer and fewer interviews for employment and then begin to lose hope.
It is very easy to get into long term unemployment if you are made redundant at the same time as many other people, as occurred for example, in 1980–82. When many people are made redundant at the same time and the upturn comes very slowly, then there is a far greater likelihood of becoming long term unemployed than if you had been made redundant at some other time. It is easy to glide into long term unemployment, but very difficult to get out of that situation because of the natural prejudice of the employer. My Lords, help is needed. The long term unemployed have to be helped if there is to be any future for our country. If no help is given, then it is upon our heads because there will be serious economic and social repercussions.
In January 1986, a little more than a year ago, the House of Commons Employment Committee reported that the case for special provisions for the long term unemployed was completely unanswerable. They set forth recommendations that there should be a job guarantee scheme. They outlined the scheme that they recommended. Since that time the Employment Institute have published a pamphlet by Richard Jackman and others, spelling out in detail the problem of the long term unemployed, and putting forward remedies. In that latter document there is an account of the way in which Sweden have guaranteed employment for some years. In Sweden the unemployment benefit is roughly about 80 per cent. of earnings and is payable for 10 months. Before the period of benefit expires, the labour marketing board contacts the recipient of the benefit and interviews him with a view to offering him either training or a job. He is guaranteed either training or a job. If he completely refuses training or a job then he loses his benefit, but not the benefit for his dependants.
I may be criticised, but I can see nothing wrong in that provided that the job which is offered is a suitable one and is paid at the usual rate. If the recipient is of the opinion that it is not a suitable job, there should be

289
proper machinery for him to appeal. Provided there is such machinery for appeal, I can see nothing wrong in stopping the recipient's benefit if he refuses both the training or a job. In Sweden employment is guaranteed largely in three ways. The labour marketing board uses local authorities and other public bodies. They are asked to suggest suitable jobs which need to be done. In so far as that public body employs long term unemployed nominated by the marketing board, then the labour marketing board pays 75 per cent. of the wages for six months. In the case of private employers, the board pays 50 per cent. of the wages for six months. For those who need and are offered training the recipient receives full employment benefit which, in Sweden, is 80 per cent. of earnings or thereabouts. In that way there is guaranteed employment. For example, in 1984 unemployment in Sweden was recorded as 3 per cent., but they had 5 per cent. in special schemes, as I have explained, because they had guaranteed employment rather than guaranteed benefit.
I suggest that we should have a similar scheme. Noble Lords who are interested should look at the House of Commons Employment Committee report where the scheme is outlined. Richard Jackman's pamphlet published by the Employment Institute gives a further scheme in much greater detail. For my part, I should adopt a very simple scheme. I would finance the Manpower Services Commission and expect it to guarantee the employment. It would say to public bodies, "If you employ long term unemployed such as we recommend to you then we will pay the whole of the wages to that individual for one year".
The kind of schemes that I would look for are these. Where there is the least unemployment, where there are new jobs available, I want to see hostels built so that workers from other areas can come and spend a little time in the hostel while they find a job. I want to see flats built. When a worker and his family have a job and cannot buy a new house because the amount they have received for their old house is so small, I want to see them get a flat which they can have for a couple of years until they find their feet and can get a place of their own in their new place of abode.
I want to see those authorities which are paying out huge sums for bed and breakfast accommodation to their citizens who are without homes build suitable hostels using the long-term unemployed to build them. I would expect the Manpower Services Commission to pay the whole wages for one year of such of the long-term unemployed as were used for that purpose. The cost of materials and the cost of supervision I would leave with the public body as its expense.
In the examples I have given the charge would be to the housing account. For example, at the present time we are told by the Audit Commission that 85 per cent. of local authority housing is in need of repair. There is a job for the long-term unemployed. It is calculated that for every seven workers who would be employed in that kind of job, five could be from the long-term unemployed.
The local authority would only have to find the supervision and the materials. The wages of the long-term unemployed would be paid for by the Manpower Services Commission. I would expect the same with
290
schools. Where the local authority has schools that need repair, it should set about repairing them and the Manpower Services Commission should pay the wages of the long-term unemployed who are used for that purpose.
I would expect the same with the health authority where there were hospital repairs to be done or even hospitals to be built. I would also expect health authorities which because of lack of money cannot employ sufficient orderlies, cleaners, catering staff or laundry staff, to go to the Manpower Services Commission to get the labour from the long-term unemployed, and the Manpower Services Commission should pay the full wage for one year. I would hope that the training would be such that many of them could be absorbed to take the place of the usual wastage that we get.
I would expect the same with the water authorities and the highway authorities. Let them find the jobs, and let the Manpower Services Commission pay the wages of the long-term unemployed for one year. By doing that you are bringing the long-term unemployed back into the labour market. So long as they are long-term unemployed and are outside the labour market, the employers are not interested in them. But by bringing them back into the labour market by giving them work for one year, they increase competition within the market, and consequently, if anything, it is anti-inflationary and not inflationary. I would expect the private employer to be subsidised to the extent of £40 a week, or £2,000 a year, which was recommended by the House of Commons Employment Committee.
Now let us look at the cost. Assuming that we have to get 750,000 re-employed in a year, which is the number generally agreed as being necessary, I would take 400,000 to be drafted into the public service—the local authorities, health authorities and so on. I would expect them to be paid the rate for the job. The rate for the job I would estimate to be about £120 a week or £6,000 a year. That cost would be £2·4 billion.
If the other 350,000 were in private employment and the private employer was subsidised at the rate of £2,000 a head a year, that would be £0·7 billion, so the total gross cost would be £3·1 billion. But there would be enormous savings in benefits. Seven hundred and fifty thousand people who had been receiving benefit would no longer receive it. If the whole range of benefits, including housing benefit, were no longer payable and were equal to £3,000 per head a year, that would give a saving of £2·25 billion. There would be a tax flow-back. Not merely tax but also national health contributions would be paid which had not previously been paid, and that would amount to £0·75 billion. The savings and the tax flow-back would amount to £3 billion against a gross cost of £3·1 billion. That means that the net cost would be £100 million per annum. To save us from the problems that we are going to have if we allow this long-term unemployment to continue, that is a cheap price.
I speak from personal experience. I have a relative who through no fault of her own was thrown out of work in the 1982 depression. She was fully trained, but because public bodies were taking on less staff she was unable to find work except temporary work. After a

291
year or two of unemployment she applied for a job for one year that was financed by the Manpower Services Commission. It was a job for the local authority but financed by the Manpower Services Commission, which paid the wages.
She did that job for a year. Unfortunately it was a one-off job, but within a matter of weeks, because she had come back into the labour market and was no longer in long-term unemployment, she was in good employment. After doing one year probationary service in that new employment she was confirmed in it and congratulated on the way she had learnt the job. There is an example of what the Minister did, and I want him to do the same on a much bigger scale than he has in the past. I also want him to pay the rate for the job.
I come now to the Bill itself. There are two substantive clauses. Clause 1(1) says:
"The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument require the Manpower Services Commission … to arrange that an offer of suitable employment be made by an employer",
to those who have been out of work during the relevant period and are available for employment and make application in the prescribed form.
The second subsection says:
"The relevant period is three years … The Secretary of State shall consult regularly with the Commission with a view to reducing at the earliest opportunity the relevant period".
The idea is that he will gradually reduce it to two years and then to one year, so that it covers all the long-term unemployed.
The second substantive clause says that the Secretary of State will make a report to Parliament annually. This is a problem we have to face up to. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jacques.)
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to give general support to the Bill the Second Reading of which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the terms of which are in many ways in line with proposals which have been put forward by the Alliance parties.
The reason I support the Bill is that we have to face the fact that actually there is not one unemployment problem in this country, but two. First, there is the problem of the very large number of people who enter the pool of unemployment but who move out again in a relatively short time. It may be two months, three months or four months. It is a disagreeable experience. It is wasteful, but it is not disastrous or tragic. That of course represents the great mass of the unemployed and we sometimes forget that a very large number of people, even when unemployment is at its worst, are in fact getting jobs. As is frequently pointed out to us here, there is reason to suppose that the position may be improving at the present time. One very much hopes that it will continue to improve.
But those people are quite different from the long-term unemployed; and the serious unemployment
292
problem in this country is undoubtedly that of the long-term unemployed. That represents a quite different type of problem from that concerning those people who move into the pool and then move out again in relatively short periods. Among the long-term unemployed there are again two quite different groups—each very important in its own way but quite different in the problems it presents and each needing to be tackled as a matter of considerable urgency.
First, there are those under 25. As we know, the people between 18 and 25 have really carried the brunt of unemployment in terms of percentages. There is still something of a legion of the lost between the ages of about 19 and 25—the people who were too old to have taken part in the Youth Training Scheme and so get the advantages offered, and who now, having got beyond that age, increase very rapidly the numbers of unemployed in that age group.
They are of course a particularly serious and threatening group because unless they are either got into training or employment fairly soon the chances of their having any kind of a satisfactory working life are pretty dim. Something is being done—and we must be glad of that—by means of the job training scheme, which is particularly geared to deal with this group. It is a beginning but it is a very small beginning. It reflects the fact that the problem is being recognised, but I would suggest that it is not being dealt with, as yet, on the scale which is necessary.
The other group who make up a large number of the long-term unemployed are of course the people over the age of about 50, who have very little in the way of skills or competences to sell in the labour market and who, once they have lost a job, have very little chance of getting back into employment.
These two groups in their different ways present very serious challenges to all the rest of us in human, social and economic terms. In human terms, the kind of additional problems experienced by people suffering from long-term unemployment are familiar to the House but they should not be minimised. We have to remember the problems they face. Inevitably young men under the age of 25, with nothing whatsoever to do and very little money to spend, are liable to get into trouble and to cause society trouble. They probably add to the groups of people who fill the prisons, as we have heard in the previous debate. It is almost inevitable (is it not?) that if you have large numbers of young men—and young women too: but this affects young men more—in that position they are going to find something to do. and that is not likely to be very satisfactory to society.
So far as concerns older people, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, we know the kinds of consequences that flow from long-term unemployment. Your Lordships may recall a study that was done, which showed tragically that these people were those who in a way were life's non-survivors in many different spheres. They were the people who had never acquired skills; they were the people who had not done much at school; they had never taken any training; their health record was below standard or below average; and, sadly, they were also people who were to a disproportionate extent living alone and whose personal relationships had been less successful than those of most people.

293
So you have this group of people with very little hope and very few resources. They present a problem in human terms and in social terms. I am sure that nobody in this House would wish to ignore them. I do not pretend for one moment that it is easy to deal with them, but I think we would all agree that the situation is serious.
In economic terms, I should like to pick up a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and which in fact has been highlighted by the London Business School report either earlier this week or at the end of last week. It is a point which has been made by other people too: that in reality the long-term unemployed are not in the labour market. They do not compete for jobs. When it is asked why unemployment has not had the effect of controlling wage increases the answer seems to be that a considerable number of the unemployed simply are not in the labour market and therefore the normal market forces are not working in having the effect of restricting the power of labour to push up wages.
These people—they are a considerable number—simply are not there applying and competing for the jobs that are available. Therefore those who are in the market competing are in a stronger position to push up pay than would otherwise he the case. If, by encouragement and training, people can be brought back into the labour market they contribute to the general market position of labour, which is very much healthier than having them excluded in the way that they are at the present time—and excluded in social terms. If we continue in this way and do not take some quite specific action to deal with the problem we shall develop this under-class of people—such a class has already developed in the United States and is developing in parts of this country—who simply do not feel that they belong to our society at all. In many ways, they have been excluded. They feel excluded; they feel that they owe nothing; and they behave as if they owe nothing. That is not a healthy state of affairs.
I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—it is the central point of this Bill—about the kind of employment that should be offered to the long-term unemployed. The MSC has already done a very considerable amount through the community programme. I would not however advocate that we extend the community programme for this purpose—for one very important reason. I am connected with the working of the community programme. I am deeply concerned, because of the no-substitution conditions which attach to the community programme and because work can only be done on the programme which would not otherwise be done, we are reaching a point at which we shall have the tidiest towpaths and the cleanest graveyards that anybody could possibly imagine, while houses badly in need of repair and school roofs that are falling in are not being attended to. I beg your Lordships not to accept the easy option of wanting to expand the community programme unless you can change the conditions under which it operates.
It is surely vital if we are to do this that, as people are brought back into effective employment, it is employment that meets real needs. I am not saying
294
that the community programme does not meet real needs but many activities are of very low priority, and there are many other things that need to be done. There are housing repairs, hostels, the sharp end of the social services—let us remember that women should be included in this as well as men—and work connected with community care on which I do not wish to expand. Those are high priority jobs. Inevitably, after a number of years of the community programme and with its extension, jobs that are not now of high priority will become lower in priority rather than higher. So, using the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would be very much better.
In passing, may I just underline the point that there are women in this category as well as men. They are often concealed because they are not drawing unemployment benefit. Many older women, in particular, never paid their contributions—because they were not permitted to—and therefore they are not eligible for benefit. This has come up in connection with the job training scheme and with the extension of the community programme. These women are genuinely looking for work but they do not rank as unemployed. Therefore, they are excluded from both the job training scheme and the community programme, because to rank as unemployed they have to be eligible for benefit.
If we continue with that restriction we shall be excluding from the labour market a number of women who really are seeking employment. We shall be excluding women who could be drawn very usefully into a number of aspects of the work which is plainly needing to be done and for which they would be well suited, if the conditions could be so laid down that it was not rigidly tied to the necessity that they should establish that they are unemployed by virtue of being eligible for benefit.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, despite 19 changes in the criteria of the unemployed since 1979 which have removed 463,000 from the register, we still have admittedly well over 3 million unemployed in this country and probably 4 million. If we compare the percentage of unemployed in this country, which the Government admit is over 11 per cent., with any of our competitors—as I have put it so often to the Secretary of State—we are top of the league of unemployment and bottom of the league of those who are employed.
Of those 4 million, we are talking tonight particularly of 1·334 million long-term unemployed. Is this not a disgrace in this country? They are the people who have been unemployed for more than a year and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has pointed out—and I shall be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with him—it will take the creation of 750,000 new jobs a year if we are to reduce the number of long-term unemployed.
Among those long-term unemployed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just pointed out, there are different groups, and I wish to mention two which seem to me to be worthy of particular attention and for whom we must take particular responsibility. In the group composed of those who are under 25 years old,

295
there are 1·333 million who are calculated to be unemployed. Those people are at the age when they are able to acquire the routine and practice of work. They may never do so because they have not had a chance at the time when they are most easily influenced.
Perhaps the Minister has seen the report of the charity Youth Aid which has analysed the new part-time workers. It points out that those workers are increasingly people under the age of 25 or even under the age of 19. It also points out that we are forcibly creating a new breed of journeyman who moves from one temporary job to another. What are the prospects of those young men and women in their future lives? What are their prospects for having a job of work or a profession which will give them a foundation for satisfaction throughout their lives?
The second category of which I shall speak is the older men and women who have given their lives to producing the wealth upon which the British people have depended throughout the century. They are then cast off. They are called redundant, and the Minister well knows that they have very little chance of ever getting a job again.
I should like to ask the Minister to reply to two specific questions. The first concerns the Restart programme which was announced by the Secretary of State. In that programme, what happens to the man or woman who is brought in for counselling, goes through the Restart programme as one of the long-term unemployed and then at the end of that period
296
does not get a job? It may be that the Government have already announced that. If so, I plead ignorance. However, I should like the Minister to make clear tonight what the position is. Does such a person return to the long-term unemployed list or is he then removed from it, thus reducing the proportion of the long-term unemployed? Are such persons still counted as the long-term unemployed or are they counted as short-term unemployed?
My second question was raised by my noble friend Lord Jacques during his opening speech. It concerns the rate for the job. In the Restart programme and in the Government's other programmes for providing employment, can the Minister say specifically that only the rate for the job will be applied? Can he guarantee that those who go into such schemes are entitled to the rate for the job?
We in Parliament have a responsibility for those people—young people, old people and middle-aged people. However, we have a particular responsibility for the young people whose prospects are so grim and who form so large a proportion of the long-term unemployed. We also have a particular responsibility for older people who have given their lives and contributed throughout their working lives to the creation of the wealth which we enjoy. I suggest that that responsibility, resting upon us in Parliament, can only be carried out through legislation such as the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Jacques, which I wholeheartedly support. We must bring a little more dignity and a little more justice to the people of this country.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating and complimenting my noble friend and colleague Lord Jacques on introducing this short but important Bill. I have known of his special interest in the unemployed of the United Kingdom ever since I began to cover employment and unemployment problems from the Front Bench of my party. I do not remember any occasion on which the subject was raised, by question or by any other means, when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was not involved.
In fact, one of the first major debates in which I took part in your Lordships' House was a two-and-a-half hour debate initiated by the noble Lord which he devoted with great fervour and passion to the subject of unemployment. It comes across from listening to the noble Lord that he has a special interest in the unemployed. I am not saying for one moment that other noble Lords do not have the same feeling, but the noble Lord has been able to manifest it on a number of occasions. I noticed that in moving the Second Reading of this short Bill he did not for one moment apportion political blame for the position in which we find ourselves. Part of the blame can be apportioned to the international recession over the past few years. Depending on one's political view, one can argue about how much of the present unemployment one can lay at the door of government, but I do not think that that is what the Bill is about. It is about trying to deal with the problems and here I must say that we differ a little from the Government.
I have had to say from the Front Bench on more than one occasion that though I and my party welcome the training initiatives, whether they are for young people or for mature people, they are not a substitute and never will be a substitute for real employment. For someone to be trained for two years and then go back to the dole queue is a cruel hoax and can have a terribly detrimental effect on the person involved. Very often we talk about the unemployed in terms of numbers, units and percentages; but to every person who is unemployed but wants to be gainfully employed his is 100 per cent. unemployment.
Some years ago, because of electoral consequences, I had the misfortune to be unemployed for a number of weeks. After leaving school at 14 years of age and never being unemployed before, I found myself in that position. I can tell noble Lords that it was a terrifying experience because up to that point I was not aware that I would be joining your Lordships' House. I can cite my own case as a mature person who up to becoming fully engaged in politics in 1974 was a highly skilled engineer—as good as anybody in my trade. I had spent my life at it and I never had any difficulty in earning a living or finding a job.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, touched on an important facet in his speech when he talked about mature people who lost their jobs and after a period of time lost motivation. That is the saddest part of the whole business. When a person has been used throughout his life to being employed and he is suddenly cast to one side through no fault of his own—it may be no fault of his employer or no fault of government because people have become unemployed
298
under various governments—it is a terrible situation. In most cases we are talking about the family breadwinner. Without being a male chauvinist pig, as it is termed, we are talking about the main wage earner or breadwinner.
I remember meeting some of my former bosses when I became a Member of another place. They said they would like to take me back into engineering because they had just invested £1 million in one machine at my old factory. It was the type of machine that in the days I was working I could have operated. Sadly, however, I had to say that in the two or three years between the time of my leaving engineering and becoming a full-time politician, technology had so leapt forward that I would have had to be retrained to work the machine. It was a different ball game. There is no point anyone trying to view it as anything else.
What worries and frightens me most about the unemployment figures—and this has been said in the Chamber by noble Lords on all sides of the House and by my noble friend Lord McCarthy who has just come into the Chamber—is the continuing decline in our manufacturing base. As I said, I place no political responsibility for that on anyone as the position stands at present. One could go back over a number of years and refer to the failure to re-equip industry 20, 25 or 30 years ago, but that does not answer the question. It is a sad fact of life that the manufacturing base is still in decline. I have to say here that a main component of that is not—I repeat, not—high wages. By any standards we still have considerably lower wage levels than our competitors.
My noble friend Lord Jacques mentioned various ways in which this problem can be tackled. There have been a series of debates over the years, motivated by reports from non-political or non-politically motivated bodies, regarding the infrastructure, about what has happened and is continuing to happen to our housing stock and on the deterioration of the fabric of our schools and hospitals. Most of them came to the same conclusion.
There was a debate only a few weeks ago in this House on Faith in the City, the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission. It came to the same conclusion as the Duke of Edinburgh's Commission almost two years ago. More and more responsible people who have no political axe to grind are saying that there is a case for using substantial additional sums of money to halt or correct the deterioration in the fabric of our nation in a physical sense.
The document from which my noble friend quoted is yet again from another non-politically motivated group of people. It is from the Employment Institute, and is based on a very wide political spectrum. There are an ex-Conservative Prime Minister, an ex-Labour Prime Minister, ex-Labour Members of Parliament, trade union leaders and people from industry on it. A whole variety of people across the political spectrum have helped to produce the document or given evidence for it. It is produced by Richard Jackman and, as it states, by others. It comes to the same conclusion as have speakers in debates in your Lordships' House. It says what we have been saying for

299
two or three years—that we ought to be making a start. The waste of resources that is occurring when the money is available and could be used is absolutely appalling.
My noble friend Lord Jacques in his very interesting speech referred to the Swedish experience and the scheme there which has worked. It may be said that the situation in Sweden is not the same as in this country. Nevertheless, by using an agency—something like the Manpower Services Commission—Sweden has to a great degree eaten into what would have been a far more substantial and undesirable reservoir of unemployed people. I go along with him when he says that their system is quite correct in that after a period, when a person is interviewed and he refuses to take training or accept a reasonable job that is offered, there is a stipulation that he must take that employment. i was glad to hear from my noble friend something which I did not know before; namely, that that person's dependants are not deemed to be at fault and they continue to receive the benefit of government support in those countries.
My noble friend also referred to the House of Commons Select Committee and its report. It is late and I do not want to go too much into the details of that report. Nevertheless the Select Committee published an all-party report which indicated a course of action whereby, with government initiatives, a substantial impact could be made on reducing the number of unemployed from the present figure of over 3 million.
Training schemes are necessary. We have said that not in an over-political sense, because I do not think that it does any good whatsoever and only wastes time when one harks back to say that it was the last Labour Government's fault that these things happened; then one can say that it was the previous Conservative Government under Ted Heath that was at fault. One can go back to the Boer War and to the Crimea if one wants to lay the blame upon someone and knock down skittles.
However. I have said, and this has been emphasised by our chief spokesman on employment in a number of debates, that we totally accept that training schemes are necessary and fulfil a purpose. I end my speech as I commenced it. As far as I am concerned the hole in the fabric is that after two years a person can walk out of the door without having a job. It is a most difficult situation trying to explain to someone why that has happened.
Let me cite one industry as an example of what I mean. A few weeks ago in your Lordships' House an order was laid respecting the construction industry training board. I am talking off the cuff but I think I am correct in saying that the original scheme was lengthened from 12 months to two years. Caveats were entered by some of us who said that two years was not long enough. In a totally non-political sense, some of us said—and this was also said by Members on the Government Back Benches—that two years was not a sufficient time to produce a skilled craftsman in the building industry. Those comments have now been underwritten, because that is now held to be so by the
300
public sector building people, the people who man and manage the local authority building associations, and also by the Building Employers' Confederation and the Building Manufacturers' Association.
I do not want to go too far down that road but I understand that there is about £60 million in the kitty. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to suggestions that would achieve a useful result should this money be put to funding even a percentage of these people in order to give them three years' training so that they can reap the benefits and enter the trade.
I believe that there is a world of opportunity before us, but that there is a political philosophy that divides us. If I had to choose between a minimal reduction in income tax and leaving income tax alone and commencing a substantial public building programme in the widest sense, I have no doubt at all on which course my choice would fall and it is one which I believe in the long run would be of benefit to our nation.
I want once again to congratulate and compliment my noble friend Lord Jacques on moving the second reading of the Bill. I do not know where we go with it from here in a material sense, but I know that he has given us an excellent chance objectively to make not a political attack but once again to air our ideas on what we think may be achieved to deal with a problem which is most tragic and difficult for a large number of unemployed people. Despite recent press predictions, they do not see a light at the end of the tunnel. I and my party will support the Bill in principle.
9.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I am pleased to start putting the Government's view on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said in concluding his speech. Whatever may happen to the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—he knows the problems that a Bill of this nature faces—he has given us an opportunity tonight to have a short but well-reasoned debate on a matter that must be uppermost in everyone's mind.
We have had an opportunity to demonstrate the deep concern, knowledge and interest that this House has in the problems of long-term unemployed people. The Bill is aimed at helping this group. There is no disagreement between the Government and those who support the Bill about the plight of long-term unemployed people, about the difficulties that they face in breaking back into the job market and about how those difficulties increase as the period of unemployment lengthens. We all care about those problems and want to offer effective help.
The Bill attempts to provide a way back to the labour market for the long-term unemployed by means of a guaranteed job with an employer. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will recognise that the idea of a guarantee is not new. It has its attractions. In June last year, in another place, right honourable and

301
honourable Members debated at some length the Select Committee's recommendations which were intended to achieve a similar effect. My right honourable friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment outlined then the considerable financial and, more importantly, the practical difficulties of the job creation proposals which the Select Committee envisaged.
I have reservations about a guarantee on two counts. The first is the practicality of artificially creating jobs on the scale required without seriously disrupting the working of the economy and without displacing existing jobs. In effect, we may simply be reallocating unemployment from the three-year or any other group—the Bill provides for a different time-scale—to others, thereby creating new unemployment.
My second reservation is about whether this is the right approach to helping people who may have been out of work for three years and who may not be ready to step straight back into employment. I want to return to that point in a moment.
In expressing those reservations about the concept of a job guarantee, the Government accept the need to take effective action to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment. Our approach is to provide direct help to the long-term unemployed through a strategy which is effective and practical and which reinforces the Government's wider strategy for the economy. That wider strategy, as I and my noble colleagues have said on a number of occasions, is designed to improve the working of the labour market and to continue the pattern of low inflation and sustained economic growth. This, we believe, ultimately offers the best opportunity for everyone who is unemployed whether short-term or long-term.
It is in this context that we have developed an imaginative and comprehensive range of measures to generate employment, to support training and to help the long-term unemployed. I do not suppose that there are very many people now who have not heard of the Action for Jobs campaign that the Department of Employment launched specifically to ensure that people are aware of the range of opportunities available to them, opportunities on which we shall be spending over £3,000 million in 1987–88. The measures are all set out in the booklet.
Of the £3,000 million, £1,200 million will go on measures specifically designed to help long-term unemployed people, central to which is the Restart programme. I said earlier that I had reservations about whether a job guarantee is the best way of tackling the problem. Among the long-term unemployed there is a wide range of people with varying skills, varying abilities, aptitude and, indeed, motivation. It is not necessarily the right answer to offer them a job at an arbitrary three-year or other point that they may not be able to do. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, described this graphically from his personal experience. Some may need to update their skills; others may need to acquire new ones; and still more may need to build up their confidence and self-esteem before they are ready to work again.
I know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, meant in talking about loss of confidence and self-esteem. It just drains away. We have to have some measures to help them overcome this disability.
302
Our approach in Restart is to look at the individual. By "individual", I mean women as well as men across a wide age grouping. We want to assess with individuals their needs and help them through a range of options. Restart recognises that people who have been out of work need special attention—individual attention—to help them get back into the labour market.
Restart begins by inviting people into job centres for personal interviews to discuss the particular and personal problems that have held them back in their search for a job. Having identified most, though perhaps not all, of the problems, we are then able to offer them a wide range of opportunities from which a choice most appropriate to meet their needs can be made.
In reminding your Lordships of the eight main options currently available, I shall entitle them but not describe them because noble Lords are probably reasonably aware of them. Throughout all these options there is at least one common thread. It is that they seek to help people to help themselves back into the job market. The options are, first, not unnaturally, a suitable job; and, secondly, a place on the community programme. I take close account of what the noble Baroness had to say about community programmes and making them fit real needs. I know that she will understand that there are problems that we must overcome. It is interesting that 30 per cent. of those leaving the community programme go into jobs or a further training programme. Then there are places in a job club. These have been rather successful. More than half of those leaving the job club go into work.
Then there is the self employment scheme with the enterprise allowance scheme. Two hundred thousand people have set up in business with the help of that scheme. Other options are the Jobstart allowances, work on voluntary projects, a Restart course to help people assess what they are good at, and a range of training opportunities. We are finding that for many of the long-term unemployed the major obstacle to finding work is that they do not have the skills needed for today's industry. We therefore have a number of training opportunities available. Last month we announced the expansion of a scheme to reskill and to remotivate in particular the younger unemployed to help them compete effectively for jobs as the economy grows. The new job training scheme will help up to a quarter of a million unemployed people each year to acquire the new skills and qualifications they need while at the same time—and this is very important—helping industry to meet its skill requirements. It represents a massive investment in reskilling our workforce and a very big boost to the help we are giving long-term unemployed people.
My Lords, all these steps will have a significant impact in reducing long-term unemployment. They demonstrate the Government's determination to do as much as is practicable for this group of people. But we are not stopping here. We want to help prevent, as well as to cure, long-term unemployment. We shall from April be inviting everyone who reaches six months unemployment for a Restart interview. This is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who asked: what happens after that? We shall continue to give this support as long as it is necessary.

303
The noble Lord will recognise that as soon as one goes on to a training programme, a community programme, or something of that nature, one is no longer available for work and therefore comes off the list. If it fails, one can go back for further counselling; one goes back into the market. Naturally we would want to continue the Restart counselling because it will have an impact at the outset and we wish to continue that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the position? If one of the long-term unemployed goes through the Restart programme, and then does not get a job, does he return as a member of the long-term unemployed or does he go back into the general pool of employment? It is very important that we know whether the number of long-term unemployed will be artificially reduced in numbers by the Restart programme or whether, if he does not get a job at the end of the Restart programme, he returns to the category of the long-term unemployed?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if he does not get a job and comes back for further counselling, even after some training he still has not had a job and is still long-term unemployed. That is the simple answer. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is trying to ascribe a motive which is far from our minds: that of reducing artificially a group of people. The matter is too serious for us to engage in the figure shuffling business. We are not in that business.
I want to reply to the specific question that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked me on the rate for the job. There are different schemes and each have different conditions. If I take the communtiy programme as an example, the participants are paid the local rate for the job subject to an overall average of £67 a week.
Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I shall certainly not engage this evening in a discussion on the manufacturing industry. He and I will have the opportunity of doing so in a week or two's time. But it is important to appreciate that we have 61 to 62 per cent. of our total available workforce in this country in employment of some kind. That is a very much higher proportion than in any of the Western industrialised countries. I accept that there is no satisfaction for the 30 per cent. or so who are not in work, but I do not accept that we are lagging behind. We have created over a million new jobs—different jobs for different people—over the past year or two. We have had a good discussion and I do not wish to be acrimonious.
Finally, the idea for the Bill has been developed out of concern for the problems faced by long-term unemployed people. We share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and we share his great desire to reach out to help this group. Ever since the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, headed the co-operative movement, so much of his work has been devoted to looking after people, and I see that concern represented in the Bill.
However, the Government are not convinced that an employment guarantee is the best way to tackle the
304
problem and it is for that reason that I have expressed reservations about the Bill. We remain committed to helping through the comprehensive package of employment, training and enterprise measures that we have on offer, and some of which I have described. We believe that those measures provide the more effective solution to the problem by encouraging people to take up the opportunites for returning to work which best match their individual needs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to take him up on one point. He encouraged me by saying that he considered people as individuals, male and female. Does the noble Lord appreciate that a great many women are excluded from these schemes because of the requirement that they should be eligible for unemployment benefit? Will the Minister look into that? It is a restriction. It was challenged in the community programme, but the challenge was lost. It means that many women who would like to come back into the labour market, and who would like to take part in the job training scheme, are excluded. It is a rather big question.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Baroness went a little further than I did, but I understand what she is saying. It is a real problem, and if we are serious about looking at the whole problem, then the whole problem is what we must look at. There may be answers; I do not know them. However, I shall certainly be happy to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to see what programme can be devised to best fit that group of people.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I shall restrict my reply to two or three minutes in order that the next debate can proceed.
The noble Lord suggested that I wanted to employ the long-term unemployed in artificial jobs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, the position is exactly the opposite. The noble Baroness said that we do not want local authorities with tidy churchyards; we want to deal with housing which is badly in need of repair. In introducing the debate, I said that that was where I wanted the work done—not in tidying up this that and the other, but in doing work which at present is being neglected.
The second point I wish to raise is that the noble Lord said that some of the long-term unemployed may need training before they can be re-employed. That is correct: they may need training. All right, give them their benefit, give them an expense allowance, arrange for their training before work is found for them, but do not allow them to lie rotting which is what is happening at the present time.
I hope that the Minister will influence his right honourable friend that we need to do two things. First, if we are to get the support of industry in guaranteeing employment, we must pay the rate for the job. Secondly, we must do that on a far bigger scale than we are at the moment, otherwise, we shall never get there. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Benefits: Optimising Take-up
9.55 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the statement by the Citizens' Advice Bureau that thousands of people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled, whether they will arrange for an immediate television campaign to inform people, in detail, of the available benefits, and whether they will undertake a thorough investigation to find means of improving the take-up rate.
The noble Baroness said: my Lords, this is my second attempt to get this debate on the Floor of the Hose. At this late hour it is not surprising that it is still not a very well-attended debate. I put down this Unstarred Question during the big freeze because it seemed to me quite ridiculous that we should be discussing, at great length, ways in which people with low incomes could get an extra £5 provided they fulfilled a number of very complicated requirements as regards measuring temperature—I am not complaining about that, but it was a complicated scheme—when it was quite clear that a considerable number of them were already entitled to a much larger sum than £5. For one reason or another—no doubt frequently ignorance—they did not go along to draw the money.
I repeat, I am not against the £5 heating allowance, but it seems absurd to be concentrating on that instead of concentrating on ways in which Parliament's decision that these additional moneys should be available was conveyed to people in such a way that they would take up the benefits to which they were entitled. There can be no question—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is not going to deny this—that a considerable number of people do not draw the benefits to which they are entitled. I know that the Government have made a considerable effort to get information across to them, but in a number of cases it has not been successful.
I want to tell the House about one or two cases. I do not wish to detain the House long. These cases came to me directly from the institution which had to cope with these problems. They illustrate the kind of thing that happens because people do not know about or take up these benefits. I cite the case of Mr. and Mrs. X, aged 64 and 59 respectively. Mr. X was claiming invalidity benefit following an accident at work three years ago. Mrs. X was an epileptic who suffered with stomach ulcers and whose mobility was impaired by polio. Mr. and Mrs. X were in receipt of £62 invalidity benefit per week and standard housing benefit.
Mr. and Mrs. X steadily accumulated large debts and found difficulty in managing to meet their basic needs of buying food and paying fuel demands. The fuel authorities had sent letters about cutting off their supplies. Eventually, when Mr. X was admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt because he felt no longer able to cope with the increasing pressures and demands, it materialised that Mr. and Mrs. X were entitled to claim supplementary benefit for extra heating and diet additions. Also, Mrs. X claimed mobility allowance and attendance allowance which increased their weekly income by a staggering £58.09.
That is perhaps an extreme case. I have it from the hospital which these people went into. If that is an example it is absurd, is it not, that this kind of thing should continue? At this late hour I will not give more examples, but I could do so and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House could add to them.
I know that the Government have been attempting to do a considerable amount. In my experience, many people in all levels of society and education do not read notices; do not read leaflets; forget what the leaflets say if they do read them; lose the leaflets—and I am high on the list of people who lose leaflets—and do not remember what they are entitled to. Of course there are many different benefits. I wonder whether anybody in your Lordships' House except the noble Baroness, could reel off the different benefits to which people are entitled.
Baroness Trumpington: I could not!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I was paying the noble Baroness the compliment that she knew the benefits. I did not really believe it and she is honest enough to admit that she does not know. These are extremely complex matters and this raises another and much larger issue as to whether or not it is sensible to have this vast number of specific benefits. But, that is what we have at the present time.
My argument is quite narrow. There is one method of communication which succeeds far better than any other, and that is television. One reason that it gets over is well known to anybody who has ever taught; namely, if it is possible to penetrate more than one sense at a time—for example eyes and ears—information sticks far better than if you go through only one sense—for example, reading. There is evidence that this method has been tried and is effective. The GLC (which I know is not a favourite institution, or ex-institution of the noble Baroness) had a scheme of this kind and there was a remarkable increase in the number of people who applied for benefit.
My noble friend Lord Winstanley, who runs a programme of this kind in the North-West, can also tell of the remarkable results which flow from his graphic television programmes, delivered no doubt with all his usual wit and charm. But, it brings in the people and I think the noble Baroness is aware of this.
I am sure that the Government want people to claim benefits. It was suggested a few moments ago that the Government do not really want people to apply for benefits to which they are entitled. I do not attribute this to the Government. I am sure the Government recognise that if Parliament has willed that these benefits should be used, then they should be used. I am asking that the Government direct their attention to television as an effective instrument. The Government have recognised this because of the way in which they are using television in respect of AIDS. This shows that they know that it is the most effective way of getting information over. What they can do for AIDS, surely they can do for the other cases that we are now discussing.

307
There is another aspect to this problem which I will touch on briefly. It is not only that people do not know the benefits available, it is the difficulties experienced in the social security office. Such offices are staffed by young men and women (not all of them young) but not of a very high grade and not very well paid. In many cases they are overwhelmed with applicants. Inevitably, they have not been given a very great deal of training to deal with the problems they encounter, and to deal with people who are in need, anxious and often aggressive. It is a taxing job to do. I understand that the conditions of employment and the level of employment in the social security offices is an additional reason why Parliament's will that these benefits should be paid is being frustrated.
The Civil Service does not recognise the very important and taxing job which is done by people in social security offices up and down the country. This fact was underlined when I took part in the McGaw committee on pay of non-industrial civil servants. The Civil Service values only one thing, and that is people who make policy and scribble minutes on little bits of paper. People in the social security offices who are trying to tackle these hideously difficult problems deserve a great deal more support and a great deal more training—and probably a great deal more remuneration—than they receive. That is the second limb of the approach to improving the take-up of services.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the eloquence, compassion, clarity and vividness with which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, introduced her Question. I have long been familiar with these policies because for years the noble Baroness and I were colleagues at the London School of Economics. Nevertheless, in the face of her sincerity I still wonder whether spending more to increase the take-up of benefits would exacerbate the conspicuous anomalies of the social security system, especially those of universal benefits.
The scope and level of benefits are laid down by Parliament, but one can disagree with the methods of administration and the attendant publicity. We should hesitate before encouraging or pressing people further to take up their entitlements. I am addressing the question of taking up of benefits and not the method of administration by the DHSS to which the noble Baroness also referred.
Discussion of those benefits takes place amid widely canvassed allegations of mass poverty and mass unemployment. Many millions are said to live in acute poverty, even at, or near, subsistence level. Yet according to official statistics released last month, in 1985 virtually all households had television and 86 per cent. had colour television. The latter figure may now be 90 per cent. or more. How can we reconcile this and much other reliable information, with allegations of mass poverty?
Again, in London several hundred thousand people are unemployed. But there are no porters at the railway stations, London Transport is beset by staff shortages and department stores and shops persistently
308
advertise vacancies at all levels. All this is pertinent to the take-up of benefits and to equating a wider take-up with unequivocal improvement.
More detailed information reinforces such doubts. I know of a prominent, prosperous Lloyd's underwriter who was much surprised that on reaching 65 he could use London Transport for free. Very rich people, including people with six figure incomes and seven figure capital, take up child benefit and get free prescriptions. Only the other day I met two very well-to-do mothers. One takes up her child benefit, which she regards as her due because her taxes help to support other people's children. The other does not claim because she feels that she is much better off than most taxpayers.
On a more modest level my secretary, who has three young children, takes up her child benefit but does so with some misgivings. She regards it as objectionable that people should be paid for bringing up their children, whose maintenance should be the first claim on parental incomes.
Who are the people who do not claim their benefits? They fall into three categories: those who do not know their entitlements, those who cannot be bothered, and those who think it repugnant that the necessities should be provided, or subsidised, from public funds. Those categories of course overlap, especially the second and third. But are there many people in genuine need who do not know about their entitlements after many years of the most extensive publicity by the DHSS in its own offices, in post offices, through the media, on posters, on public transport and through publicity reinforced by local authorities and vocal pressure groups? It may be patronising to think that there are many needy people altogether ignorant and careless of matters affecting their welfare and that of those closest to them.
Why should further public funds be spent to cajole people who do not bother or who have misgivings about doing so to take up benefits? Is it reprehensible to have qualms about receiving personal subsidies of taxpayers' money, and to recognise that this undermines personal responsibility and the cohesion of the family? Is there anything wrong with not wishing to be pauperised? American black professors, notably Professor Glenn Loury of Harvard, have written convincingly on the destructive effect of so-called welfare programmes on the negro family. Higher take-up may do little to relieve genuine need, though it may benefit welfare activists and administrators.
These observations do not reflect a harsh, unfeeling attitude. I have no doubt that there are in our midst very many people in acute emotional, mental and financial distress who cannot help themselves, and who are neglected by families, friends and neighbours. I have in mind old and lonely people, chronically ill, disabled and mentally disturbed people, victims of inflation and of rapid social and economic change, refugees and many others.
Preoccupation with the take-up of benefits diverts attention and resources from the much more difficult task of helping these people, whose distress may not be visible or measurable but is nevertheless real. They cannot be readily assisted by state-provided benefits. Religious bodies, non-politicised charities and other

309
forms of voluntary effort are likely to be much more effective. A familiar riauage from Goldsmith—Oliver, not Sir James—in many ways applies to state benefits:
"How small, of all that human hearts endure,
that part which laws or kings can cause or cure".
It is for Back-Benchers, who are not boxed in by political constraints and not concerned with Front-Bench responsibilities and possible adverse publicity, to dwell on such matters.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he will be kind enough to answer me just one question? I wonder whether he would agree that if Parliament goes to the trouble to vote special help for a special group of people in special need, it would be no bad thing if that help actually reached those people? Does he agree that the people in most desperate need are seldom the people who get all the benefits that are going? The people who get all the benefits are often those who are not in the most need but those who are the best informed.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I tried to anticipate this question by expressing doubt as to whether, after many years of the most active and extensive publicity, there are still likely to be many people so ignorant or careless as not to know of these benefits. I suspect that such people are far more likely to be reached by voluntary effort than by state-provided benefit.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is interesting that I find myself talking after the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, when we are considering the less fortunate in this country, just as I followed him when we were talking about the less fortunate people in the third world a few months ago. In both cases I could not disagree more with his views; and in this particular case I have the benefit of working as a general practitioner among some of the very needy people whom he thinks perhaps should not receive the benefits to which they are entitled and to which Parliament feels they are entitled.
Many people throughout the country who have the misfortune to be both disabled and poor will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for raising this topic. At least I hope they will be, but that depends on the answer which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will give. I know that she has a compassionate side and she has only too close an acquaintance with some of the problems which we are discussing tonight.
I want to consider a further way other than through the media in which knowledge of and take-up of benefits by the people who are entitled to them could be encouraged; that is, by helping nurses and doctors, particularly general practitioners, to be aware of which benefits are available to their disabled patients and to assist those patients to take advantage of them. After all, doctors are key people for all the disabled. Every disabled person will have seen his GP at some stage in the development of his illness and usually continues to do so at regular intervals. No other professional person is seen so often, apart from the district nurse, by those who are severely disabled and who are visited at home. Home helps also frequently visit handicapped people and their knowledge of these benefits is something that should be thought about.
310
But doctors and nurses—and I include myself—are woefully ill-informed about this important aspect of care and support for their patients. I and many other doctors have sometimes been treating patients regularly for years without realising that they are not claiming the benefit to which they are entitled. Sometimes this is because I am unclear about their entitlement. Sometimes I assume that they have applied for their benefits and I am surprised that they do not know about them.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, said, there are many people who do not know about their entitlements, even though he said that information has been going their way for a long time. A lot of people do not take it in. They may not have the sensory faculties to do so. They may be deaf or partially sighted. I sometimes find people who have not applied for supplementary benefit, which is the key to many other benefits, because of pride. They feel that to admit that they need supplementary benefit is demeaning, though they may well be suffering financially, getting into debt, not eating enough so that their health may be suffering, or getting cold and in danger of hypothermia in cold spells such as we have just had.
A recent survey in Sheffield by a medical student, Douglas Simkins, of 46 general practitioner trainees and their tutors found a large area of ignorance. I shall quote from the summary of his report:
"Only half of this group of doctors realised that a woman with multiple sclerosis who was virtually unable to walk was entitled to claim mobility allowance, and very few thought of the possibility of an entitlement to severe disablement allowance or invalidity benefit. GPs and trainees were also fairly ignorant about the conditions entitling people to free prescriptions, and only 17 per cent. realised that a working man receiving twice weekly kidney dialysis at home would qualify for an attendance allowance".
The problem is that the topic, as the noble Baroness said, is very complex in detail, and for medical students and GP trainees it can be intensely boring to learn about all these details if the benefit entitlements are not related to the circumstances of individual patients. The subject is not taught at present, if it is taught at all, in a way which is appealing. I am not suggesting that doctors should have a detailed knowledge of the workings of the social security system. However, they should have some idea of what is available and what sort of disabilities qualify for benefit.
In the same way, no doctor knows the full contents of the national formulary, which as many of your Lordships may know is the detailed description of all drugs available. However, we do have a working knowledge of drugs and we frequently use the national formulary for reference. If a possible claimant were identified by a general practitioner or a nurse it should be possible to have a simplified guide to the system or such a guide should be easy to obtain from a DHSS or other advice centre. Hopefully, such information could be obtained by visiting the patient at home. I am not sure whether such information is now available and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.
A few general practice group practices now have access to a computer programme developed by Professor Brian Jarman and Peter Rice at Lisson Grove Health Centre (part of the St. Mary's Hospital department of general practice.) The programme makes it possible to see at a glance how to match the

311
characteristics of the patient to their entitlement. I believe that the citizens' advice bureaux have a similar computer programme. Recently Pulse, which many of your Lordships may know is a magazine mailed to general practitioners by pharmaceutical manufacturers, published a two-part supplement for general practitioners giving a simple key to the benefits jungle. It is attractively presented and it is quite easy to use. I gather that citizens' advice bureaux also have a simple key of the same type which they would like general practitioners to have. However, so far they have not managed to reach more than a very small proportion of general practitioners with this key to benefits.
I wonder whether the DHSS should not concern itself with this need and possibly produce by itself or in conjunction with the citizens' advice bureaux a publication similar to that which I have outlined, which could go out to all general practitioners. I do not think that sending such a publication through the mail will necessarily be effective. General practitioners have a habit of throwing most of the things which come through the post from the DHSS and from the drug companies into the wastepaper basket. I think that a visit will be necessary and that liaison with the citizens advice bureaux might well be considered. A personal visit could be made to the GP and the leaflet could be explained.
Another way in which GPs can locate those entitled to benefit is to draw up a register of disabled patients within a practice. If GPs have a computer, that will assist. However, it is not essential. Disabled patients could then be reviewed systematically and their needs assessed so that no one is missed out.
There may be some economy-minded people (including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer) who do not want to spread the word about benefits around too far. It is perhaps thought that it is too bad if people do not claim their benefits, they are there for the asking. However, I think there is another aspect. In a recent report by the Audit Commission which was published last December called Making a Reality of Community Care it was stated that it is sometimes more cost-effective to help patients to get an attendance allowance and other benefits in order to provide care in the community in their own homes where they want to be than to admit a patient to a nursing home. Not only does the full uptake of benefit make for a better life for disabled people and give satisfaction to those caring for them, whether they are professional or family, but in some cases it can actually save money. I should be most grateful to hear the views of the noble Baroness on these points.
Lord Bauer: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he realises that there is no proper analogy between our exchanges today and official foreign aid to which he referred. What we are talking about is how we can best help poor people in this country, whereas foreign aid goes to and through governments.
Lord Rea: The analogy is there because the noble Lord makes out that in both cases the aid is counter-productive and diminishes people's own efforts. I fundamentally disagree with him on that point.
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has brought this important Question before us. It would be helpful to have some assessment of the scale of the matter. I am sure that many noble Lords have received a great deal of information about the non-take-up of benefits which is the subject of the debate. I have been reading Cmnd. Paper 56 on the Government's expenditure plans for 1987–88. In paragraph 20 this official document says:
"It is clear, however, that a significant proportion of people who could qualify for income-related benefits, for example, supplementary benefit, do not claim".
That is an official statement which I hope the noble Lord. Lord Bauer, will take on board.
I have many papers before me with which I shall not concern your Lordships at this time of night. I have a publication from Age Concern which claims that 35 per cent. of old people do not claim all benefits. In a publication called Everyone Can Benefit the Association of County Councils estimates that £2,000 million a year is unclaimed. I have a publication from Merseyside where there was a campaign for taking up rights. It is called Claim it Now. The campaign resulted in 33,000 new claims. Those were from people who had not known of their rights until the campaign started. There was a big increase in the number of claims. I do not think that I should stray into Scotland but I understand that Strathclyde had a campaign to inform people of their rights. This resulted in many more applications from people who had riot realised what they could do.
There are some disincentives. After we have the figures for non-take-up, let us see what are the disincentives to claiming. I totally disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Bauer. I do not think he has ever stood, as I have, in the snow outside the DHSS office in Tavistock Square. It closed at 10 o'clock in the morning because there were so many applicants. We had to stand outside in a queue because there was not room inside. People in that situation just go home. I spoke to some people who said that they would rather starve than put up with it.
The conditions in some offices are uncomfortable, to put it mildly. I know that the noble Baroness shares with me the belief that we ought to improve these premises. A good deal has been done to improve them. I make no party point because the present Government inherited a good many grotty premises from a previous government. However, there is much discomfort. There are times when the harassed staff take off the telephone because there are not enough people to answer it. As a result, I know that old people say, "I could not get through, so they do not care any more."
The Government and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, should perhaps take a moment to look at the citizens advice bureaux report on the conditions in Greater London offices. That is a responsible body, and it has found a great many difficulties. For example, claimants had to wait for more than an hour to be seen at 94 per cent. of DHSS offices; 88 per cent. of supplementary benefit offices had insufficient staff; and there were delays as a result of mislaid papers. I

313
am not raising these points as a criticism of the staff but only to explain why I feel there is a lower take-up. It is because people get so fed up and the staff get so over-worked that there is not the sympathetic response that there ought to be.
I do not know whether the Minister can say how many offices have to shut their doors early, how many cut off their phones or whether the staff problems are being dealt with. I know from a Question which I asked that there are more staff being taken on and I hope that that will help the situation.
As regards information, there is something to be said for television. I have one small suggestion for the Minister. I am so old that I have a pension hook. At the back of the book, there is reference to "Information on other benefits." However, that is in very small print and it is not very clear. Perhaps some communication that is clearer for poor old people like me whose eyesight is not very good could be included with the pension book.
I have one specific question on the take-up of the £5 a week cold weather benefit. That seems to me to illustrate the problems that arise when the Government make benefit provisions only for people to find themselves in a muddle about how to obtain such benefits. How many people have received the £5 a week benefit? How many people have been refused? how many applicants were there? Are the Government satisfied that during this spell of cold weather the new plans are working well? I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will agree that that matter is all part of the problem of take-up and that the measure of take-up during cold weather is an important part of our considerations.
Those are some of the questions in our minds. We hope very much that we can have some answers and hear something about the plans of the Government to increase the take-up. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. What we need, above all, are statistics about the take-up. There are contradictions, and we must analyse the problem before we can deal with it.
10.34 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, at the outset I should like to say that I fully understand and share some of the concerns which have been so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, this evening. The subject of benefit take-up is vitally important and I am pleased, even at this late hour, to have this opportunity to bring to your Lordships' attention some of the major steps forward which the Government are taking.
The Government's policy on take-up is and will remain quite clear. We aim to promote greater awareness and understanding of the benefits available and to encourage those who are entitled and wish to claim to do so. We have heard the important, thought-provoking but polarised contributions from my noble friend Lord Bauer and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. In the spirit of compromise, I hope that the truth lies somewhere between the two.
1 can assure the noble Baroness that the Government maintain close contact with the citizens'
314
advice bureaux service. At national level representatives have frequent meetings with my ministerial colleagues and locally many of our local office managers sit on the management committees of the bureaux. We therefore are well aware of their interest in the whole question of take-up of benefits and have indeed discussed the issue with them on a number of occasions.
There are two general points that I should like to make. First, I can assure the noble Lords who have made particular suggestions for improving information about the availability of benefits and take-up of benefits that we shall consider their ideas and suggestions most seriously. That includes the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about extra information in pension books. Secondly, there is no doubt that the Government can and do play an important role in promoting take-up of the different benefits available. However, I do not wish to let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations that also make a contribution. They perform a valuable function in providing people with the information that they need and in encouraging them to claim the benefits to which they may be entitled. I include in this of course the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
For our part we make use of whatever media are best suited to conveying our messages. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned television, and of course television is only one of many media which we consider when deciding how best to advertise benefits. There are times when the press and the radio both at local and national level provide a more effective means of getting our message across. I do not think that an immediate television campaign to inform people in detail of available benefits would be a feasible proposition. We take a great deal of advice and will continue to do so.
Nevertheless, I recognise the fact that not everyone claims all the benefits to which they may be entitled. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave us a sad example of that. I have to say that what she said simply bears out the facts. Surely it is not too much to ask of people, if they are in doubt—and I readily admit that I do not know every permutation of every benefit—to go to their local office and ask what they are entitled to. They will find those who work there—and I say this deliberately—sympathetic, knowledgeable and helpful. I certainly wish to add my tribute to those tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to people who certainly do not receive the bouquets that they so often deserve, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, who quite often are working in difficult surroundings.
With regard to those people who are mentally handicapped or confused in any way, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bauer and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I hope that perhaps people may remember that in this House there have been several occasions on which I have urged friends, voluntary bodies, relations, social workers of course, and others to help those people claim what is rightfully theirs. I do not believe that television is always the answer to those particular groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, acknowledged that doctors cannot have detailed knowledge. Surely advice

315
is best left to the experts. The local offices of the DHSS are available for advice. There is a generally available leaflet called Which Benefit? That information may be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The leaflet is a catalogue of what is available.
The reasons for non-take up of benefit are highly complex. There is certainly evidence to suggest that some people who are in very short-term need or who live in reasonably well off households simply do not bother to claim benefit because they would rather not do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, quoted a figure of £2 billion in benefits unclaimed. That is an exaggeration. The broad picture is that about £570 million supplementary benefit, £45 million in one-parent benefit and £55 million in family income supplement were unclaimed in 1983–84. Those are the available estimates. The exceptionally severe weather payment figures are not yet available and I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
We have been given some grounds for encouragement by the latest established estimates for take-up of supplementary benefit. In reply to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, our inquiries show that the individual amounts of unclaimed entitlements are relatively small. For the supplementary benefit population as a whole, the amount by value which was claimed was 89 per cent. in 1983. Of those pensioners who do not claim, some 60 per cent. have an entitlement to less than £3 per week. The unclaimed average for pensioners is about £3·40 per week.
What steps do we take to inform people about the benefits available? What part can we play to improve the take-up of benefits? On the national level, we ensure a wide distribution of leaflets, claim forms and information sheets. Many of the forms and leaflets have been redesigned to make them more easily understood and many have been interpreted for use by ethnic minority claimants. We have received a number of awards for clarity and plain English. I must sometimes blow the DHSS trumpet!
As well as a wide general distribution of leaflets, we try to ensure that as many potential beneficiaries as possible are also approached on a more targeted basis. We therefore routinely issue supplementary benefit claim forms to all retirement pensioners, widows, unemployed claimants and sickness benefit claimants, who are the groups most likely to have an entitlement to that benefit.
We make families aware of the existence of family income supplement by means of an insert in the child benefit book. To encourage people to deal with social security matters in the privacy of their homes, we have extended the postal procedure to cover all supplementary benefit claims. But, as I said, publicity is often most effective at the local level, and that is where many of our local offices show considerable initiative. I have some excellent examples, but the hour is late.
I am sure that some of your Lordships who are here will appreciate that nearly half of our local offices have appointed local information officers, benefit information officers or publicity information officers who complement the work co-ordinated in all regions by
316
those officers whom we call RINOs, not because they are thick-skinned, but because the initials stand for regional information officers. I have appreciated their helpfulness in the gleaning and giving of information and have many times seen evidence of the invaluable functions that they perform.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, whom I am sorry not to have heard speaking in this debate, will echo that tribute to the RINOs. In turn, I want to put on record my appreciation of his endeavours to promote awareness of the benefit system through his regular programme on Granada Television, "This is your Right", which is now of some 17 years' standing. How is that for a plug for the noble Lord?
We continue to encourage staff to co-operate with local radio and television stations. We also encourage local offices to co-operate with responsible and well-organised local authority campaigns, to send representatives to meetings and to give talks to people who come into contact with potential benefit claimants.
Almost every region can point to offices that have mounted information displays of varying degrees of sophistication. One important innovation is our nationwide Freefone service which gives free public access to experienced staff who can give advice to inquirers on a wide range of social security matters. The 600,000 calls in the past year are a measure of its effectiveness. We know that many people are discouraged by the sheer complexity of the current system, but we do our best.
We shall continue to do our best. We shall take and follow advice. However, I think that your Lordships will agree that at the end of the day one can take a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  RADIO SERVICES DEVELOPMENT: GREEN PAPER
  RADIO SERVICES DEVELOPMENT: GREEN PAPER
  INDEPENDENT LOCAL RADIO RECEPTION
  INDEPENDENT LOCAL RADIO RECEPTION
  VIOLENT CRIMES: STATISTICS
  VIOLENT CRIMES: STATISTICS
  TV LICENCES: STATISTICS
  TV LICENCES: STATISTICS
  SEX DISCRIMINATION
  SEX DISCRIMINATION
  MR. MICHAEL STANLEY WYATT
  MR. MICHAEL STANLEY WYATT
  HAMPSTEAD HEATH
  HAMPSTEAD HEATH